`
`Theodore L. Brann
`In re Patent of:
`6,059,576
` Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0041IP2
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 9, 2000
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/976,228
`Filing Date:
`November 21, 1997
`Title:
`TRAINING AND SAFETY DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD
`TO AID IN PROPOER MOVEMENT DURING PHYSICAL
`ACTIVITY
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KENNY
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`By: __________________________
`
`Thomas W. Kenny, Ph.D.
`
`October 7, 2021
`
`Date: __________________________
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`1
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Table of Contents
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................... 4
`I.
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ............................................ 12
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 12
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 13
` Terminology .......................................................................................... 13
` Legal Standards ..................................................................................... 14
`1. Anticipation ....................................................................................... 14
`2. Obviousness ....................................................................................... 15
`THE ’576 PATENT ..................................................................................... 19
` Overview of the ’576 Patent .................................................................. 19
` Prosecution History of the ’576 Patent .................................................. 21
` Claim Construction ................................................................................ 22
`1.
`“a movement sensor” (claim 1 and claims depending therefrom)
` ...................................................................................................... 22
`VI. OVERVIEW AND COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES . 24
` Allum ..................................................................................................... 24
` Raymond ................................................................................................ 29
` Combination of Allum and Raymond ................................................... 35
` Conlan .................................................................................................... 38
` Combination of Allum, Raymond, and Conlan (“ARC”) ..................... 41
` Gaudet .................................................................................................... 45
` Combination of ARC and Gaudet ......................................................... 47
` de Remer ................................................................................................ 49
` Combination of ARC and de Remer ..................................................... 49
` Gesink .................................................................................................... 50
` Combination of Gesink and Raymond .................................................. 55
`VII. MANNER IN WHICH THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES RENDER THE
`’576 CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE .............................................................. 59
` Claim 1 .................................................................................................. 59
` Claim 2 .................................................................................................. 77
` Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 80
` Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 83
` Claim 5 .................................................................................................. 83
` Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 84
` Claim 9 .................................................................................................. 85
` Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 85
`
`2
`
`
`
` Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 85
` Claim 20 ................................................................................................ 86
`1.
`Claim 20 is obvious over Allum, Raymond, and Conlan ............ 86
`2. Claim 20 is obvious over Gesink in view of Raymond ..................... 89
` Claim 25 ................................................................................................ 99
`1.
`Claim 25 is obvious over Allum, Raymond, and Conlan ............ 99
`2. Claim 25 is obvious over Gesink in view of Raymond ..................... 99
` Claim 30 ................................................................................................ 99
` Claim 31 .............................................................................................. 100
`1.
`Claim 31 is obvious over Allum in view of Raymond, Conlan, and
`optionally de Remer ................................................................... 100
` Claim 32 .............................................................................................. 101
`1.
`Claim 32 is obvious over Allum in view of Raymond, Conlan, and
`optionally de Remer ................................................................... 101
` Claim 36 .............................................................................................. 103
` Claim 39 .............................................................................................. 104
` Claim 40 .............................................................................................. 105
` Claim 41 .............................................................................................. 106
` Claim 42 .............................................................................................. 108
` Claim 45 .............................................................................................. 109
` Claim 46 .............................................................................................. 110
` Claim 47 .............................................................................................. 112
` Claim 48 .............................................................................................. 112
` Claim 49 .............................................................................................. 113
` Claim 50 .............................................................................................. 113
` Claim 51 .............................................................................................. 115
` Claim 61 .............................................................................................. 116
` Claim 62 .............................................................................................. 116
` Claim 63 .............................................................................................. 117
` Claims 64 and 65 ................................................................................. 118
`1.
`Claims 64 and 65 are obvious over Allum in view of Raymond,
`Conlan, and Gaudet .................................................................... 118
` Claim 144 ............................................................................................ 118
` Claim 147 ............................................................................................ 119
`VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 119
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`1. My education and experience are described more fully in the attached
`
`curriculum vitae (APPENDIX A). For ease of reference, I have highlighted certain
`
`information below.
`
`2. My academic and professional background is in Physics, Mechanical
`
`Engineering, Sensing, and Robotics, with a research specialization focused on
`
`micro-fabricated physical sensors, and I have been working in those fields since
`
`the completion of my Ph.D. more than 30 years ago. The details of my background
`
`and education and a listing of all publications I have authored in the past 35 years
`
`are provided in my curriculum vitae. Below I provide a short summary of my
`
`education and experience, which I believe to be most pertinent to the opinions that
`
`I express here.
