Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and
`NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-00667
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`Issue Date: January 21, 2003
`
`Title: MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEM FOR MEASURING
`ANGULAR RATE
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DARRIN YOUNG, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 5 
`A.  Qualifications / Professional Background ............................................ 5 
`B.  Materials Considered ............................................................................ 8 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 10 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................... 12 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 12 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 14 
`IV.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 20 
`V. 
`THE ’122 PATENT ...................................................................................... 22 
`A.  Overview of the Specification ............................................................ 22 
`1. 
`Disclosed Prior Art .................................................................. 22 
`2. 
`Disclosure of Embodiments ..................................................... 24 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 29 
`B. 
`VI.  APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................................................... 31 
`A. 
`Brief Summary and Overview of the Prior Art .................................. 31 
`1. 
`Fujiyoshi (EX1003) ................................................................. 31 
`(a)  Description of prior art .................................................. 32 
`(b)  Description of embodiments .......................................... 33 
`Townsend (EX1004) ................................................................ 41 
`2. 
`Kumar (EX1005) ...................................................................... 46 
`3. 
`Cox (EX1006) .......................................................................... 48 
`4. 
`5.  Mitamura (EX1007) ................................................................. 51 
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Obvious Over Fujiyoshi in View
`of Kumar, Cox, and Townsend .......................................................... 58 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1. 
`
`(b) 
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 58 
`(a)  A microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for
`measuring angular rate of a carrier, comprising
`(Claim 1[p]): .................................................................. 61 
`an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver
`signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a
`displacement restoring signal and outputting angle
`rate signals in response to motion of said carrier
`and dither motion signals (Claim 1[a]); ......................... 66 
`a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals
`in response to said motion of said carrier and said
`dither motion signals and outputting angular rate
`signals and digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals (Claim 1[b]); ................................ 96 
`a digital signal processing system analyzing said
`digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals and feeding back said dither
`driver signals to said angular rate sensor unit.
`(Claim 1[c]). ................................................................ 107 
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................ 117 
`2. 
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3 are Obvious Over Mitamura and
`Townsend ......................................................................................... 119 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 119 
`(a)  A microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for
`measuring angular rate of a carrier, comprising
`(Claim 1[p]): ................................................................ 119 
`an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver
`signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a
`displacement restoring signal and outputting angle
`rate signals in response to motion of said carrier
`and dither motion signals (Claim 1[a]); ....................... 123 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`(b) 
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`
`
`a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals
`in response to said motion of said carrier and said
`dither motion signals and outputting angular rate
`signals and digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals (Claim 1[b]); .............................. 138 
`a digital signal processing system analyzing said
`digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals and feeding back said dither
`driver signals to said angular rate sensor unit
`(Claim 1[c]). ................................................................ 151 
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................ 161 
`2. 
`VII.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...... 162 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 163 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`I, Darrin Young, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My name is Darrin Young. I have prepared this declaration as an expert
`
`witness on behalf of Petitioner Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc. In
`
`this declaration, I will give my opinion as to whether claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,508,122 (“the ’122 patent”) (EX1001) are valid. I also provide herein the
`
`technical bases for these opinions, as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration contains statements of my opinions formed to date, and
`
`the bases and rationale for these opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on
`
`further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other
`
`expert witnesses.
`
`3.
`
`For my efforts in connection with the preparation of this declaration, I
`
`have been compensated at my usual and customary rate for this type of consulting
`
`activity. My compensation is in no way contingent on the results of these or any
`
`other proceedings related to the ’122 patent.
`
`A. Qualifications / Professional Background
`4. My qualifications generally are set forth in my Curriculum Vitae, which
`
`is attached as Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a list of the publications
`
`I have authored and a list of the other cases in which I have testified during the last
`
`5
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`five years.
`
`5.
`
`I am a Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative (USTAR)
`
`Associate Professor of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the
`
`University of Utah.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1991, a Master of Science
`
`degree in 1993, and a Ph.D. in 1999, all in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`7.
