PTAB

IPR2018-01458

LG Electronics Inc v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Human Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’723 patent discloses a method and device for monitoring human activity by counting periodic motions, such as steps, using an inertial sensor. The technology focuses on two main concepts: assigning a "dominant axis" relative to gravity using a tri-axial accelerometer and using an adaptive "cadence window" to accurately detect and count steps.

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 asserted that Fabio, the primary reference, taught the core elements of the challenged claims. Fabio described a pedometer using an inertial sensor that counts steps by identifying acceleration peaks (a "motion cycle") that occur within a "validation interval" (the claimed "cadence window"). This validation interval is updated based on the timing of the previous step, teaching the claimed concept of an adaptive cadence window. Fabio further taught using a multi-axis accelerometer and advantageously performing step recognition by selecting the signal from the detection axis "nearest to the vertical," which Petitioner argued disclosed the claimed "dominant axis."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued Pasolini, which shares an inventive entity and filing date with Fabio, provided the express teaching missing from Fabio for dynamically updating the dominant axis. Pasolini taught that the "main vertical axis can be identified at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample" to account for variations in the device's orientation. A POSITA would combine Pasolini's dynamic orientation correction with Fabio's pedometer because it was a known technique to improve a similar device. This combination would solve the known problem of orientation changes during use, leading to more accurate step counting.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because applying Pasolini's technique for continuously identifying the axis most aligned with gravity to Fabio’s system was a predictable solution to improve the accuracy and robustness of Fabio's already-disclosed pedometer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “dominant axis”: Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction was based on the ’723 patent’s specification, which described identifying a gravitational influence to assign the dominant axis.
  • “cadence window”: Petitioner asserted this term was 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 construction was critical to mapping Fabio's "validation interval" to the claimed feature.
  • Terms directed to “Logic” (e.g., “dominant axis logic,” “counting logic”): Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms should be understood to encompass hardware, software, or a combination thereof for performing the recited function. Petitioner also provided an alternative construction under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, identifying the claimed function and the corresponding structure (e.g., a control unit and associated software) described in the specification. This was intended to show the claims were obvious even if construed as means-plus-function limitations.

5. Relief Requested

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