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.S. in Physics from University of Minnesota, Minneapolis in
`
`1983, and a Ph.D. in Physics from University of California at Berkeley in 1989. I
`
`was educated as a Physicist specializing in sensors and measurement. My Physics
`
`Ph.D. thesis involved measurements of the heat capacity of monolayers of atoms
`
`on surfaces, and relied on precision measurements of temperature and power using
`
`time-varying electrical signals, and also on the design and construction of
`
`miniature sensor components and associated electrical circuits for conditioning and
`
`conversion to digital format.
`
`4
`
`
`
`4.
`
`After completion of my Ph.D. in Physics at U.C. Berkeley in 1989, I joined the Jet
`
`Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA, as a staff scientist, and began working on
`
`miniature sensors and instruments for small spacecraft. This work involved the use of
`
`silicon microfabrication technologies for miniaturization of the sensors, and served as my
`
`introduction to the field of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), or the study of
`
`very small mechanical sensors powered by electricity and used for detection of physical
`
`and chemical signals.
`
`5. While at JPL, we developed accelerometers, gyroscopes, uncooled infrared
`
`sensors, magnetometers, seismometers, force and displacement sensors, soil chemistry
`
`sensors, miniature structures for trapping interstellar dust, and many other miniature
`
`devices. Some of these projects led to devices that were launched with spacecraft headed
`
`for Mars and for other interplanetary missions. Much of this work involved the use of
`
`physical sensors for detection of small forces and displacements using micromechanical
`
`sensors.
`
`6.
`
`I am presently the Richard Weiland Professor at the Department of Mechanical
`
`Engineering at Stanford University, where I have taught for the past 27 years. I am also
`
`currently the Senior Associate Dean of Engineering for Student Affairs at Stanford. I am
`
`currently on partial leave from this position to serve as CEO of Applaud Medical, a
`
`startup company that I co-founded which is focused on developing new treatments for
`
`Kidney Stones.
`
`5
`
`
`
`7.
`
`For 27 years, I have taught courses on Sensors and Mechatronics at Stanford
`
`University. The “Introduction to Sensors” course is a broad overview of all sensing
`
`technologies, from thermometers, to inertial sensors, ultrasound devices, flow sensors,
`
`optical and IR sensors, chemical sensors, pressure sensors, and many others, and has
`
`included sensors based on changes in capacitance, resistance, piezoelectricity. This
`
`course specifically included different mechanisms for sensing heart rate, blood pressure,
`
`blood chemistry, cardiovascular blood flow and pressure drops, intraocular pressure and
`
`other physiological measurements, as well as activity monitoring (step counting, stair-
`
`counting, etc.) I first taught this course at Stanford in the Spring of 1994, and I offered
`
`this course at least annually until 2016, when my duties as Senior Associate Dean made
`
`this impractical.
`
`8.
`
`The “Introduction to Mechatronics” course is a review of the mechanical, electrical
`
`and computing technologies necessary to build systems with these contents, which
`
`include everything from cars and robots to cellphones and other consumer electronics
`
`devices. In this class, we routinely use IR, LEDs, and photosensors as a way of detecting
`
`proximity to objects in the space around miniature robots. We also use inertial sensors to
`
`detect movement, and a number of sensors, such as encoders to measure changes in
`
`position and trajectory. Accelerometers and gyroscopes are used in this course for
`
`helping with navigation of autonomous robots in the class project. I was one of the
`
`instructors for the first offering of this course in 1995, and this course has been offered at
`
`6
`
`
`
`least once each year ever since (except in 2021, when the pandemic made this
`
`impractical), with plans already underway for the Winter 2022 offering.
`
`9.
`
`I am co-author of a textbook titled “Introduction to Mechatronic Design,” which
`
`broadly covers the topic of integration of mechanical, electronic and computer systems
`
`design into “smart products.” This textbook includes chapters on Microprocessors,
`
`Programming Languages, Software Design, Electronics, Sensors, Signal Conditioning,
`
`and Motors, as well as topics such as Project Management, Troubleshooting, and
`
`Synthesis.
