Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 94
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 94
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 94
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Fitbit, Inc.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (PH-Fitbit-Philips-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (PH-Fitbit-Philips-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Joseph E. Palys ((PH-Fitbit-Philips-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`David Beckwith (PH-Fitbit-Philips-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`David Okano (PH-Fitbit-Philips-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,277,377
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 4
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’377 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`A.
`The ’377 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`IX.
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................... 7
`X. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................11
`A. Ground 1: Browne in view of Ausems and Hsu Renders
`Obvious Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 12 ........................................................11
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................11
`a)
`[1.0]
`“A method
`for
`interactive
`exercise
`monitoring, the method comprising the steps of:” .........11
`[1.1] “a. downloading an application to a web-
`enabled wireless phone directly from a remote
`server over the internet;” ................................................13
`[1.2] “b. coupling the a [sic] web-enabled wireless
`phone to a device which provides exercise-related
`information;” ...................................................................26
`[1.3] “c. rendering a user interface on the web-
`enabled wireless phone;” ................................................27
`[1.4] “d. using the application, receiving data
`indicating a physiologic status of a subject;” .................30
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`i
`
`

`

`f)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`g)
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`[1.5] “e. using the application, receiving data
`indicating an amount of exercise performed by the
`subject;” ..........................................................................32
`[1.6] “f. wherein at least one of the data indicating
`a physiologic status of a subject or the data
`indicating an amount of exercise performed by the
`subject is received from the device which provides
`exercise-related information, and wherein the data
`indicating a physiologic status of a subject is
`received at least partially while the subject is
`exercising;” .....................................................................35
`[1.7] “g. sending the exercise-related information
`to an internet server via a wireless network;” ................36
`[1.8] “h. receiving a calculated response from the
`server, the response associated with a calculation
`performed by the server based on the exercise-
`related information; and” ................................................37
`[1.9] “i. using the application, displaying the
`response.” ........................................................................39
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................40
`a)
`“The method of claim 1, wherein the web-enabled
`wireless
`phone
`receives
`exercise-related
`information over a transmission medium, the
`transmission medium including a wired connection
`or a wireless connection.” ...............................................40
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................42
`a)
`“The method of claim 4, wherein the wireless
`connection includes an infrared connection or a
`radio frequency communication protocol including
`a short-range wireless transmission scheme.” ................42
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................42
`a)
`“The method of claim 5, wherein the short-range
`wireless
`transmission scheme
`includes
`IEEE
`802.11 protocol or
`short-wavelength
`radio
`transmission in the ISM band of 2400-2480 MHz.” ......42
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................43
`a)
`“The method of claim 1, wherein the data
`indicating an amount of exercise performed is
`received from a device selected from the group
`consisting of: a treadmill, a stepper, an exercise
`cycle, an accelerometer, a rowing machine,
`physiotherapy equipment, an aerobic or anaerobic
`exercise device, and a device that monitors an
`amount of work or rate of work performed.” .................43
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................44
`a)
`“The method of claim 1, wherein the data
`indicating a physiological status of a subject is
`received from a device selected from the group
`consisting of: a heart rate monitor, a blood
`pressure monitor, a body temperature monitor, a
`respiratory monitor, a biofeedback device, an
`electronic body weight scale, and a body fat
`gauge.” ............................................................................44
`Ground 2: Hickman in view of Theimer renders obvious claims
`1, 4-5, 9, and 12 ...................................................................................45
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................45
`a)
`[1.0] .................................................................................45
`b)
`[1.1] .................................................................................47
`c)
`[1.2] .................................................................................60
`d)
`[1.3] .................................................................................61
`e)
`[1.4] .................................................................................63
`f)
`[1.5] .................................................................................64
`g)
`[1.6] .................................................................................65
`h)
`[1.7] .................................................................................66
`i)
`[1.8] .................................................................................68
`j)
`[1.9] .................................................................................71
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................73
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 6 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`3.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................74
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................74
`4.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................75
`5.
