PTAB

IPR2017-00256

Fitbit Inc v. LoganTree LP

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Device, System and Method to Monitor and Train Individual on Proper Motion During Physical Movement
  • Brief Description: The ’576 patent discloses a portable, self-contained electronic device for monitoring a user's body motion. The system uses a movement sensor to measure data associated with unrestrained movement, processes it against user-defined parameters (e.g., an event threshold), and can provide feedback to the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 13, and 17 are obvious over Allum in view of Dougherty and Conlan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Allum (Patent 5,919,149), Dougherty (Patent 5,027,824), and Conlan (Patent 5,573,013).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Allum taught the core invention: a wearable, portable system for monitoring a user's body sway. Allum's device used sensors to measure angle and angular velocity, a microprocessor to compare the data against user-set stability parameters (a "cone of stability"), and provided feedback to warn of an impending fall. To the extent Allum did not explicitly disclose certain common components, Dougherty was argued to supply them. Dougherty, a patent for a wearable cardiac monitor, taught the use of a battery module (power source), a real-time clock for time-stamping events, and a wireless infrared "programmer unit" (download device) for transmitting data to an external personal computer. Finally, Conlan, which disclosed a wrist-worn activity monitor, was argued to teach adding user-input buttons to a wearable device to allow a user to manually log subjective events, such as dizziness.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve upon Allum's body monitoring system. It would have been obvious to include a power source and real-time clock, as taught by Dougherty, as these are fundamental components for any portable electronic device that logs events over time. A POSITA would incorporate Dougherty’s wireless download device to improve usability by eliminating cables, a known design goal for wearable devices. Further, a POSITA would add Conlan's user-input buttons to Allum's device to enhance its diagnostic capabilities, allowing a clinician to correlate objective sensor data with a user's subjective feelings (e.g., dizziness), leading to better rehabilitation outcomes.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved integrating conventional electronic components (power source, clock, user buttons, wireless I/O) into a known type of wearable monitoring system, using well-established techniques.

Ground 2: Claims 20, 104, 108, 110, and 118-123 are obvious over Allum in view of Dougherty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Allum (Patent 5,919,149) and Dougherty (Patent 5,027,824).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on the method claims and relied on the same core combination as Ground 1, but without the user-input teachings of Conlan. Petitioner asserted that Allum taught the primary method steps: attaching a portable device, measuring movement data, interpreting the data with a microprocessor against user-defined parameters, storing the data, and detecting a user-defined event (e.g., body sway exceeding a threshold). Dougherty was cited to supply the teachings for using a real-time clock to provide time-stamp information for the interpreted data and for using a wireless download port. The combination of Allum and Dougherty was alleged to render obvious the claimed methods of monitoring movement and processing the associated data.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivations were identical to those for combining Allum and Dougherty in Ground 1. A POSITA would add a power source and real-time clock for basic functionality and would use a wireless download device to improve the system's overall design and user experience by removing the need for physical cables.

Ground 3: Claims 129, 132, and 133 are obvious over Allum in view of Dougherty and Bernard.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Allum (Patent 5,919,149), Dougherty (Patent 5,027,824), and Bernard (Patent 4,883,063).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This argument built on the Allum and Dougherty combination by adding Bernard, which taught a wearable "personal monitor" for tracking physiological stress (e.g., heat, heart rate). The key contribution from Bernard was its disclosure of using a plurality of thresholds corresponding to a plurality of notifications. Bernard’s device used a "Warning" threshold (triggering a yellow LED) and a more severe "Action" threshold (triggering a red LED). Petitioner argued this taught the limitation of using multiple, distinct thresholds and notifications, which Allum’s single fall-warning threshold did not.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to improve the feedback mechanism of Allum's rehabilitation device. Bernard taught that a single threshold warning for a dangerous event is often inadequate. Applying this known principle, a POSITA would modify Allum’s device to provide graded feedback (e.g., a yellow light when body sway approaches a limit, and a red or flashing light when it exceeds it). This would provide more nuanced information to the user, allowing for better awareness and balance correction, thus improving the device's therapeutic effectiveness.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable as it involved applying a known technique for multi-level alerting (from Bernard) to a different type of monitored event (body sway from Allum), which was a straightforward design choice for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 139-142 based on the combination of Allum in view of Dougherty, Bernard, and Conlan, relying on similar theories of combining known elements from analogous wearable monitoring devices.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "self-contained": Petitioner argued this term does not require all device components to be within a single housing. Based on the specification (Fig. 2C), dependent claims, and prosecution history, Petitioner asserted the term encompasses devices whose components (e.g., sensor and microprocessor) are arranged at different locations on a user's body. This construction was critical to applying prior art like Allum, which shows sensors separate from a processor unit.
  • "a movement sensor": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "one or more movement sensors." This interpretation was supported by a dependent claim explicitly reciting "at least one accelerometer" and specification language contemplating the use of "multiple accelerometers."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 13, 17, 20, 104, 108, 110, 118-123, 129, 132-134, and 139-142 of the ’576 patent as unpatentable.