`
`10. My research group has focused on the area of microsensors and microfabrication—
`
`a domain in which we design and build micromechanical sensors using silicon
`
`microfabrication technologies. The various applications for these technologies are
`
`numerous. Much of this work has focused on the design, fabrication and characterization
`
`of inertial sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes.
`
`11.
`
`I have advised 74 Ph.D. students that have completed Ph.D. degrees and many
`
`more M.S. and B.S. students in Engineering during my time at Stanford.
`
`12.
`
`I have published over 250 technical papers in refereed journals and conferences in
`
`the field of sensors, MEMS, and measurements. I have further presented numerous
`
`conference abstracts, posters, and talks in my field. I am a named inventor on more than
`
`50 patents in my areas of work. Through my research and teaching in the area of Sensors
`
`and Measurement, I was directly involved in or well-aware of developments in the
`
`7
`
`
`
`micromechanical sensing community, such as the research and development efforts on
`
`miniature inertial sensors for automotive safety systems, such as the accelerometers
`
`developed for crash detection and gyroscopes developed for skid detection and control.
`
`At the time of the filing date of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576, the emergence of miniature
`
`inertial sensors was widely appreciated.
`
`13.
`
`I have previously served as an expert on a patent infringement case involving the
`
`design and use of miniature inertial sensors for detection of movement and free-fall. That
`
`case involved the design and operations of micromechanical sensors, and particularly the
`
`use of inertial sensors for detection of states of movement and rest. I have also served as
`
`an expert in a patent infringement case involving the use of sensors on athletic shoes for
`
`determining athletic performance. I served as an expert in a patent infringement case
`
`involving optical proximity sensors in smartphones. More recently, I have served as an
`
`expert witness in a case involving use of physiological sensors to diagnose a user’s
`
`condition and possible interest in products or services. My CV, Appendix A, includes a
`
`full listing of all cases in which I have testified at deposition or trial in the preceding four
`
`years.
`
`14.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. to offer technical opinions relating to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the ’576 Patent”) and prior art references relating to its
`
`subject matter. I have reviewed the ’576 Patent, and relevant excerpts of the prosecution
`
`history of the ’576 Patent, ex parte reexamination certificate of the ’576 Patent (APPLE-
`
`8
`
`
`
`1006), and relevant excerpts of the prosecution history of the ex parte reexamination of
`
`the ’576 Patent (APPLE-1007). I have also reviewed the following references:
`
`Prior Art References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,149 (“Allum” or APPLE-1008)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,778,882 (“Raymond” or APPLE-1009)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,573,013 (“Conlan” or APPLE-1010)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,705 (“Gaudet” or APPLE-1012)
`
`U.S. Patent 5,412,801 (“de Remer” or APPLE-1013)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,803,740 (“Gesink” or APPLE-1014)
`
`EP0045656B1 (“Beadles” or APPLE-1015)
`
`International Publication WO 97/39677 (“Lim” or APPLE-
`
`1016)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,001,096 (“Farber” or APPLE-1017)
`
`U.S. Patent 5,212,774 (“Grider” or APPLE-1018)
`
`ADXL50 Datasheet: Monolithic Accelerometer with Signal
`
`Conditioning, Analog Devices, Inc., 1996 (APPLE-1019)
`
`Airbags Boom When IC Accelerometer Sees 50G, Frank
`
`Goodenough, Electronic Design, Penton Publishing, Aug. 8,
`
`1991 (APPLE-1020)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Northrop Grumman LITEF: µFORS-36m / -1 - Fiber Optic
`
`Rate Sensors (APPLE-1021)
`
`ADS-C232 Specification, https://watson-gyro.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2020/10/ADS-C232-
`
`1AD_Spec.pdf, Watson Industries, Inc. (APPLE-1022)
`
`Analog Dialogue, Analog Devices, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1996
`
`(APPLE-1023)
`
`Cimoo Song et al., Commercial Vision of silicon-based inertial
`
`sensors, Sensors and Actuators A 66, pp. 231-236, 1998
`
`(APPLE-1026)
`
`C.V. Ramakrishnan, Current Trends in Engineering Practice,
`
`ISBN-10: 81-7319-689-3, 2006 (APPLE-1027)
`
`U.S. Patent 5,818,568 (“Onaga” or APPLE-1028)
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I have also reviewed various supporting references and other documentation as
`
`further noted in my opinions below.
