PTAB

IPR2018-00294

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Exercise Monitoring System
  • Brief Description: The ’759 patent discloses an exercise monitoring system that includes an electronic positioning device (e.g., GPS) and a physiological monitor (e.g., heart rate sensor) housed in a data acquisition unit. The system’s purported novelty lies in having a physically separate display unit for showing real-time data to the user during physical activity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Fry and Newell - Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 14, 17-22, 26, and 30-31 are obvious over [Fry](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00294/doc/1004) in view of [Newell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00294/doc/1005).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fry (Patent 6,002,982) and Newell (Patent 6,466,232).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fry teaches a sports computer with a GPS receiver and a physiological monitor (heart rate sensor) that displays data in real-time. While Fry’s embodiment is a single, bicycle-mounted unit, it fails to teach the claimed limitation of a display unit that is separate from the data acquisition unit. Petitioner contended that Newell remedies this deficiency by disclosing a personal movement monitoring system with body-mounted sensors (GPS, heart rate monitor) and a separate, eyeglass-mounted heads-up display. The combination of Fry's core system with Newell's separate display configuration allegedly renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Fry provides express motivation by stating its system is "readily applicable to other sports...including running." To adapt Fry's bicycle-mounted system for a runner, a POSITA would be motivated to rearrange the components for safe and ergonomic use. Petitioner argued a POSITA would look to known body-mounted systems like Newell, which teaches separating the sensors from the display for user convenience, thereby providing an ergonomic solution for a runner who cannot be encumbered by a handlebar-mounted device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved implementing known components (Fry's sensors, Newell's separate display) for their intended purposes, a straightforward modification that would produce predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vock and Arcelus - Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 17, and 19-26 are obvious over [Vock](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00294/doc/1006) in view of [Arcelus](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2018-00294/doc/1008).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vock (Patent 6,539,336) and Arcelus (Patent 6,149,602).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vock discloses an exercise monitoring system with a waist-mounted "sensing unit" containing a GPS receiver and a sensor to "record pulse" (a heart rate monitor). Vock also teaches a separate, wrist-mounted display for showing performance data like speed in "near-real time." However, Vock does not explicitly teach the real-time display of the heart rate data. Petitioner asserted Arcelus supplies this missing element by teaching a chest-mounted heart rate monitor that wirelessly transmits real-time electrocardiogram signals to a user-mounted display (e.g., a wrist-watch).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Vock and Arcelus stemmed from Vock's own teachings. Since Vock already disclosed both a heart rate monitor and a real-time display for other data, Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to enhance Vock's system by also displaying the highly beneficial heart rate data in real-time. Arcelus provided a well-known method for achieving this functionality, making it a natural and obvious modification to create a more robust and useful exercise monitor.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in adding the real-time heart rate display taught by Arcelus to Vock's system. This modification represented a simple extension of Vock's existing features and involved the predictable integration of known technologies.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Fry and Newell, or Vock and Arcelus, with further references such as Richardson (to teach a chest-mounted data acquisition unit and alarms), Arcelus (to teach wireless communication), Chance (to teach an oximeter and related alarms), and French (to teach workload calculations based on velocity and altitude).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner did not propose novel constructions but instead adopted several constructions from a prior Federal Circuit ruling in *Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp.*, which had construed terms of the ’759 patent. These adopted constructions were central to Petitioner's arguments regarding how the prior art met the claim limitations.
    • "data acquisition unit": Construed to mean "a structure or set of structures including at least the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor."
    • "display unit": Construed to mean "a structure or set of structures, separate from the data acquisition unit, for displaying real-time data provided by both the electronic positioning device and the physiological monitor..." This construction, emphasizing the "separate" nature of the display, was critical to Petitioner's strategy of combining a primary reference having an integrated system with a secondary reference teaching a separate display.
    • "displaying real-time data": Construed as "displaying data without intentional delay, given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to accurately measure the data."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-32 of the ’759 patent as unpatentable.