PTAB

IPR2018-01653

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Periodic Human Motion
  • Brief Description: The ’902 patent describes an electronic device for monitoring periodic human motions like walking or running. The device uses an inertial sensor, such as an accelerometer, to detect motion cycles and enters a low-power "sleep mode" to conserve battery life when no relevant acceleration is detected.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Mitchnick.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Mitchnick teaches every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Mitchnick discloses a mobile monitoring device with an accelerometer (an inertial sensor) that detects motion by observing characteristic patterns of a user's activity. The device determines if the motion has a signature indicative of a configured activity (e.g., sexual activity) by comparing observed acceleration characteristics to a template. When this motion signature is not detected, the device enters a low-power sleep state, as required by claim 1. For claim 2, Mitchnick teaches that when the activity signature is detected, the device continues to monitor for future motions by repetitively retrieving sensor data.

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 for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claim 3, which adds limitations for actions taken "while the mobile device is in the sleep mode," including periodically sampling acceleration data over a "predetermined time period." Petitioner asserted that Mitchnick teaches periodically sampling acceleration data while in sleep mode to check for activity. To the extent Mitchnick does not explicitly teach sampling over a predetermined time period, Sheldon was argued to supply this limitation by disclosing an accelerometer that monitors user activity by analyzing signal changes occurring within a "given sampling time period," such as a two-second window.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sheldon’s technique with Mitchnick’s system to improve power management and optimize battery cost. Using a fixed sampling period, as taught by Sheldon, avoids the power waste associated with indefinite sampling periods, directly addressing Mitchnick’s goal of extending battery life.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected that incorporating a known, timed sampling method into Mitchnick’s power-saving framework would predictably improve its efficiency.

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 for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 2 to address dependent claim 4, which requires the inertial sensor to have an "inertial wakeup functionality." Petitioner asserted the combination of Mitchnick and Sheldon teaches the core method but lacks a specific wake-up trigger within the sensor itself. Tanenhaus was argued to provide this element by teaching a low-power MEMS accelerometer that includes a "wake-up sensing circuit." This circuit senses initial activity (e.g., vibration) and, upon the signal passing a predetermined threshold, switches the device from a low-power state to a higher-power state.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Tanenhaus’s inertial wake-up circuit to improve the activity detection accuracy and further preserve power in the Mitchnick/Sheldon system. This would prevent the system from missing activity that occurs between Mitchnick’s periodic checks and would eliminate wasteful periodic wake-ups when no motion is occurring at all.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known wake-up sensor with a motion monitoring device was argued to be a predictable way to enhance system responsiveness and efficiency.

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 for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued claims 5-6 and 9-10, which relate to step counting and dynamic cadence windows, are obvious over Fabio and Pasolini. Fabio teaches a pedometer that uses a "validation interval" (a cadence window) to confirm step regularity, which is updated for each step once a regular gait is established (a dynamic cadence window). Claim 10 requires determining device orientation to select a "dominant axis." Fabio teaches using a multi-axis accelerometer and selecting the axis nearest the vertical (the axis most influenced by gravity) for step recognition. Pasolini, which shares the same inventive entity as Fabio, was argued to supplement this by teaching the specific improvement of re-identifying this main vertical axis at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample to account for changes in device orientation during use.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references address the same problem of pedometer accuracy in portable devices. Pasolini’s technique for continuously updating the vertical axis based on orientation is a direct solution to a known problem in systems like Fabio's. Implementing Pasolini's more robust orientation correction method into Fabio's pedometer would predictably improve the quality of the acceleration signal and result in more accurate step counting.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying Pasolini's known technique for orientation correction to improve Fabio's similar device was presented as an obvious design choice with a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dominant axis": For claim 10, Petitioner proposed this term includes "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction is central to the argument that Fabio and Pasolini teach selecting the vertical axis for step detection based on its greater gravitational influence.
  • "cadence window": For claim 5, Petitioner proposed this term includes "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This aligns with Fabio's teaching of a "validation interval" used to verify the timing of a subsequent step relative to a previous one.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • The petition was filed concurrently with a Motion for Joinder with an already-instituted IPR proceeding, Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-00424, which challenges the same patent.

6. Relief Requested

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