`Ground 3: Hickman in view of Theimer and Vaisanen renders
`obvious claim 6 ...................................................................................75
`1.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................75
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................82
`
`
`C.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 7 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ....................................... 8, 10
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 7
`Oticon Med. AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2019) ....................... 8, 9, 10, 11
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2015) .................................... 7
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(a), (b), and (e) ........................................................................................... 3
`§ 102(e) ................................................................................................................. 3
`§ 103 .................................................................................................................. 2, 3
`§ 112 ...................................................................................................................... 7
`§ 325(d) ................................................................................................... 4, 7, 8, 11
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ 7
`83 Fed. Reg. 51341 (Oct. 11, 2018) ........................................................................... 7
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 8 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`Other Authorities
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,849 (“Browne”) .............................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,692 (“Hickman”) ...........................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,839 (“King”) .................................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,403 (“Ausems”) .............................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,393 (“Suuronen”) ........................................................... 19, 55
`U.S. Patent No. 6,519,241 (“Theimer”) ............................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 (“Vaisanen”) ..........................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,684 (“Hsu”) ...................................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 6,820,057 (“Loch”) .................................................................. 19, 55
`U.S. Patent No. 6,976,958 (“the ‘958 patent”) .......................................................... 1
`U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 (“the ‘377 patent”) .................................................passim
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,088,233 (“the ’233 patent”) and 6,013,007 ................................. 1
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 9 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,059,692 to Hickman
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,849 to Browne
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,519,241 to Theimer
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 to Vaisanen et al.
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,403 to Ausems et al.
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,684 to Hsu et al.
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,093,146 to Filangeri
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,772,586 to Heinonen et al.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,416,471 to Kumar et al.
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,432 to Modney
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,090 to Begun et al.
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,393 to Suuronen
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,820,057 to Loch et al.
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,689,825 to Averbuch et al.
`
`Ex. 1019 WO 99/41682 to Dean et al.
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,311,058 to Wecker et al.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,758 to McLain
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 10 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,292,833 to Liao et al.
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/172,486
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,353,839 to King et al.
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Data Telecommunications Dictionary (1999)
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`The Hutchinson Dictionary of Computing Multimedia and the
`Internet, Third Edition (1999)
`
`“The Virtual Reality Modeling Language and Java” by D.
`Brutzman, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41, No. 6 (June
`1998)
`
`“SAMSUNG and Sprint PCS Sign $500 Million Agreement to
`Deliver Advanced, Internet Capable Wireless Phones” (Sept. 27,
`1999)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 11 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fitbit, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1, 4-6, 9, and
`
`12 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 (“the ’377 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001), which is purportedly assigned to Philips North America LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Fitbit, Inc. as the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following related matters. The ’377 patent and another patent in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent No. 6,976,958 (“the ’958 patent”), and U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,088,233 (“the ’233 patent”) and 6,013,007 are currently asserted in Philips North
`
`America LLC v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-11586-IT (D. Mass.). Petitioner has filed
`
`petitions for inter partes review challenging claims of the ’958 patent (IPR2020-
`
`00782) and claims of the ’233 patent (IPR2020-00783).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Back-up counsel is Yar Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625), Joseph E. Palys
`
`(Reg. No. 46,508), David Beckwith (pro hac vice admission to be requested), and
`
`David Okano (Reg. No. 66,657). Service information: Paul Hastings LLP, 1117
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 12 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, Telephone: 650.320.1800, Fax: 650.320.1900,
`
`E-mail: Philips-Fitbit@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service
`
`of all documents.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’377 patent is available for review and Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,598,849 (“Browne”) (Ex. 1005), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,434,403 (“Ausems”) (Ex. 1008), and U.S. Patent No. 6,587,684 (“Hsu”) (Ex.
`
`1009);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,059,692 (“Hickman”) (Ex. 1004) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,519,241 (“Theimer”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 13 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`Ground 3: Claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Hickman, Theimer, and U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 (“Vaisanen”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the effective filing
`
`date of the ’377 patent is December 17, 1999, the filing date of the provisional
`
`application (Ex. 1023) to which the ’377 patent claims priority.1 (Ex. 1001,
`
`Cover.)
