PTAB

IPR2017-02023

TomTom International, B.V. v. BLACKBIRD TECH LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pedometer
  • Brief Description: The ’212 patent discloses a pedometer or exercise monitoring device designed to improve distance calculation accuracy. The core concept is to calculate distance traveled by multiplying the number of steps taken by a stride length that varies dynamically in accordance with the user's stride rate, rather than using a fixed, average stride length.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Jimenez in view of Levi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jimenez (Patent 4,367,752) and Levi (Patent 5,583,776).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jimenez disclosed the fundamental hardware components of independent claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, including an exercise monitoring device with a strap, a step counter, a heart rate monitor, and a data processor. However, Jimenez calculated distance using a single, constant stride length. Petitioner asserted that Levi remedied this deficiency by teaching a "Dynamic Step Size Algorithm" to improve pedometer accuracy. Levi's algorithm explicitly taught varying the stride length (step size) based on the step frequency (stride rate) using a linear function derived from calibration data. The combination of Jimenez's hardware platform with Levi's dynamic calculation method would therefore meet the limitations of the independent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Jimenez and Levi to create a superior product. Jimenez sought to create a comprehensive exercise monitor, while Levi aimed to solve the known inaccuracy of prior art pedometers that used a fixed stride length. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Levi’s more accurate distance calculation method into Jimenez’s hardware to improve its functionality and provide a more accurate and reliable device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination involved implementing a known software-based algorithm (from Levi) on a conventional hardware processor (disclosed in Jimenez), which was a predictable and straightforward integration of known technologies to achieve a known goal.

Ground 2: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Jimenez in view of Ebeling

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jimenez (Patent 4,367,752) and Ebeling (Patent 6,145,389).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1, again using Jimenez as the base reference for the hardware components. Petitioner asserted that Ebeling, like Levi, taught the key missing element: a method for calculating distance using a stride length that varies with stride rate. Ebeling explicitly addressed the inaccuracy of using a single, preset average stride length and disclosed a method to calculate stride length for each individual step. This was achieved by performing multiple calibration sessions at different speeds to generate a "stride profile data vector" and using multiple linear regression to compute stride length based on stride duration (rate).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA would combine the teachings to improve the distance calculation accuracy of the exercise monitoring device disclosed by Jimenez. This would result in a device that could more accurately monitor a user's performance, achieving the goals of both references.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been predictable. Ebeling's use of multiple linear regression was a well-known mathematical technique, and implementing its resulting algorithm on the kind of microprocessor disclosed in Jimenez would have been a routine design choice for a POSITA seeking to improve device accuracy. The arguments for dependent claims 3-4 and 7-8, which add recalibration and data processing features like interpolation, were also mapped to specific teachings in Levi and Ebeling regarding calibration updates and data analysis.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several key claim terms should be construed according to the Patent Owner's own proposed constructions from related district court litigation. By adopting the Patent Owner's broader definitions, Petitioner sought to demonstrate that the claims were obvious even under the Patent Owner's interpretation.
  • "Step counter": Petitioner adopted the proposed construction of "a device that collects data to generate a step count," noting this was broad enough to cover the prior art.
  • "Stride rate": Petitioner adopted the proposed construction of "number of steps over a time period."
  • "From a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates": Petitioner adopted the proposed construction for this phrase (from claim 6) and similar phrases in claims 2 and 5, meaning "from a range of stride lengths that correspond to stride rates, the correspondence generated from two or more calibrations." Petitioner argued this was explicitly taught by the calibration processes in both Levi and Ebeling.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’212 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.