`
`I joined the University of Utah in 2009. Prior to joining the University
`
`of Utah, I was an Assistant and Associate Professor in the Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science Department at Case Western Reserve University for ten
`
`years. Prior to joining the Case Western Reserve University, I was a participating
`
`researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California
`
`for two years, where I worked on the design, fabrication, and testing of MEMS-
`
`based 3D high-Q coil inductors. My research has focused on electronic circuits
`
`design, electrical interface design for micro-electro-mechanical systems (“MEMS”),
`
`and integrated microsystem technology development for industrial, wireless, and
`
`navigation applications. I have designed, fabricated, and tested MEMS sensors
`
`including accelerometers, gyroscopes, strain gauge sensors, and pressure sensors.
`
`8.
`
`I have served as a technical program committee member and session
`
`6
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`chair for a number of international conferences. Since 2015, I have been serving as
`
`an editor for the IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices with a focus on sensors and
`
`actuators. I was an associate editor of the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits from
`
`2006 to 2011, and served as the chair of the Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems
`
`committee under the IEEE Electron Devices Society between 2010 and 2014. I have
`
`served on the IEEE Sensors Council as an administrative committee member as well
`
`as a representative from the IEEE Solid-State Circuits Society between 2002 and
`
`2016.
`
`9.
`
`I am an author of over 100 peer-reviewed publications including
`
`refereed journals and conferences, in the field of sensors, MEMS, MEMS hardware
`
`including capacitors, inductors, microsystem packaging, and interface circuits
`
`design. I am the invited author of multiple book chapters in the field of MEMS. I
`
`have also given numerous presentations and speeches around the world on similar
`
`topics including sensors, MEMS, MEMS hardware including capacitors, inductors,
`
`microsystem packaging, and interface circuits design. I am the inventor of two
`
`patents, both in the field of sensors.
`
`10.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioners to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`7
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`B. Materials Considered
`11. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1 (EX1001)
`
`and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following documents in my analysis
`
`below:
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1 to Hiram McCall, et al. (filed Sept. 15,
`2000, issued Jan. 21, 2003) (“’122” or “’122 patent”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,945,599 A to Motohiro Fujiyoshi, et al. (filed Dec.
`12, 1997, issued Aug. 31, 1999) (“Fujiyoshi”)
`
`1004
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 99/14,557 to Kevin Townsend
`(filed Sept. 17, 1998, published March 25, 1999) (“Townsend”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,604,311 to Lalit Kumar, et al. (filed June 7, 1995,
`issued February 18, 1997) (“Kumar”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,838,346 to Donald Clyde Cox (filed Nov. 1, 1973,
`issued Sept. 24, 1974) (“Cox”)
`
`1007
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 9[1997]-42973 (filed Aug.
`1, 1995, published Feb. 14, 1997) (“Mitamura”)
`
`1008 Excerpts from Shmuel Merhav, Aerospace Sensor Systems and
`Applications (1996)
`1009 Certified English Translation of Exhibit 1007
`
`8
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1010 Excerpts from Ljubisa Ristic (ed.), Sensor Technology and Devices
`(1994)
`1011 Excerpts from J.M. Slater, Inertial Guidance Sensors (1964)
`1012 Excerpts from Myron Kayton, Avionics Navigation Systems (2d Ed.
`1997)
`1013 Excerpts from David Irwin, The Industrial Electronics Handbook
`(1997)
`1014 Excerpts from Anthony Lawrence, Modern Inertial Technology (1993)
`1015 Excerpts from Connie L. McClure, Theory of Inertial Guidance (1960)
`1016 Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Ph.D. (with exhibits)
`1017 Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint, ECF No. 10, dated
`March 8, 2023, filed in American GNC Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., et
`al, Case No. 2:23-cv-00302-TL (W.D. Wash.)
`1018 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 55, dated
`March 2, 2021, filed in American GNC Corp. v. OnePlus Tech.
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:20-cv-00171-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`1019 Patent Owner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 57, dated
`April 6, 2021, filed in American GNC Corp. v. OnePlus Tech.
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00171-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`1020 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 92, dated
`January 30, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. LG Electronics Inc.,
`et al, No. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
`1021 Patent Owner’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 97,
`dated February 13, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. LG
`Electronics Inc., et al, No. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
`
`9
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1022 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 111, dated
`February 21, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et
`al, Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.)
`1023 Patent Owner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 122, dated
`March 14, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et al,
`No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.)
`1024 File history for U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`1025 Additional pages from Shmuel Merhav, Aerospace Sensor Systems and
`Applications (1996) (not included with EX1008)
`1026 Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence,
`dated January 29, 2024, in American GNC Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:23-cv-00302-TL (W.D. Wash.)
