PTAB

IPR2018-01028

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring periodic human motions
  • Brief Description: The ’902 patent discloses an electronic device, such as a pedometer, that uses an accelerometer to detect and count periodic human motions like steps. The device features a "cadence window," a time frame after a detected step, to validate subsequent steps, and can dynamically update this window based on the user's changing cadence.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Dependent Claim 8 - Claim 8 is obvious over Fabio in view of Pasolini, further in view of Tsuji.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097), Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997), and Tsuji (Patent 7,297,088).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Fabio and Pasolini renders the base method of claim 5 (from which claim 8 depends) obvious, and the addition of Tsuji teaches the specific limitations of claim 8.
      • Fabio taught a pedometer method that receives acceleration data, increments a step count in a buffer, and uses a "validation interval" to confirm the regularity of steps. This interval, which is analogous to the ’902 patent’s "cadence window," was defined based on the duration of the immediately preceding step. Fabio’s method used a default interval until a regular gait was established (step count below a threshold) and then used a dynamic interval that updated with each step (step count at or above the threshold), thus disclosing the core method of claim 5.
      • Pasolini taught an improved pedometer that continuously updated the selected accelerometer axis to be the one most aligned with gravity, thereby accounting for changes in the device's orientation. This addressed a known problem in the art.
      • Tsuji taught a method to enhance pedometer precision by calculating a "reference walk cycle" based on a moving average of a predetermined number of the most recent valid steps. A subsequent step was only counted if its cycle time fell within a range of this moving average, directly teaching claim 8's limitation of "computing a rolling average of stepping periods of previously counted steps" and "setting the dynamic step cadence window based on the rolling average."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would first combine Fabio and Pasolini. As they share inventors and address the same field, a POSITA would integrate Pasolini's superior orientation-correction technique into Fabio's step-validation framework to achieve the predictable result of improved accuracy. Subsequently, a POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute Fabio's method of basing the dynamic "validation interval" on only the single preceding step with Tsuji's more robust method of using a moving average of multiple prior steps. This would be a simple substitution of one known technique for another to predictably improve step-counting accuracy by smoothing variations in the user's gait, a well-understood goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining these known elements involved applying standard data-smoothing techniques (moving average from Tsuji) to a known pedometer system (Fabio/Pasolini) to solve a known problem (step-counting inaccuracy due to gait variations). The result was predictable and improved performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Base Claim 5 (as incorporated into Claim 8) - Claim 5 is 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 asserted that Fabio taught all elements of claim 5. Fabio’s method involved: receiving acceleration data meeting stepping criteria, incrementing a step count in a buffer, using a "validation interval TV" as a default cadence window when the step count was below a threshold, and determining a dynamic, updated "validation interval TV" when the step count was at or above the threshold. This dynamic interval compensated for changes in step-to-step duration, mapping directly to the "dynamic step cadence window" of the claim.
    • Motivation to Combine: While arguing Fabio alone rendered claim 5 obvious, Petitioner noted that to the extent any element was considered missing, Pasolini supplied it. A POSITA would combine Pasolini’s technique for identifying the vertical axis at each acceleration sample with Fabio’s pedometer to improve the quality of the acceleration signal used for step recognition. This would be an obvious design choice to enhance the accuracy of Fabio's device, as both patents addressed the same problem of erroneous step counting in portable devices.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable application of a known orientation-correction technique to a known pedometer system, with the expected outcome of enhanced step detection accuracy.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "cadence window": Petitioner proposed this term be construed according to its explicit definition in the ’902 patent’s specification: "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This construction was central to mapping Fabio's "validation interval" to the claimed feature.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued this petition was not redundant to a previously filed petition (IPR2018-00424) against the same patent. The current petition was asserted to be distinct because it challenged a previously unchallenged claim (claim 8) and relied on new prior art (Tsuji) that was located after the first petition was filed and is directed specifically to the unique limitations of claim 8.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claim 8 of the ’902 patent as unpatentable.