PTAB

IPR2018-01589

HTC Corp v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Human Activity
  • Brief Description: The ’508 patent discloses methods and devices for counting periodic human motions, such as steps, using an inertial sensor. The technology involves two central concepts: (1) using a tri-axial accelerometer to determine and continuously update a "dominant axis" aligned with gravity and counting motions along that axis, and (2) employing a dual-mode system that first buffers motions in a "non-active mode" until validated and then counts them in an "active mode."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are obvious over Pasolini

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pasolini teaches every element of the "dominant axis" claims. Pasolini describes a pedometer with a tri-axial accelerometer that identifies the "main vertical axis" as the one with the highest mean acceleration due to gravity. This axis is identified "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample," which Petitioner asserted meets the limitations of continuously determining device orientation and updating the axis as orientation changes. Petitioner contended this "main vertical axis" is analogous to the claimed "dominant axis" and that Pasolini further teaches counting steps by monitoring accelerations relative to this axis. For the corresponding device claims (11-12), Pasolini's processing unit, which performs these functions, was argued to be the claimed "dominant axis logic" and "counting logic."

Ground 2: Claims 6-8, 15-16, and 19 are obvious over Fabio

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Fabio teaches the dual-mode step counting system claimed in the ’508 patent. Fabio discloses a "first counting procedure" (argued to be a non-active mode) where detected steps are buffered in a "valid control steps" counter but not added to the total step count until a regularity condition is met. Upon meeting this condition, the device switches to a "second counting procedure" (argued to be an active mode) where subsequent validated steps are immediately added to the total count. Petitioner equated Fabio's "validation interval TV," used to determine regularity, with the claimed "cadence windows." For device claims 15-16 and 19, Fabio's control unit was identified as the claimed "counting logic" and "mode logic."

Ground 3: Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 20 are obvious over Pasolini in view of Fabio

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997) and Fabio (Patent 7,698,097).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued for combining Pasolini's dominant-axis pedometer with Fabio's more advanced step validation features to arrive at the subject matter of the dependent claims. For claim 3, which adds maintaining and continuously updating a "cadence window," Petitioner mapped this to Fabio's "validation interval TV," which is updated for each new step based on the timing of the preceding step. For claim 4, which requires a "dynamic motion criterion," Petitioner argued that Pasolini itself teaches dynamic, self-adaptive acceleration thresholds that change to reflect current conditions, such as variations in gait speed or terrain, and that Fabio teaches a similar motion criteria.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have recognized that Pasolini and Fabio describe similar pedometer devices, are in the same field of endeavor, and address the same problem of inaccurate step counting. Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Fabio's known techniques for improving step-counting accuracy (e.g., regularity tests and cadence windows) with Pasolini's similar device to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate step counter.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination was a straightforward application of a known technique (Fabio's validation logic) to a similar device (Pasolini's pedometer) that would yield a predictable improvement in performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for constructions based on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard consistent with the patent specification.
  • "dominant axis" (claims 1, 11): Proposed construction is "the axis most influenced by gravity," based on the patent's disclosure that the dominant axis is assigned after identifying a gravitational influence.
  • "cadence window" (claims 3, 6, etc.): Proposed construction is "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step," a definition taken directly from the ’508 patent's specification.
  • "logic" terms (e.g., "dominant axis logic," "counting logic"): Petitioner argued these terms should be interpreted broadly to encompass "hardware, software, or a combination thereof" for performing the recited function. Petitioner also reserved the argument that if these terms were construed as means-plus-function limitations, the prior art still discloses the corresponding structure.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, 19, and 20 of the ’508 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.