PTAB

IPR2018-01631

HTC Corp v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

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 for monitoring periodic human motions, such as steps, using an inertial sensor like an accelerometer. The device is configured to enter a low-power sleep mode when no relevant motion is detected to conserve battery life and uses a "cadence window" to determine step counts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Mitchnick

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mitchnick discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 2. Mitchnick teaches a mobile monitoring device with an accelerometer that detects motion patterns indicative of a user activity (e.g., sexual activity). When the monitored activity is not detected, Mitchnick’s device enters a low-power sleep state to conserve power, thus meeting the core limitations of claim 1. Petitioner contended that while Mitchnick's primary embodiment is an internal device, it expressly teaches that the device could be an external unit worn "on the body," making it a mobile device as claimed. Claim 2's limitation of continuing to monitor for the motion signature is met by Mitchnick's disclosure that its device intermittently checks for the activity to continue.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Mitchnick in view of Sheldon

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848) and Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Mitchnick teaches the base method of claim 1, including entering a sleep mode. Claim 3 adds limitations requiring, while in sleep mode, periodically sampling acceleration data for a predetermined time period and exiting sleep mode if a motion signature is detected within that period. Petitioner argued that while Mitchnick teaches periodic sampling, Sheldon explicitly teaches sampling an accelerometer signal over a predetermined time period (e.g., two seconds) to determine user activity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sheldon's predetermined sampling period with Mitchnick's system to improve power management and optimize battery cost. Using a fixed time period for the activity check avoids wasting power on indefinite sampling, a known goal of Mitchnick, and allows for more accurate prediction of power consumption to select a suitable battery.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known sampling technique from Sheldon to the analogous system of Mitchnick to achieve the predictable benefits of improved power management.

Ground 3: Claim 4 is obvious over Mitchnick, Sheldon, and Tanenhaus

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848), Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957), and Tanenhaus (Patent 6,469,639).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination for claim 3. Claim 4 adds the limitation that the inertial sensor itself has an inertial wakeup functionality. Petitioner argued that Tanenhaus discloses this exact feature, teaching a low-power MEMS accelerometer with a "wake-up sensing circuit" that detects motion exceeding a predetermined threshold and generates a wake-up signal.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Tanenhaus’s inertial wakeup sensor into the Mitchnick/Sheldon system for two primary reasons: 1) improved activity detection, as it would allow the device to wake instantly upon motion rather than waiting for a periodic timer, preventing missed activities, and 2) enhanced power savings, as the device would no longer need to periodically power up its circuitry for checks if no motion is occurring.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a known type of low-power, motion-triggered sensor (Tanenhaus) into a power-conscious monitoring device (Mitchnick/Sheldon) was a straightforward design choice with a high expectation of success.

Ground 4: Claims 5-6 and 9-10 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:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination renders the step-counting claims obvious. Fabio discloses a pedometer in a mobile device that receives acceleration data, increments a buffered step count, and uses a "validation interval" (a cadence window) to confirm step regularity. This validation interval is dynamic, updating based on the timing of the previous step, mapping to claim 5. Pasolini, which shares an inventor with Fabio, provides a more detailed teaching for claim 10: identifying the "main vertical axis" (the dominant axis) influenced by gravity and continuously updating this axis determination with each new acceleration sample to account for changes in device orientation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because they are from the same field, address the same problem (accurate step counting), and Pasolini offers a specific, known solution to a problem inherent in Fabio's device (maintaining accuracy as device orientation changes). Combining Pasolini’s orientation correction method with Fabio’s pedometer would predictably improve the quality of the acceleration signal used for step recognition.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a simple application of Pasolini's technique to improve Fabio's analogous device. Fabio itself suggests selecting the axis nearest the vertical, and Pasolini provides the explicit method for doing so dynamically, ensuring a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for two key terms central to the grounds against claims 5-10:
    • "dominant axis": Construed as "the axis most influenced by gravity," based on the patent’s specification.
    • "cadence window": Construed as "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 patent’s specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted that the petition was substantively the same as a previously filed petition (IPR2018-00424) that had already been instituted by the Board. The petition was filed concurrently with a motion for joinder to that proceeding, arguing for efficiency and consistency in adjudicating the patentability of the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 and 9-10 of the ’902 patent as unpatentable.