PTAB

IPR2017-00258

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 an Individual on Proper Motion
  • Brief Description: The ’576 patent discloses a portable electronic device, system, and method for monitoring an individual's physical motion. The technology involves using a movement sensor to measure movement data, a microprocessor to interpret that data against user-defined parameters (e.g., an event threshold), and an indicator to provide feedback when the threshold is met.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vonk in view of Zealear - Claims 20, 25, 105, 113, 135-137 are obvious over Vonk in view of Zealear.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vonk (Patent 5,293,879) and Zealear (Patent 4,817,628).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vonk disclosed a wearable, wristwatch-type device for monitoring tremors in a patient’s limb. Vonk’s device used an accelerometer, a microcontroller, and memory to detect limb movements, process them against programmable frequency and duration criteria, and store data related to detected tremors. However, Vonk did not explicitly teach measuring movement "in any direction." Zealear was cited to supply this teaching, as it described a portable device with a small accelerometer sensor capable of measuring force along one, two, or three axes, thus enabling measurement of movement "in any direction."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Vonk and Zealear because both references addressed the same field: portable, accelerometer-based tremor detection. A POSITA looking to improve Vonk’s device would naturally consult similar art like Zealear. The motivation would be to substitute Vonk’s sensor with a three-axis sensor as taught by Zealear to achieve the predictable and beneficial result of more accurate tremor histories, aligning with Vonk's stated goal of discriminating tremor signals from other activities.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because triaxial accelerometers were commercially available and well-understood at the time. Integrating such a component into Vonk's device, which used standard and programmable components, would have been a straightforward modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gesink in view of Dougherty - Claims 20, 25, 26, 104, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 118, 119, 123, 125, 128-132, 134, 135, and 138 are obvious over Gesink in view of Dougherty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gesink (Patent 5,803,740) and Dougherty (Patent 5,027,824).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gesink taught a wearable "learning and assessment aid" for monitoring a user's ambulatory movement, such as veer and tilt while walking. The device used sensors (e.g., gyroscope, accelerometers) and a microprocessor to determine if movement exceeded a user-defined maximum value over a user-defined time. Gesink disclosed that collected data could be stored and downloaded to an external computer. While Gesink’s system relied on time data, it did not explicitly disclose a real-time clock. Dougherty was introduced to teach a wearable cardiac monitor that included a microprocessor and a real-time "clock/calendar unit" to record the date and time of each detected cardiac event.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gesink and Dougherty because they were both directed to wearable body-monitoring devices that associated data with detected events. Since Gesink's analysis depended on time, incorporating a real-time clock as taught by Dougherty would be an obvious way to generate and time-stamp event data accurately. This modification would enhance Gesink’s data collection capabilities, allowing for better longitudinal analysis of a user's movement habits, which directly served the purpose of Gesink's invention.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable and expected. Real-time clocks were common components in wearable devices, and Petitioner noted that a publicly available version of the microprocessor used in Gesink's device (the DS5000T) already included a real-time clock, making the integration straightforward.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gesink in view of Dougherty and Edwards - Claim 124 is obvious over Gesink in view of Dougherty and Edwards.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gesink (Patent 5,803,740), Dougherty (Patent 5,027,824), and Edwards (Patent 4,945,477).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Gesink and Dougherty, which together taught a system for monitoring movement, detecting events, time-stamping them, and downloading the data to a computer for analysis and reporting. Edwards was added to explicitly teach that a history report of medical data should include both the "date and time" of detected events. Edwards disclosed a system that generated a "human-readable report" of medical events that specifically included this information.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to further modify the Gesink/Dougherty system with the teachings of Edwards was to improve the utility of the generated reports. For a clinician analyzing a user's movement patterns over time, as contemplated by Gesink, a report containing both the date and time of events would be significantly more valuable than a report with time alone. A POSITA would therefore be motivated to incorporate this feature to create more comprehensive and useful historical reports.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high, as customizing data reports to include relevant information like date and time was a commonplace and routine task for software on a personal computer in that era.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "movement sensor": Petitioner argued that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term encompasses one or more movement sensors that collectively perform the recited functionality. This position was based on the specification's contemplation of using multiple accelerometers and dependent claim language reciting "at least one accelerometer."
  • "self-contained": Petitioner contended that a "self-contained" device does not require all components to be within a single housing. The construction should encompass a device whose components may be arranged at different locations on a user's body, based on specification figures and dependent claims describing a movement sensor housed separately from the microprocessor.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 20, 25, 26, 104, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 118, 119, 123-125, 128-132, and 134-138 of Patent 6,059,576 as unpatentable.