PTAB

IPR2018-00387

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Device for Monitoring Human Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’508 patent discloses methods and devices for monitoring human activity by counting periodic motions, such as steps, using an inertial sensor. The technology centers on two primary concepts: (1) dynamically identifying a "dominant axis" from a tri-axial accelerometer that is most influenced by gravity and counting motions relative to that axis; and (2) using a dual-mode system that switches from a "non-active" validation mode, where initial motions are buffered, to an "active" mode where subsequent motions are counted.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 teaches a pedometer with a tri-axial accelerometer that inherently discloses the "dominant axis" limitations. Pasolini’s system identifies the "main vertical axis" to be used for step detection by finding the axis with the "highest mean acceleration value (on account of gravity)." Petitioner asserted this is equivalent to the ’508 patent’s "dominant axis." Pasolini further teaches that this determination is made "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample" to account for "variations in the orientation of the pedometer device." Petitioner contended this directly teaches continuously determining, assigning, and updating the dominant axis as claimed. Finally, Pasolini counts steps based on accelerations measured along this dynamically identified axis.

Ground 2: 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 teaches the dual-mode counting system claimed in the ’508 patent. Fabio describes two separate counting procedures. The first procedure functions as a "non-active mode" where detected steps are temporarily stored in a "valid control steps" counter (Nvc) but are not added to the total step count, thus "buffering" the motions. The device switches to a second counting procedure, or "active mode," only after a sequence of steps is validated by meeting a regularity condition within a "validation interval" (equated to a "cadence window"). In this second mode, validated steps are immediately added to the total count. Petitioner also argued Fabio teaches switching back from the active to the non-active mode when an interruption in locomotion is detected (i.e., when expected motions are not identified).

Ground 3: 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: Petitioner argued that Pasolini teaches the base method of dominant axis detection as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Claims 3 and 13 add limitations related to using and continuously updating a "cadence window" to validate motions. Petitioner contended that Fabio supplies these missing elements. Fabio teaches using a "validation interval" (the "cadence window") that is "defined with respect to the instant of recognition of the immediately preceding step." Because this validation interval is updated for each new step based on the cadence of prior steps, it teaches a continuously updated, dynamic cadence window as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Pasolini and Fabio to improve a known device. A POSITA would have recognized that Pasolini’s system, while tracking a dominant axis, was susceptible to inaccuracies from non-step motions. Fabio was directed to solving this exact problem by teaching a step-regularity test using a validation interval. A POSITA would combine Fabio’s known step-validation technique with Pasolini’s similar pedometer device to achieve the predictable result of improved step-counting accuracy.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because the combination involved applying a known solution (Fabio's validation logic) to a known problem (inaccurate step counting) in a predictable and analogous system (Pasolini's pedometer).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dominant axis": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction was argued to be consistent with the ’508 patent’s specification, which describes identifying a gravitational influence and assigning the dominant axis based on the device’s orientation relative to it.
  • "cadence window": Petitioner relied on the specification's explicit definition of this term as "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step."
  • "logic" terms (e.g., "dominant axis logic," "counting logic," "mode logic"): Petitioner argued these terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as hardware, software, or a combination thereof that performs the recited function. In the alternative, should the terms be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, Petitioner contended that the specification provided sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., a processor executing instructions for certain functions) and that the prior art disclosed the same or equivalent structures.

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.