PTAB

IPR2018-00389

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Human Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’723 patent discloses a method and device for monitoring human activity, such as counting steps, using an inertial sensor like an accelerometer. The technology focuses on improving accuracy by assigning a "dominant axis" relative to gravity and using an adaptive "cadence window" to validate periodic motions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Fabio in view of Pasolini - Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-18 are obvious over Fabio in view of Pasolini.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097) and Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fabio, the primary reference, discloses the core elements of the challenged claims. Fabio teaches a pedometer using an inertial sensor that counts steps by identifying acceleration patterns (motion cycles) that meet certain criteria within a "validation interval" (the claimed "cadence window"). Fabio also discloses advantageously performing step recognition by selecting the acceleration signal from the detection axis nearest to the vertical (the claimed "dominant axis"). Petitioner contended that Fabio's "validation interval" is updated based on the timing of the immediately preceding step, thus teaching the claimed updating of the cadence window.

    • To address limitations regarding updating the dominant axis based on changes in device orientation, Petitioner introduced Pasolini. Pasolini, which shares the same inventive entity and filing date as Fabio, explicitly teaches improving step detection by identifying the main vertical axis "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample so as to take into account variations in the orientation of the pedometer device." Therefore, Pasolini provides the express teaching of detecting a change in orientation and updating the dominant axis based on that change, a detail Petitioner argued was a simple improvement to Fabio's system.

    • For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Pasolini’s teaching of self-adaptive thresholds for detecting acceleration peaks rendered the "dynamic motion criterion" of claim 3 obvious. Fabio’s disclosure of different operating modes (e.g., a "first counting procedure" for when a user is at rest and a "second counting procedure" for when moving) was argued to teach the mode-switching limitations of claims 6 and 7.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Fabio and Pasolini because they address the same problem of inaccurate step counting in portable devices and share the same inventive entity. Pasolini provides a specific, known solution—dynamically updating the vertical axis—to a known problem in systems like Fabio's: maintaining accuracy as the device's orientation changes during use. The combination was presented as the application of a known technique to improve a similar device for a predictable result.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining Pasolini’s orientation correction method with Fabio's pedometer would predictably result in a more robust and accurate step count, which was the stated goal of both references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dominant axis": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction was based on the specification's description that the dominant axis is assigned after identifying a gravitational influence and is the axis most aligned with gravity.
  • "cadence window": Petitioner asserted this term is explicitly defined in the specification as "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This aligns with Fabio's "validation interval."
  • "logic" terms (e.g., "dominant axis logic," "counting logic"): Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms should be understood to encompass hardware, software, or a combination thereof for performing the recited functions. Petitioner also presented an alternative construction under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, identifying the function recited in the claim and the corresponding structure (software/hardware) disclosed in the specification for performing that function.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner addressed the potential for the "logic" terms to be challenged for indefiniteness under §112 in district court litigation. For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner argued that even if the terms are considered nonce words, the Board could still find the claims obvious. Petitioner asserted that the prior art discloses the necessary software and hardware structures for performing the claimed functions, thereby rendering the claims obvious regardless of any potential indefiniteness issues.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-18 of the ’723 patent as unpatentable.