PTAB

IPR2018-00387

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Human Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’508 patent discloses methods and devices for counting periodic human motions, such as steps, using an inertial sensor. The technology is based on two primary concepts: (1) identifying a "dominant axis" on a tri-axial accelerometer that is most influenced by gravity and counting steps along that axis, and (2) employing a dual-mode system (non-active and active) to improve counting accuracy by first validating a sequence of steps before adding them to a total count.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pasolini - Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are obvious over Pasolini

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pasolini taught all limitations related to the "dominant axis" concept. Pasolini disclosed a pedometer with a tri-axial accelerometer that identified the "main vertical axis" (the axis most aligned with gravity) to be used for step detection. This axis determination was performed continuously, "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample," to account for "variations in the orientation of the pedometer device." Petitioner contended this directly maps to the challenged claims’ requirements of continuously determining an orientation, assigning a dominant axis, updating the dominant axis as orientation changes, and counting periodic motions by monitoring accelerations relative to that axis. The dependent claims, which specified using measurements only along the dominant axis, were also allegedly taught by Pasolini’s focus on the "main vertical axis" for step detection.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fabio - Claims 6-8, 15-16, and 19 are obvious over Fabio

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Fabio taught the dual-mode step counting method claimed in the ’508 patent. Fabio described a pedometer that operated in a first "non-active" counting procedure where detected steps were buffered (incremented in a control step counter) but not added to the total step count until a "condition of regularity" was met. Upon meeting this condition, the device switched to a second "active" counting procedure where validated steps were immediately added to the total count. Petitioner mapped this directly to the claimed method of running a device in a non-active mode where motions are buffered, then switching to an active mode to count each motion. Fabio also allegedly taught switching back from active to non-active mode if steps were no longer detected within appropriate "validation intervals" (cadence windows).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pasolini in view of Fabio - Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are obvious over Pasolini in view of Fabio

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997) and Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a continuously updated, dynamic "cadence window." Petitioner argued that while Pasolini taught the core "dominant axis" system, Fabio supplied the teachings for a dynamic cadence window. Fabio disclosed using a "validation interval" to confirm steps, where the interval for a current step was defined relative to the timing and duration of the immediately preceding step. This method ensured the window for validating a step was continuously updated based on the user's actual, current cadence. The combination also taught using dynamic motion criteria (self-adapting acceleration thresholds) for step recognition, as taught by Pasolini.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references to improve the accuracy of Pasolini's device. A POSITA would have recognized that Pasolini's pedometer could produce false positives from non-periodic motions. Fabio addressed this exact problem by introducing a regularity test using a dynamic validation interval. A POSITA would combine Fabio’s known technique with Pasolini’s similar device to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate step counter.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination represented the simple application of a known accuracy-improving technique (from Fabio) to a similar existing system (Pasolini).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dominant axis" (claims 1, 11): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction was based on the patent’s specification and was central to mapping the "main vertical axis" of Pasolini to the claims.
  • "cadence window" (claims 3, 6, etc.): Petitioner proposed this term means "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This construction aligned with Fabio's disclosure of a "validation interval" and was key to the arguments for Grounds 2 and 3.
  • "logic" terms (e.g., "dominant axis logic," "counting logic"): Petitioner argued for a broad interpretation of "logic" to mean "hardware, software, or both" that performs the recited function. Petitioner also provided an alternative function-structure analysis under 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6, mapping the claimed functions to structures described in the specification, to preemptively counter any means-plus-function arguments from the Patent Owner.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 19 of the ’508 patent as unpatentable.