PTAB

IPR2017-02012

Fitbit, Inc. v. BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pedometer with Actual Stride Calculation
  • Brief Description: The ’212 patent discloses an exercise monitoring device, such as a pedometer, that improves distance calculation accuracy. The system uses a data processor to calculate a user's traveled distance by multiplying the step count by a stride length that dynamically varies based on the user's current stride rate, which is determined using a plurality of user-provided calibration samples.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 2 and 5 are anticipated by Amano under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Amano (Patent 6,241,684).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Amano, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every limitation of claims 2 and 5. Amano teaches an "exercise workout support device" with a "body motion detector" (step counter), a "pulse wave detector" (heart rate monitor), and a "CPU" (data processor) attached to a user via a "wrist band" (strap). Crucially, Amano's CPU calculates distance by multiplying steps by a stride length that varies with stride rate (termed "pitch"). This varying stride length is determined using a "stride correction coefficient" derived from a table of user-calibrated data points, where the user inputs stride measurements at various stride rates, which are then interpolated. This process, Petitioner contended, meets the [’212](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-02012/doc/1001) patent's limitation of using a "plurality of calibrations" to determine stride length as a function of a known stride rate.
    • Key Aspects: The central argument was that the novel data processing feature, which was the basis for the [’212](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-02012/doc/1001) patent's allowance, was fully taught by the uncited Amano reference.

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 5 are obvious over Amano under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Amano (Patent 6,241,684).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that if the Board were to find that certain features exist in separate embodiments within Amano (e.g., a "freely detachable" strap disclosed in one embodiment and the main device in another), a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to combine them. For instance, if Amano's primary wrist-based embodiment does not inherently teach a releasably securing strap, another embodiment in Amano explicitly discloses a device main body that is "freely detachable from the arm of the user by means of [a] wrist band."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine features from Amano’s different variations because they all relate to the same field of exercise science and are aimed at improving the same device. Amano itself suggests that "a variety of modifications" are within the scope of the invention, which would prompt a POSITA to combine the disclosed features for improved user convenience and functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining different disclosed features of a single reference, such as making a strap detachable, would be a simple modification with a predictable and successful outcome.

Ground 3: Claim 6 is obvious over Kato in view of Amano under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kato (Patent 5,033,013) and Amano (Patent 6,241,684).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kato discloses the basic hardware of claim 6: a pedometer with a detector (step counter), a radio frequency transmitter, a wireless receiver, and a data processor. Kato also recognizes that stride length varies with stride rate and calculates distance accordingly. However, Kato uses a pre-determined, generic empirical formula. Amano was argued to supply the missing element: the method of deriving an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a plurality of user-specific calibration samples. Further, while Kato's receiver is handheld, Amano teaches mounting the device on the user's body, rendering it obvious to make Kato's receiver a "mountable on a user body portion" as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kato and Amano to solve the same problem they both address: accurately calculating distance while accounting for variable stride length. A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the accuracy of Kato's system by replacing its less accurate, pre-determined formula with Amano's superior method of using personalized, user-calibrated data. This combination represents a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating Amano's user-specific calibration algorithm into Kato's hardware was presented as a straightforward modification for a POSITA, which would predictably result in a more accurate and commercially desirable pedometer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a step counter" (Claims 2, 5, and 6): Petitioner contended this term should be construed as "a device mounted to the chest, waist, or leg that counts the number of steps a user takes." This proposed construction is based on arguments that the [’212](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-02012/doc/1001) patent specification repeatedly and explicitly describes the invention as a chest, waist, or leg-mounted device, while also disparaging wrist-mounted step counters as "known to be inaccurate." This construction is narrower than the Patent Owner's proposed construction and is critical to the invalidity arguments, as it excludes the wrist-based embodiments of the prior art from directly anticipating the claims and instead requires an obviousness combination.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 2, 5, and 6 of the [’212](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2017-02012/doc/1001) patent as unpatentable.