`
`Hickman was filed on December 16, 1996 and issued on May 9, 2000,
`
`Theimer was filed on October 14, 1998 and was issued on February 11, 2003,
`
`Vaisanen was filed on May 28, 1999 and issued on May 6, 2003, Ausems was filed
`
`on February 19, 1999 and issued on August 13, 2002, and Hsu was filed on July
`
`28, 1998 and issued on July 1, 2003, and thus each is prior art to the challenged
`
`claims under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Browne was filed as a PCT application on July 21, 1993, was published as
`
`WO94/02904 on Feb. 3, 1994, and issued on February 4, 1997. Browne is prior art
`
`to the challenged claims under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede any claim of the ’377 patent is entitled to an effective
`
`filing date earlier than the patent’s filing date, and reserves the right to challenge
`
`earlier priority claims in any other proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 14 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`Browne, Theimer, Vaisanen, and Ausems were not considered during
`
`prosecution of the ’377 patent. While Hickman was, the Board should not exercise
`
`its discretion under §325(d) for the reasons below in Section IX.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`At the time of the alleged invention, December 17, 1999, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and 2-3 years of
`
`experience in the field of remote health monitoring or a similar field. Superior
`
`experience in one area could compensate for lesser experience in the other. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶15-17.)2
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’377 PATENT
`A. The ’377 Patent
`The ’377 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Exercise
`
`with Wireless Internet Connectivity” and is generally directed to a wireless system
`
`for monitoring exercise by using a web-enabled wireless phone to communicate
`
`exercise-related information received from a device to a server. (Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶¶18, 27.)
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits herewith the declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh (Ex. 1002),
`
`an expert in the field of the ’377 patent (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-11; Ex. 1003.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 15 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`Prior to the purported invention of the ’377 patent, remote health monitoring
`
`systems, including remote exercise monitoring systems, were well-known. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶19-20; Ex. 1006, FIG. 1, 3:49-64, 4:8-13; Ex. 1011, Abstract, 1:32-2:9;
`
`Ex. 1012, Abstract, 2:51-3:37; Ex. 1013, 5:20-51, 16:39-46; Ex. 1014, 2:10-27,
`
`3:2-9, 3:26-28, 3:62:4:2; Ex. 1004, 2:9-41, 11:5-7; Ex. 1005, 1:46-58, 2:20-61; Ex.
`
`1015, Abstract.) Web-enabled wireless phones were also already well-known.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶21-23; Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1008, Abstract, 5:66-6:1; Ex. 1028;
`
`Ex. 1016, 1:19-22, 2:4-16; Ex. 1017, Abstract, 1:50-2:61, 7:40-50, 9:40-67.)
`
`The ’377 patent itself recognizes that multiple systems were known in the art
`
`for the remote health monitoring, including wireless monitoring, some utilizing
`
`cellular
`
`telephone
`
`technology and others providing full back-end server
`
`functionality. (Ex. 1001, 1:45-2:51, 2:27-51; Ex. 1002, ¶27.)
`
`The ’377 patent sought to provide a system in which users connect “off-the-
`
`shelf” internet-enabled wireless web devices (“WWD”) that were already readily
`
`available to users to communicate with existing health monitoring devices
`
`(“HMD”) and a remote server. (Id., 2:66-3:57; Ex. 1002, ¶27.) According to the
`
`patent, “the term ‘web’ or ‘internet’ are used interchangeably to refer to the
`
`internet in general.” (Ex. 1001, 3:59-61.)
`
`In one of the embodiments, the “off-the-shelf” WWD connects to a generic
`
`HMD for monitoring the disease state and condition of a patient. (Id., 5:58-61; Ex.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 16 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`1002, ¶28.) In another embodiment, the “off-the-shelf” WWD connects to a
`
`generic HMD such as an exercise machine for monitoring exercise-related
`
`information. (Ex. 1001, 3:17-26, 5:62-67.)
`
`In both embodiments, the “off-the-shelf” WWD sends data received from a
`
`sensor connected to the generic HMD and/or through manual user input to a server,
`
`e.g., via the wireless web. (Ex. 1001, 9:30-10:67; Ex. 1002, ¶29.) The server
`
`calculates and/or provides a response based on the data, where a “response” may
`
`simply be that the parameter was received and the “calculat[ion]” can be any
`
`calculation, “simple” or “complex.” (Id.)
