PTAB

IPR2017-01826

TomTom Inc v. Smart Wearable Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Monitoring a Subject During a Monitoring Period
  • Brief Description: The ’882 patent discloses a method for monitoring a subject using an accelerometer module attached to a body segment. The system acquires acceleration signals, processes them to obtain six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) movement information relative to an earth-fixed inertial reference frame, acquires physiological data, and then synchronizes and displays the combined movement and physiological information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kramer (Patent 6,148,280) and Teller (Patent 6,605,038).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kramer discloses all elements of claim 8, or at least renders them obvious. Kramer taught a system for determining the "true" or "absolute" 6-DOF position and orientation of a body part by combining data from "fast" sensors (like accelerometers) and "slow," more accurate sensors (like GPS or optical trackers). This process inherently involves acquiring acceleration signals from a body-fixed (anatomical) frame and processing them to determine movement in an earth-fixed (inertial) frame. Kramer further disclosed simultaneously collecting ancillary physiological data (e.g., pulse, respiration) and correlating it with the motion data for analysis and display in formats like animations. To the extent Kramer’s "correlation" was not explicit "synchronization," Teller was argued to supply this teaching. Teller disclosed a wearable health monitoring device that explicitly synchronized physiological and accelerometer-based movement data over time and provided for its display.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Kramer's advanced 6-DOF motion analysis with Teller's explicit data synchronization. Both references exist in the same field of wearable sensor technology and address the same problem of providing comprehensive user data for athletic or medical analysis. Teller provided a known, advantageous solution (synchronization) to enhance the data correlation already contemplated by Kramer, which would provide more complete and useful feedback to a user.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because both involved standard sensor technologies and data processing techniques common in the field of wearable monitors.

Ground 2: 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 asserted that Hutchings disclosed the core motion-tracking aspects of claim 8. Hutchings described a motion analysis system using accelerometers and other sensors to measure 6-DOF movement. Critically, Hutchings explicitly taught capturing movement data in a "translational coordinate system" that moves with a body part (an anatomical reference frame) and processing or "transforming" it to a "reference frame coordinate system of the stationary ground" or a "global coordinate system" (an inertial reference frame). Hutchings, however, did not expressly disclose acquiring physiological data. Petitioner argued that Teller supplied the missing elements: acquiring physiological data, processing it, synchronizing it with the 6-DOF motion data from a system like Hutchings, and displaying the combined information.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Hutchings system with the capabilities of Teller. Hutchings itself suggested its system could be employed in "medical and biomedical applications," where the correlation of motion and physiological data is routine and highly valuable. Teller provided a well-known method for adding this physiological monitoring and data synchronization functionality. Combining the two would be a predictable and advantageous step to create a more robust monitoring device for the very applications Hutchings contemplated.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would be a straightforward integration of known technologies. Incorporating a well-known physiological sensor (like a heart rate monitor from Teller) into the Hutchings motion analysis system and synchronizing the data outputs would have been a trivial and predictable modification for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "anatomical reference frame": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a reference frame that maintains its orientation with respect to a body segment." This construction was central to mapping the prior art, which described sensors moving with a body part, to claim 8[b].
  • "inertial reference frame": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a reference frame that maintains its orientation with respect to the earth." This was critical for arguing that both Kramer (using "absolute position" sensors like GPS) and Hutchings (using a "stationary ground" frame) taught the processing required by claim 8[c].
  • "synchronize": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "to represent or arrange two or more things so as to indicate that they occurred simultaneously." This construction was used to argue that the simple "correlation" in Kramer was insufficient and that Teller’s explicit time-based synchronization was necessary to enable the cause-and-effect analysis described in the ’882 patent.

5. Relief Requested

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