`
`16. Counsel (Fish & Richardson) has informed me that I should consider these
`
`materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’576 Patent at
`
`the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’576 Patent, and I have done so during
`
`10
`
`
`
`my review of these materials. The ’576 Patent was filed on November 21, 1997 (“the
`
`’576 Patent Filing Date”). I have therefore used this date in my analysis below.
`
`17.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I am being
`
`compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the content of my opinions.
`
`18.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered the following: my own knowledge
`
`and experience, including my work experience in the fields of mechanical engineering,
`
`computer science, biomedical engineering, and electrical engineering; my experience in
`
`teaching those subjects; and my experience in working with others involved in those
`
`fields. In addition, I have analyzed various publications and materials, in addition to
`
`other materials I cite in my declaration.
`
`19. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education, experience, and
`
`expertise in the fields relating to the ’576 Patent. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony
`
`below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the ’576 Patent
`
`Filing Date, or before. Any figures that appear within this document have been prepared
`
`with the assistance of Counsel and reflect my understanding of the ’576 Patent and the
`
`prior art discussed below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`20. This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on my analysis.
`
`To summarize those conclusions, based upon my knowledge and experience and my
`
`review of the prior art references listed above, I believe that:
`
`• Claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39-42, 45-51, 61-63, 144, and 147 are
`
`obvious over Allum in view of Raymond and Conlan.
`
`• Claims 31 and 32 are obvious over Allum in view of Raymond, Conlan, and
`
`optionally de Remer.
`
`• Claims 64 and 65 are obvious over Allum in view of Raymond, Conlan, and
`
`Gaudet.
`
`• Claims 20 and 25 are obvious over Gesink in view of Raymond.
`
`21.
`
`In support of these conclusions, I provide an overview of the references in Section
`
`VI and more detailed comments regarding the obviousness of claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25,
`
`30-32, 36, 39-42, 45-51, 61-65, 144, and 147 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’576
`
`Patent in Section VII.
`
`
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`22.
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art relating to, and at the time of, the
`
`invention of the ’576 Patent (POSITA) would have been someone with a working
`
`knowledge of activity monitoring technologies. The person would have had a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical,
`
`12
`
`
`
`computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two
`
`years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information,
`
`including but not limited to physical activity monitoring technologies. Alternatively, the
`
`person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline
`
`with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.
`
`23. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of a
`
`POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, mentored, participated in organizations, and worked
`
`closely with many such persons over the course of my career. Based on my knowledge,
`
`skill, and experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA. For
`
`example, from my industry consulting or conference interactions, I am familiar with what
`
`a POSITA would have known and found predictable in the art. From teaching and
`
`supervising my post-graduate students, I also have an understanding of the knowledge
`
`that a person with this academic experience possesses. Furthermore, I possess those
`
`capabilities myself.
`
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
` Terminology
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that the best indicator of claim
`
`24.
`
`meaning is its usage in the context of the patent specification as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill. I further understand that the words of the claims should be given their
`
`plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification or the
`
`13
`
`
`
`patent’s history of examination before the Patent Office. Counsel has also informed me,
`
`and I understand that, the words of the claims should be interpreted as they would have
`
`been interpreted by one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention was made (not
`
`today). I have been informed by Counsel that I should use ’576 Patent Filing Date as the
`
`point in time for claim interpretation purposes with respect to this declaration.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`
`Legal Standards
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that documents and materials that
`
`qualify as prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as being anticipated or
`
`obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that all prior art references are to be
`
`looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, and that this viewpoint prevents one from using his or her own insight or
`
`hindsight in deciding whether a claim is anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`1. Anticipation
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior art can be
`
`27.
`
`used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly construed, the
`
`second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a comparison of the
`
`properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`14
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and thus
`
`renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in that prior art
`
`reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`2. Obviousness
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`30.