`
`The WWD may include a generic input/output port, including wireless or
`
`wired ports, for connecting the “off-the-shelf” WWD with a generic HMD. (Id.,
`
`4:36-39, 6:29-33; Ex. 1002, ¶30.) Wired connections may include RS-232, a USB
`
`port, a phone jack, or a disk drive, and wireless techniques may include radio
`
`frequency (“RF”) communications (e.g., Bluetooth and 802.11), or infrared (“IR”),
`
`microwaves etc. (Id., 11:17-47, 11:55-12:4.) The “off-the-shelf” WWD may
`
`download an application from a server via the internet that provides a user
`
`interface and configures the WWD to control and monitor devices connected to the
`
`WWD’s generic input/output port. (Id., 4:29-50.) The software may also be
`
`downloaded to the WWD from a personal computer using a synchronization
`
`operation in “known fashion.” (Ex. 1001, 4:34-36.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 17 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim is construed using the standard
`
`set forth by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,341 (Oct. 11, 2018). Furthermore the Board only construes the
`
`claims when necessary to resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`v. Cellport Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14,
`
`2015); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, given the close correlation between the
`
`prior art and the challenged claims, the Board need not construe any terms of the
`
`challenged claims to resolve the underlying controversy, as any reasonable
`
`construction of those terms consistent with their plain meaning reads on the prior
`
`art. 3 (Ex. 1002, ¶38.)
`
`IX. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`The applicant overcame a rejection over Hickman and King during
`
`prosecution by convincing the examiner that King “taught against the Applicant’s
`
`invention” and thus “did not provide support for an obviousness rejection in
`
`combination with Hickman (or Rautila).” (Ex. 1010, 268-271, 379-80, 445-46.)
`
`
`3 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and related challenges
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in other proceedings.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 18 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`While Petitioner relies on Hickman for Grounds 2-3, those grounds rely on a
`
`combination with Theimer, which was not previously of record. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-
`
`32.) The Board should not exercise its discretion under § 325(d) for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`First, under Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-
`
`01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential) (“Becton
`
`Dickinson”) factors (a) and (b), there are material differences between Theimer
`
`(asserted art) and King (the prior art involved during examination), such that
`
`Theimer is not cumulative over King. See Oticon Med. AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`
`IPR2019-00975, Paper No. 15 at 10-16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2019) (precedential).
`
`During prosecution, the applicant sought to distinguish the asserted
`
`Hickman-King combination because King allegedly had limited computer power,
`
`memory capacity, display capability,
`
`input
`
`interface, and web browser
`
`implementation in comparison to desktop personal computers. (Ex. 1010, 310.) In
`
`this regard, King discloses a web browser specifically designed for mobile devices
`
`with “thin designs” that had “very limited computing resources.” (Ex. 1024,
`
`Abstract, 1:36-2:62.)
`
`In contrast, a POSITA having knowledge of Hickman and the desired
`
`purpose of remote health monitoring would have been led to a more capable
`
`mobile device such as that described in Theimer, not previously of record. (Ex.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 19 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`1002, ¶¶33, 37.) Theimer, unlike King, discloses using a mobile phone specifically
`
`for monitoring the health of a patient. (Ex. 1006, Abstract, FIGS. 1-2, 3:25-
`
`5:40.) Theimer is thus solving a problem that is closer to that of both the ’377
`
`patent and Hickman, which are similarly directed
`
`to health monitoring
`
`technology. See Ex. 1002, ¶33; Oticon, IPR2019-00975, Paper No. 15 at 15.
`
`King discloses that its thin devices did not support “full programming
`
`languages with object models, built-in libraries, security mechanisms, etc.,” such
`
`as the ActiveX and JavaScript scripting languages, introducing some distance from
`
`Hickman’s use of scripts, and were not suitable for round-trip server
`
`communications required by the claimed invention, and thus required a special
`
`web browser. (Ex. 1024, 1:55-2:14, 6:45-55; Ex. 1010, 379-80; Ex. 1002, ¶34.)
`
`Theimer’s mobile phone, unlike the thin devices described in King,
`
`supported a “standard application” web browser. (Ex. 1006, 4:16-18.) Moreover,
`
`Theimer’s mobile phone was capable of running software implemented using Java,
`
`which was known in the art as a full programming language with object models,
`
`built-in libraries, security mechanisms, etc., similar to JavaScript. (Ex. 1006, 3:30-
`
`48, 4:16-32; Ex. 1002, ¶35.) Theimer’s mobile phone could also run software
`
`implemented using Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML). (Id.) It was
`
`known in the art that systems utilizing VRML and Java, like Theimer’s, could
`
`execute scripts. (Ex. 1027, 5-6; Ex. 1002, ¶35.) Mobile phones like that described
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 20 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`in Theimer were well-understood in the art as being capable of executing scripts
`
`such as those described in Hickman as described by other prior art references
`
`during the relevant timeframe that were not considered by the examiner. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶24-25, 35; Ex. 1020 at Abstract, 2:54-3:43, 4:35-54 (disclosing use of
`
`scripts on mobile device); Ex. 1021 at 1:43-65, 10:46-60 (same); Ex. 1022 at 1:23-
`
`58, 2:20-23, 6:21-35 (same).) Therefore, Theimer is more in-line with Hickman’s
`
`use of scripts, unlike King. (Ex. 1002, ¶35.)
