PTAB

IPR2018-00564

Garmin International, Inc. v. LoganTree, LP

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Device, System and Method to Monitor and Train on Proper Motion
  • Brief Description: The ’576 patent discloses a portable, self-contained electronic system to monitor a user’s physical movement. The system is designed to provide real-time feedback when improper movement occurs and to record the movement data for subsequent analysis.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Stewart and Rush - Claims 20-26, 29, 104-107, 110, 113-116, 118, 121, 126-128, 134-135, and 175 are obvious over Stewart in view of Rush.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stewart (Patent 5,978,972) and Rush (Patent 5,546,609).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stewart, which was not considered during prosecution or reexamination, teaches the core of independent claim 20. Stewart discloses a portable, self-contained system (a helmet) with accelerometers and a microprocessor to measure, record, and analyze movement data by comparing it to thresholds. Rush, also not previously considered, supplies the remaining key features: providing real-time feedback (audible/visible alerts) to the user for dangerous movements (e.g., spearing in football) and recording the time and date of each such event, which Petitioner mapped to the patent’s timestamp limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Stewart’s sophisticated data recording and analysis with Rush’s real-time feedback and timestamping to create a superior athletic training and safety device. This combination would predictably result in a system that both alerts a user to incorrect motion as it happens and stores detailed, timestamped event data for later review to improve technique and assess injury risk.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining known sensor systems with known alert mechanisms for use in athletic monitoring was a common and predictable design path.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Stewart, Rush, and Conlan - Claims 119-124, 126, 136, and 137 are obvious over Stewart in view of Rush, further in view of Conlan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stewart (Patent 5,978,972), Rush (Patent 5,546,609), and Conlan (Patent 5,197,489).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Stewart and Rush combination to address claims requiring communication with external software and monitoring a user’s arm. Conlan, an activity monitor worn on the wrist, is introduced to teach communicating with external computer software to download data and generate reports and displays. For claims specifying arm movement, Petitioner argued that while Stewart’s primary embodiment is a helmet, it explicitly envisions monitoring other body parts, and Conlan provides a direct teaching of a wrist-worn monitor.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Conlan’s software communication feature to the Stewart/Rush system to provide enhanced data analysis and visualization capabilities on a computer. Modifying the device for arm-based monitoring was motivated by the desire to apply the technology to a wider range of activities where arm motion is critical, as suggested by both Stewart and Conlan.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Richardson and Stewart - Claims 20 and 138 are obvious over Richardson in view of Stewart.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Richardson (Patent 5,976,083) and Stewart (Patent 5,978,972).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to address a potentially broad interpretation of the claims covering general user locomotion. Richardson discloses a personal fitness monitor (pedometer) that tracks user locomotion, provides "cruise control" alarms when a user's speed is outside a set range, and stores timestamped data. Petitioner argued that if claims are read broadly, Richardson teaches the method of claim 20. Stewart is then combined to teach the use of a more advanced, multi-axis accelerometer system capable of measuring movement in three dimensions, a feature Richardson acknowledged its own device could be improved with.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Stewart’s superior multi-axis accelerometer system into Richardson's device to enable more detailed, three-dimensional analysis of a user's movement (e.g., a sprinter's form). This would enhance the device's utility beyond simple step counting.
    • Expectation of Success: Upgrading a sensor component in a monitoring device with a more capable, known alternative was a predictable and straightforward path to improving performance.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 117 based on the combination of Stewart, Rush, and Church (Patent 5,474,083). Church was cited for its teaching of indicating a low battery condition, a feature Petitioner argued would be an obvious addition to the primary combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition proposed a construction for the term "continuously storing said movement data after battery power is lost from a power source" (recited in claim 107).
  • Petitioner argued that, based on the specification's reference to EEPROM, a POSITA would understand this term to mean "storing movement data in a memory that does not lose its contents after battery power is lost from a power source." This construction is critical to Petitioner's argument that Stewart, which uses a removable PCMCIA memory card (a form of non-volatile memory), meets this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 20-26, 29, 104-107, 110, 113-122, 126-128, 134-138, and 175 of the ’576 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.