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`POSITA.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim is unpatentable for
`
`obviousness and that obviousness may be based upon a combination of prior art
`
`references. I am informed by Counsel and understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. However, I am informed by Counsel and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented invention is a
`
`combination of known elements, a court determines whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by
`
`considering the teachings of prior art references, the effects of demands known to people
`
`working in the field or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`15
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed of several
`
`limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its limitations was
`
`independently known in the prior art. I am informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`identifying a reason those elements would be combined can be important because
`
`inventions in many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and
`
`claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by Counsel and understand that it is improper to use
`
`hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent’s claims should not be used as a
`
`“roadmap.”
`
`34.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry requires
`
`consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness, which include: (i)
`
`“long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial success attributable to the
`
`claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of
`
`the claimed invention by others.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness evaluation
`
`can be based on a single reference or a combination of multiple prior art references. I
`
`understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation,
`
`or reason to combine, but that the nexus linking two or more prior art references is
`
`16
`
`
`
`sometimes simple common sense. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature,
`
`often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine references may be supplied by
`
`the direction of the marketplace.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique has been used
`
`to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention would have
`
`recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
`
`obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and common sense
`
`considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may
`
`have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I have been informed by Counsel and
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill looking to overcome a problem will often be
`
`able to fit together the teachings of multiple prior art references. I have been informed by
`
`Counsel and understand that obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would have employed at the
`
`time of invention.
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper obviousness
`
`analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time
`
`of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem
`
`17
`
`
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim can be obvious in
`
`light of a single reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the
`
`claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the
`
`common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a relationship
`
`between any such secondary considerations and the invention, and that contemporaneous
`
`and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration supporting an
`
`obviousness determination.
`
`41.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly combined where
`
`one of ordinary skill having the understanding and knowledge reflected in the prior art
`
`and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make
`
`the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art
`
`references themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time
`
`of the invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art
`
`references in the claimed manner.
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter partes review
`
`(IPR), “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability,”
`
`18
`
`
`
`including a proposition of obviousness, “by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(e).
`
`
`
`V. THE ’576 PATENT
` Overview of the ’576 Patent
`43. The ’576 Patent is directed to an “electronic device, system and method to monitor
`
`and train an individual on proper motion during physical movement.” APPLE-1001,
`
`Abstract. The ’576 Patent recognizes that “a variety of sensing, monitoring, and
`
`notification devices” have been previously created “[i]n order to study and better
`
`understand safe human movement.” Id., 1:18-21. Such known devices could
`
`“quantitatively determine a range of motion of a human joint in angular degrees” and
`
`“provide a warning to the wearer through an audible alarm or flashing light . . . when a
`
`predetermined angle of flexion or extension has been exceeded.” Id., 1:30-41.
`
`Accordingly, the ’576 Patent acknowledges that it was previously well-known to
`
`determine whether human motion exceeds a threshold and, if so, provide a notification.
`
`44. The ’576 Patent’s specification describes a “self-contained movement measuring
`
`device 12” with a “movement sensor 13.” APPLE-1001, 3:32-50. The movement sensor
`
`13 is illustrated as being both together with the other components of the device (FIGS.
`
`2A, 2B) and also as being “separate from the remaining components 15 of the device 12”
`
`(FIG. 2C). Id. FIGS. 2B and 2C are annotated below based on the description in the
`
`specification.
`
`19
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001 (’576 Patent), FIGS. 2B, 2C1
`
`
`
`45. According to the specification, the movement sensor “detects movement and
`
`measures associated data such as angle, speed, and distance” and, in particular, measures
`
`“angular velocity of physical movement for subsequent interpretation.” APPLE-1001,
`
`4:38-45, 2:40-41. In various embodiments, the movement sensor may be an
`
`“accelerometer which is capable of detecting angles of movement in multiple planes” or
`
`“multiple accelerometers each capable of measuring angles of movement in only one
`
`plane.” Id., 4:38-48.
`
`
`
`1 I have annotated the figures throughout my declaration in color.
`
`20
`
`
`
`46. The ’576 Patent further explains that the “movement sensor 30 is electronically
`
`connected to a microprocessor 32 which receives the signals generated by the movement
`
`sensor 30 for analysis and subsequent processing.” APPLE-1001, 4:52-55. Once the
`
`microprocessor has received and analyzed the movement data, the microprocessor
`
`responds based on “user-programmable configuration information” such as “an event
`
`threshold.” Id., 4:40-65, 5:67-6:9. For example, the device may respond by using
`
`indicators (visual, a