`
`As explained below in Section X.B, a POSITA seeking to remotely monitor
`
`a person’s health would have sought out mobile devices with the capability for bi-
`
`directional server communications such as that disclosed in Theimer. (Ex. 1024,
`
`1:59-2:5, 2:26-30; Ex. 1006, 2:12-22, 3:25-4:7, 5:6-29, 5:38-6:11, 7:17-24; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶36.)
`
`Second, under Becton-Dickinson factors (c) and (d), while Hickman had
`
`been considered during prosecution, Theimer—which was not cumulative over
`
`King as explained above—was not considered. See Oticon, IPR2019-00975, Paper
`
`No. 15 at 17-19.
`
`Third, under Becton-Dickinson factors (e) and (f), there was error in the
`
`prosecution leading to the issuance of the ’377 patent because Theimer, with its
`
`teaching of a web-enabled wireless phone capable of supporting scripts and round-
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 21 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`trip server communications, was not considered. See Oticon, IPR2019-00975,
`
`Paper No. 15 at 19-20.
`
`Finally, Petitioner also relies on Browne, Ausems, and Hsu for the third
`
`ground, each reference having not previously been considered.
`
`Thus, the Board should not exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`because Theimer is not cumulative over King and thus the Hickman grounds do not
`
`rely on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments, and because
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1 relies on prior art not previously of record. See Oticon,
`
`Paper No. 15 at 18-20.
`
`X. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`The challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the prior art.
`
`A. Ground 1: Browne in view of Ausems and Hsu Renders Obvious
`Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 12
`Claim 1
`1.
`[1.0] “A method for interactive exercise monitoring,
`a)
`the method comprising the steps of:”
`Browne discloses the preamble. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶77, 101-109.) Browne
`
`discloses an interactive fitness monitoring system that comprises a personal
`
`exercise monitoring device preprogrammed with data to guide a user in a desirable
`
`exercise regime. (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) Figure 5 of Browne illustrates the preferred
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 22 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`embodiment of the system where a user monitor 102 monitors a physical parameter
`
`of the user during exercise. (Id., FIG. 5, 4:55-67; Ex. 1002, ¶¶103-104.)
`
`
`
`The physical parameter data collected by the user monitor 102 is sent to a
`
`master data processor 101 over telephone line 103. (Ex. 1005, FIG. 5, 4:55-67.)
`
`The user monitor 102 is a wearable device, such as one adhered to a wristband and
`
`mounted to the user’s wrist. (Id., 8:6-12, 9:59-62, 10:18-26.) Figure 1 illustrates
`
`user monitor 102. (Id., FIG. 1, 4:44-45, 8:9-12; Ex. 1002, ¶¶105-109.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 265-5 Filed 01/04/22 Page 23 of 94
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,277,377
`
`
`
`b)
`
`[1.1] “a. downloading an application to a web-
`enabled wireless phone directly from a remote server
`over the internet;”
`The combination of Browne, Ausems, and Hsu discloses or suggests this
`
`limitation. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶110-120.) Browne discloses that user monitor 102
`
`communicates with master data processor 101 over telephone line 103. (Ex. 1005,
`
`FIG. 5, 4:55-67.) Because the master data processor 101 is a computer that serves
`
`many users, monitoring each user’s performance and providing feedback, a
`
`POSITA would have understood it is a server: “Preferably, many users may be
`
`served by a single master data processing means.” (Id., 2:62-67, 4:55-58, 5:1-2,
`
`11:1-6, 11:29-39, 12:7-16, 13:35-37; Ex. 1025, 4-5 (definition of “server”); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶110.)
`
`13
`
`

`