PTAB

IPR2018-00424

Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Periodic Human Motion
  • Brief Description: The ’902 patent discloses an electronic device for monitoring periodic human motions like walking or running. The device uses an inertial sensor, such as an accelerometer, to detect motion cycles and employs a "sleep mode" to conserve power when no relevant acceleration is detected. The invention also involves using a "cadence window" to count steps, which can be dynamically updated based on the user's changing cadence.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Mitchnick.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mitchnick discloses a method for monitoring a participant using a mobile device with an accelerometer. Mitchnick's device enters a "low-power sleep state" when it is not sampling for a specific activity (e.g., sexual activity) by comparing observed acceleration characteristics to a template (a "motion signature"). If the activity is not detected, the device enters or remains in the sleep state. This, Petitioner asserted, teaches the limitations of independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is met because Mitchnick's device continues monitoring for future motions once the activity signature is detected.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference. Petitioner contended that it would have been obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to adapt Mitchnick's teachings of an internal device to an external, on-body device for monitoring other periodic motions like walking or running, which Mitchnick itself suggests.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Mitchnick in view of Sheldon.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848) and Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Mitchnick for claims 1 and 2. Petitioner argued that Sheldon, which describes an accelerometer-based motion detector (e.g., in a pacemaker), explicitly teaches sampling acceleration data over a predetermined time period (e.g., 2 seconds) to determine human activity. This addresses the added limitation in claim 3 requiring that "each sample includes acceleration data measured... over a predetermined time period."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Mitchnick and Sheldon to improve power management and optimize battery cost, which are explicit goals of both references. Incorporating Sheldon's use of a fixed sampling period into Mitchnick's sleep/wake cycle would prevent the device from waking and checking for activity based on ambiguous or indefinite results, thereby conserving power more effectively.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as implementing a defined sampling window is a straightforward and predictable way to manage power in a sensor-based device.

Ground 3: Claim 4 is obvious over Mitchnick, Sheldon, and Tanenhaus.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848), Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957), and Tanenhaus (Patent 6,469,639).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Tanenhaus to the combination of Mitchnick and Sheldon to address the limitations of claim 4. Petitioner asserted that Tanenhaus discloses a low-power MEMS accelerometer with a "wake-up sensing circuit." This circuit detects initial motion or vibration that passes a predetermined threshold, triggering the device to switch from a low-power sleep state to a higher-power active state. This directly teaches the claim 4 limitation of an "inertial sensor has an inertial wakeup functionality."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tanenhaus with the Mitchnick/Sheldon device to further improve activity detection and power efficiency. Instead of relying solely on a periodic timer to wake and check for activity (as in Mitchnick), Tanenhaus's motion-triggered wakeup circuit would ensure activity is not missed between timed checks and would prevent the device from waking up when no motion is occurring, thereby preserving battery life.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in integrating a known wake-up circuit like that in Tanenhaus into another accelerometer-based system to enhance its responsiveness and power management.

Ground 4: Claims 5-6 and 9-10 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 discloses the core features of claims 5, 6, 9 and 10. Fabio teaches a pedometer that uses a "validation interval" (a "cadence window") to verify steps. It uses a step count buffer to store "probable steps" until a threshold is reached, at which point the buffer is emptied, the steps are acknowledged as actual, and the device determines a dynamic step cadence window that adapts to the user's gait. For claim 10, Fabio teaches using a multi-axis accelerometer and selecting the axis nearest to vertical (the "dominant axis") based on the contribution of gravity to perform step recognition.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): While Fabio teaches selecting the dominant axis, Pasolini teaches an improved method for doing so. A POSITA would combine Pasolini with Fabio to enhance the accuracy of step detection. Pasolini explicitly teaches continuously identifying the main vertical axis at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample to account for changes in the device's orientation. Incorporating this known technique into Fabio's system would be a simple and obvious improvement to solve the known problem of orientation changes affecting step-counting accuracy.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as applying Pasolini's more robust orientation-correction method to Fabio's similar pedometer would predictably result in a more accurate device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dominant axis" (claim 10): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction is central to the argument for claim 10, as both Fabio and Pasolini describe methods for identifying and using the vertical axis, which is determined by gravity's influence, for step detection.
  • "cadence window" (claim 5): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step," based on the patent's own definition. This construction is foundational to the arguments for claims 5-6, which rely on Fabio's disclosure of a "validation interval" that functions identically.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-6 and 9-10 of the ’902 patent as unpatentable.