PTAB

IPR2016-01464

Unified Patents Inc v. SportBRAIn Holdings LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Monitoring and Providing Feedback on Physical Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’002 patent discloses a system for monitoring a user's physical activity data using a portable device. The device wirelessly transmits the captured data to a network server, which analyzes the data, compares it with data from other users, and provides feedback to the user via a website.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Vock, Smith, and Onari - Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 are obvious over Vock in view of Smith and Onari.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vock (WO 98/54581), Smith (Patent 5,485,402), and Onari (Patent 6,132,391).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vock discloses the core system of the independent claims: a portable sensing unit for measuring sports performance data (e.g., via an accelerometer), wirelessly transmitting that data to a base station, and having the base station analyze the data, compare it with other users, and post feedback to a website. To the extent Vock’s disclosure of using an accelerometer as a pedometer was not explicit enough, Smith was introduced for its teaching of a portable monitor that uses an accelerometer specifically to determine and record a user's step count. Onari was added to explicitly teach the “periodically transmitting” limitation, as it discloses a system with a pedometer that periodically repeats the process of reading data and transmitting it to a base station.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Smith's specific step-counting functionality with Vock’s general performance monitoring system to provide users with more detailed and quantitative feedback on their activity. Similarly, a POSITA would incorporate Onari’s periodic transmission method into the Vock system to provide regular, automated data updates to the server, improving the system’s utility.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that incorporating a known step-counting sensor (Smith) and implementing periodic software-based data transmission (Onari) into Vock’s system would involve routine programming and component integration, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground II: Obviousness over Vock, Smith, Onari, and Root - Claims 5 and 13 are obvious over Vock in view of Smith, Onari, and Root.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vock (WO 98/54581), Smith (Patent 5,485,402), Onari (Patent 6,132,391), and Root (Patent 6,013,007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Vock/Smith/Onari combination from Ground I and adds Root to address the limitations of claims 5 and 13, which require posting feedback in a form comprising "graphs, charts, tables and map overlays." While Vock discloses generating graphs and maps, Petitioner argued Root reinforces this teaching by explicitly disclosing an internet website that displays an athlete's performance in comparison with others using graphs and map overlays.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement Root’s technique for graphically displaying comparative data into the base system of Vock/Smith/Onari. This would serve the predictable goal of presenting performance information in a manner that is more visually engaging and easier for users to comprehend.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying a web server to generate graphical data displays was a well-understood practice, and a POSITA would have easily accomplished this integration.

Ground IV: Obviousness over Shum, Nikolic, and Root - Claims 1 and 9 are obvious over Shum in view of Nikolic and Root.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shum (Patent 6,585,622), Nikolic (Patent 6,436,052), and Root (Patent 6,013,007).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Shum as an alternative primary reference that discloses a complete system for collecting performance data (including step counting via an impact sensor) from a portable device and wirelessly transmitting it to an internet website server. The server analyzes data, provides rewards, and posts comparisons. To strengthen the teaching of periodic transmission, Nikolic was introduced for its disclosure of a base station that periodically requests a monitor to upload its stored data. To address any ambiguity in Shum about whether all processing occurs "at the network server," Root was cited for its teaching of a centralized remote computer that collects, stores, compiles, and presents all performance information.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Shum's system with Nikolic’s periodic request-and-transmit protocol to efficiently manage device memory and ensure timely data synchronization. A POSITA would also be motivated by Root’s architecture to centralize all data processing steps (storing, analyzing, posting) on a single server to speed up processing time and simplify the overall system.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modifications involved combining known networking and data management techniques, which would have been straightforward for a POSITA to implement.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground III) against claims 6 and 14 based on the Vock/Smith/Onari combination in view of Browne (Patent 5,598,849). Browne was added to teach generating instructions from a fitness professional, such as a trainer, based on the user's performance data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "step data corresponding to a number of steps": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "data related to a number of steps," which can include raw data from a pedometer or accelerometer. This construction is broad enough to encompass prior art that does not explicitly state it records the "actual number of steps counted" but uses sensors for that purpose.
  • "periodically": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "from time to time." This broader construction would cover transmissions that are user-initiated, continuous, or occur at irregular intervals, countering a narrower interpretation that might require fixed, repeating time intervals, which some prior art may not disclose.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 7,454,002 as unpatentable.