PTAB

IPR2018-01577

LG Electronics Inc v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Monitoring Human Activity
Brief Description: The ’508 patent discloses methods and devices for monitoring human activity, particularly for counting periodic motions like steps. The patent’s claims are directed to two primary concepts: (1) using a tri-axial inertial sensor to determine a "dominant axis" (the axis most influenced by gravity) and counting user steps relative to that axis, and (2) employing two distinct operating modes—a "non-active" mode where potential steps are buffered and validated, and an "active" mode where validated steps are added to a total count.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pasolini teaches the core "dominant axis" concept of the ’508 patent. Pasolini discloses a pedometer with a multi-axis accelerometer that identifies the "main vertical axis" as the one most aligned with gravity for step detection. Petitioner asserted that Pasolini’s system continuously updates this axis "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample" to account for changes in device orientation, directly mapping to the limitations of continuously determining, assigning, and updating a dominant axis as claimed. The "dominant axis logic" and "counting logic" of the device claims were argued to be taught by Pasolini’s processing unit and its associated step-counting algorithms.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Fabio teaches the mode-switching and buffering concepts of the ’508 patent. Fabio describes a pedometer with two distinct counting procedures. A first procedure (the claimed "non-active mode") detects and buffers steps in a control counter (Nvc) without adding them to the total step count until a "condition of regularity" is met. Upon meeting this condition, the device switches to a second procedure (the claimed "active mode") where subsequent steps are immediately added to the total step count (Nvt). Fabio’s use of a "validation interval" to confirm step regularity was mapped to the claimed "cadence window."
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997) and Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground combined the references to teach claims requiring both a dominant axis and dynamic cadence features. Petitioner argued that Pasolini provides the basic system of a pedometer that determines a dominant axis for step counting. Fabio provides the more advanced features recited in the dependent claims, such as maintaining and continuously updating a "cadence window" (Fabio’s "validation interval") and using dynamic motion criteria (Fabio's self-adapting acceleration thresholds) to validate steps.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fabio with Pasolini’s device. Both references address the same problem of inaccurate step counting in portable devices. A POSITA would combine Fabio's sophisticated step validation logic—which uses regularity tests and dynamic cadence windows to filter out false positives—with Pasolini's dominant-axis-based pedometer to create a more accurate and robust device.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying a known technique (Fabio's validation logic) to a similar device (Pasolini's pedometer) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance (enhanced step-counting accuracy).

"dominant axis" (claims 1, 11): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction was central to the argument that Pasolini’s disclosure of identifying the "main vertical axis" based on gravity rendered the claims obvious.
"logic" terms (e.g., "dominant axis logic," "counting logic"): Petitioner asserted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms should be understood to encompass hardware, software, or a combination thereof for performing the recited function, as described in the ’508 patent. Petitioner also presented an alternative means-plus-function construction under §112, sixth paragraph, identifying the corresponding structure in the specification, should the Patent Owner overcome the presumption against such a construction. This was positioned to counter potential indefiniteness arguments.
"cadence window" (claims 3, 6, etc.): Petitioner argued this term is defined by the specification as "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This construction aligned Fabio’s "validation interval," which is based on the timing of the immediately preceding step, with the claimed feature.

The petition noted that it was substantively the same as a previously filed petition (IPR2018-00387) that had already been instituted by the Board. The petition was filed concurrently with a motion for joinder to that proceeding, presenting a statutory basis for institution rather than a reason for discretionary denial.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 19 of the ’508 patent as unpatentable.