PTAB

IPR2018-00275

Wahoo Fitness LLC v. Blackbird Tech LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: PEDOMETER
  • Brief Description: The ’212 patent discloses a pedometer for calculating a user's distance traveled with improved accuracy. The system uses a data processor to calculate distance by multiplying the number of steps by a stride length that varies according to the user's stride rate, which is determined using a plurality of user-specific calibrations.

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 discloses every limitation of claims 2 and 5. Amano teaches an "exercise workout support device" that can be worn on the body and includes the key claimed components: a strap ("wrist band"), a step counter ("body motion detector"), a heart rate monitor ("pulse detector"), and a data processor ("CPU"). Critically, Petitioner asserted that Amano's CPU is programmed to perform the same data processing as claimed: it calculates distance by multiplying the number of steps by a stride length that varies with the stride rate ("pitch"). Amano explicitly teaches generating a user-specific table relating stride rate to a "stride correction coefficient" based on a plurality of user-inputted calibration measurements at different stride rates, which is then used to determine the actual stride length during exercise.

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 a single embodiment in Amano does not disclose every element, the claims are obvious. For example, if Amano's wrist-mounted embodiment is considered, the ’212 patent’s specification disparages wrist-mounted counters. However, Amano also teaches that its device is not limited to a wrist-watch form and may be incorporated into any object worn on the body, such as a band.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Amano's various disclosed embodiments and teachings. Amano itself states that "a variety of modifications...are included within the scope of the present invention." A POSITA would have recognized that placing the disclosed exercise monitor on a chest or waist strap was a simple and predictable design choice, as these were common locations for such devices. Similarly, making a strap releasable was presented as an obvious design choice to improve usability, a feature Amano explicitly discloses in one of its embodiments.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining Amano's own teachings or applying well-known design principles (like using a releasable strap or placing a monitor on the user's waist) would yield predictable results.

Ground 3: Claim 6 is obvious over Kato in view of Amano under 35 U.S.C. §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 argued that Kato, which discloses a method for measuring exercise, teaches most limitations of claim 6. Kato describes a pedometer system with a step counter ("detector"), a transmitter ("radio frequency transmitter"), a receiver ("wireless receiver"), and a data processor. Kato’s processor calculates distance using a stride length that varies with stride rate ("pitch") based on a pre-determined empirical formula. However, Petitioner contended Kato does not explicitly teach deriving an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a plurality of calibration samples provided by the user. This limitation, Petitioner argued, is supplied by Amano. Amano teaches a system where a user inputs data from runs at different paces, and the processor plots these calibration points and interpolates between them to create a user-specific relationship between stride rate and stride length.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kato and Amano because both references address the same problem: accurately calculating distance by accounting for variations in stride length with stride rate. A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the accuracy of Kato's system, which uses a generic formula, by incorporating the more precise, user-specific calibration method taught by Amano. This modification would leverage the increasing computing power of wearable devices of the era to provide a more accurate and personalized result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Amano's data processing steps into Kato's hardware. The modification was a straightforward substitution of one data processing algorithm for another to achieve a known benefit (improved accuracy), which was well within the skill of a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a step counter" (claims 2, 5, and 6): Petitioner highlighted differing constructions from co-pending litigation.
    • Petitioner's Proposed Construction: "a device mounted to the chest, waist, or leg [that] counts the number of steps a user takes"
    • Patent Owner's Proposed Construction: "a device that collects data to generate step count"
  • Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under its own narrower construction, which is based on the ’212 patent’s specification repeatedly describing the invention as a chest, waist, or leg mounted device and disparaging wrist-mounted counters.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2, 5, and 6 of the ’212 patent as unpatentable.