`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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