PTAB

IPR2017-01325

Microsoft Corp v. Smart Wearable Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: 6-DOF Subject-Monitoring Device and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’882 patent discloses a system and method for monitoring a subject by acquiring and processing both six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) movement data and physiological data. The core concept involves synchronizing these two data streams to provide comprehensive, time-correlated information about the subject's physical and physiological status.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hutchings and Teller - Claim 8 is obvious over Hutchings in view of Teller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hutchings (Patent 6,305,221) and Teller (Patent 6,605,038).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hutchings and Teller together disclose all limitations of claim 8. Hutchings taught a wearable motion-tracking system that captured 6-DOF movement data using linear and rotational accelerometers. It disclosed processing these signals relative to both an anatomical reference frame (e.g., a user's foot) and an inertial reference frame (the stationary ground) to derive metrics like speed and distance. While Hutchings met the motion-capture elements of claim 8, it did not disclose acquiring or processing physiological data. Petitioner contended that Teller remedied this deficiency. Teller described a wearable health monitor that used sensors to acquire and process various types of physiological data (e.g., heart rate, skin temperature) alongside movement data from accelerometers. Crucially, Teller taught combining and synchronizing these data streams based on time to derive meaningful health insights, such as calories burned or sleep quality. Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to combine Hutchings' advanced 6-DOF motion tracking with Teller's physiological monitoring and data synchronization capabilities to arrive at the method claimed in claim 8.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner presented several motivations for a POSITA to combine the references. First, Hutchings expressly suggested that its motion-tracking system could be implemented for "medical and biomedical applications," directly pointing a POSITA toward the field of Teller's invention. Second, combining the references represented a simple combination of known elements to solve the purported problem addressed by the ’882 patent—applying 6-DOF data to physiological monitoring. A POSITA seeking to improve upon existing physiological monitors would have logically looked to incorporate more advanced motion tracking, such as the 6-DOF system in Hutchings, into a system like Teller's. The combination was argued to be a predictable aggregation of prior art components, each performing its known function.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the systems. The integration involved applying known sensor technologies and data processing techniques from Teller to the established 6-DOF motion-capture framework of Hutchings, which would have been a straightforward engineering task yielding predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Synchronizing/Synchronized": Petitioner argued for the construction “correlating based on time” / “correlated based on time.” This construction was asserted to be critical, as it requires more than the mere simultaneous display of different data types. True synchronization, as described in the ’882 patent and taught by Teller, involves a time-based correlation that enables causal analysis between movement and physiological events (e.g., determining if a drop in heart rate preceded a fall). This distinguished the claimed invention from prior art that might simply display movement and physiological data side-by-side without a functional, time-based relationship.
  • "Anatomical Reference-Frame" / "Inertial Reference-Frame": Petitioner proposed construing an "anatomical reference-frame" as one that "maintains orientation with respect to a body-segment" and an "inertial reference-frame" as one that "maintains orientation with respect to the earth." These constructions were central to mapping Hutchings, which explicitly described a "translational coordinate system" that moves with the user's foot (the anatomical frame) and a "reference frame coordinate system of the stationary ground" (the inertial frame).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claim 8 of Patent 6,997,882 as unpatentable.