PTAB

IPR2015-00655

Nike Inc v. Mayfonk Athletic LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Athletic-Wear Having Integral Measuring Sensors
  • Brief Description: The ’584 patent discloses a networked system for measuring, processing, and displaying athletic performance parameters. The system uses sensors and a computing unit integrated into an article of clothing to track data, which is then transmitted to an external computing device and a remote server for analysis and sharing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Teller - Claims 3-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Teller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Teller (Patent 7,689,437).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Teller disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Teller described a system for monitoring health and fitness using a sensor device with a microprocessor (the claimed "computing unit") that gathers physiological data. This data was transmitted to a personal computer or other personal digital assistant (the claimed "external computing device"), which in turn communicated with a remote central monitoring unit (the claimed "remote server") over a network. Petitioner contended that Teller explicitly taught a wired "serial connection such as an RS232 or USB port" for pairing the sensor device and external device, directly meeting the "wired serial connection" limitation of independent claims 3 and 12. Dependent claims were allegedly met by Teller's disclosure of features like integrating sensors into clothing ("a garment such as a form fitting shirt"), providing software updates from the server, and using a client application (a web browser) to access data.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Teller and Molyneux - Claims 3-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are obvious over Teller in view of Molyneux.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Teller (Patent 7,689,437) and Molyneux (Patent 8,172,722).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the alternative "authenticated wireless bonding" limitation in independent claims 3 and 12, which Petitioner argued was added during prosecution to overcome prior art. While Teller disclosed short-range wireless transmission (e.g., infrared), Molyneux disclosed an analogous athletic performance monitoring system that explicitly taught using Bluetooth for communication between an on-body receiver and a remote device. Petitioner asserted that Bluetooth was a well-known and popular mechanism for authenticated, short-range wireless communication at the time of the invention.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Teller and Molyneux because they addressed analogous problems of wirelessly connecting body-worn sensors to external computing devices for athletic monitoring. A POSITA would have been motivated to use the specific authenticated protocol taught by Molyneux (Bluetooth) to implement the general wireless functionality taught by Teller to gain the benefit of a secure and reliable connection without the physical constraints of a wired connection.
    • Expectation of Success: The use of Bluetooth for short-range data transmission between devices was routine and predictable, giving a POSITA a high expectation of success in combining the teachings.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gardner and Molyneux - Claims 3-6, 9, 11-15, 18, and 20 are obvious over Gardner in view of Molyneux.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gardner (Patent 7,454,002) and Molyneux (Patent 8,172,722).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gardner disclosed a similar system for capturing athletic performance data (e.g., heart rate, steps) using a personal data capture device containing sensors and a microprocessor. This device transmitted data to a network server via a wireless communication device (e.g., a cell phone), where the data could be analyzed and shared on a website. Petitioner asserted that Gardner taught a wired bus for connecting the microprocessor and the external communication device, anticipating the "wired serial connection" limitation. For the wireless limitation, the combination with Molyneux was proposed.
    • Motivation to Combine: As with the Teller combination, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Molyneux's explicit teaching of Bluetooth into Gardner's system. Both Gardner and Molyneux operated in the same technical field of athletic performance monitoring. The motivation was to use a known, reliable, and authenticated wireless protocol (Bluetooth) to achieve the wireless pairing between the sensor unit and the external device, which would be an obvious design choice to enhance user freedom.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a standard communication protocol like Bluetooth into the system described by Gardner would have been a straightforward and predictable task for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 6 and 15 over Teller in view of Shum (Application # 2007/0021269); claims 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 19 over Teller in view of Molyneux and Case (Application # 2007/0247306); claims 10 and 19 over Gardner in view of Molyneux and Case; and claims 21-27 over Root (Patent 6,013,007).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the limitation "Specifically Paired, Defined By At Least One Of A Wired Serial Connection And Wireless Bonding Which Enables The Computing Unit To Authenticate The Identity Of The External Computing Device" (claims 3, 12) should be construed based on the prosecution history.
  • Petitioner contended that the patent owner distinguished prior art by adding this limitation, emphasizing that "authentication" applies only to the "wireless bonding" option (e.g., Bluetooth) and not to the "wired serial connection" option.
  • This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that prior art like Teller, which disclosed a standard USB or serial connection, met the wired option, while the combination with Molyneux (teaching Bluetooth) rendered the authenticated wireless option obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 3-27 of the ’584 patent as unpatentable.