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12.
`I understand that, under the patent laws in effect before the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed before the
`
`AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the invention
`
`was made”). I have preliminarily for purposes of my Declaration only assumed that
`
`date to be September 16, 1999, the priority date AGNC is asserting in the district
`
`10
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`court litigation.1
`
`13.
`
`I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered:
`
`(1) the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art
`
`solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the
`
`rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill (“POSITA” or “reasonably
`
`skilled artisan”) would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`or similar degree, with two to three years of practical experience designing and/or
`
`implementing systems that include sensors for measuring movement, such as
`
`acceleration and rotational position. The ’122 patent specification confirms that
`
`various types of angular rate sensors, including “ring laser gyros and Interferometric
`
`Fiber-Optic Gyros,” were well-known prior to the alleged invention. (’122,
`
`1:23-32.) A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
` 1
`
` I understand that in the pending litigation, the Patent Owner has claimed that the
`’122 patent is entitled to an invention date of May 1999. I express no opinion on
`whether the ’122 patent is entitled to such an invention date. This issue is not
`relevant here because all the prior art references relied upon predate that date.
`Moreover, none of my opinions would change if the date of invention of the ’122
`patent was prior to September 16, 1999, such as an earlier date in 1999.
`
`11
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`with a combination of (1) more formal education (such as a Master of Science
`
`degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more
`
`technical or professional experience.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’122 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1999.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the effective filing date.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I
`
`understand that the patent specification, under the legal principles, has been
`
`described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and is thus highly
`
`12
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of
`
`a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
`
`the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the
`
`same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S. district court (which I
`
`understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`13
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that certain terms appearing in the challenged claims have
`
`been the subject of dispute in the district court litigation. For purposes of my
`
`analysis here, I do not believe express claim constructions are necessary because the
`
`prior art renders the claim obvious under the claim constructions proposed by either
`
`party in the district court litigation.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`
`date, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`14
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`
`regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`15
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
`
`solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`16
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this finite number of predictable solutions leads to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`
`17
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common
`
`sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`30.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1)
`
`Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`18
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that, when determining whether a claimed combination is
`
`obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`
`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`19
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`reference. The test for obviousness, in other words, is not whether the references
`
`could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`33. A POSITA would have understood the concept of navigation as the
`
`determination of the position and velocity of a moving device. (Kayton at 1.) A
`
`POSITA would have also understood the concept of deduced reckoning (otherwise
`
`known as “dead reckoning”). (Lawrence at 4-5.) A POSITA would have understood
`
`that deduced reckoning refers to the process of determining the starting point of an
`
`object and tracking its motion for a known time to determine its new position relative
`
`to the initial position. (Id.; Kayton at 2-3)
`
`34. A POSITA would have understood the concept of an inertial sensor.
`
`An inertial sensor is a sensor that uses the inertial properties of matter (or of light)
`
`for their operation. (Lawrence at 6, 8.) A POSITA would have further understood
`
`that inertial navigation is performing dead reckoning using inertial sensors. (Id.) In
`
`particular, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that an inertial navigation
`
`system determines a moving vehicle’s position and velocity by measuring its
`
`acceleration. (Kayton at 313.)
`
`35. A POSITA would have understood that sensors, in general, are
`
`20
`
`Nintendo Exhibit 1002
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`composed of three elements: 1) the sensitive component, 2) the force balancing
`
`component, and 3) the output. (Merhav (EX1025) at 6.) The sensitive component
`
`“translat[es] a change in the measured physical variable . . . into another readily
`
`measurable quantity, such as a linear or rotational displacement, a voltage, or a
`
`current.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`36. A POSITA would have understood the concept of “pickoff.” A pickoff
`
`is an output device that represents a displacement in the sensitive element of the
`
`sensor. (Merhav at 8.)
`
`37. A POSITA would have understood that an inertial measurement unit
`
`(IMU) uses a set of gyroscopes and accelerometers that can measure angular rate
`
`and acceleration of a moving vehicle, respectively. (Kayton at 313, 324; Lawrence
`
`at 6, 8). A POSITA also would have understood that an accelerometer is a device
`
`that measures the force required to accelerate a proof mass; thus, it measures the
`
`acceleration of the vehicle containing the accelerometer. (Kayton at 317.)
`
`38. A POSITA would have been famil