PTAB
IPR2019-00536
Blast Motion, Inc. v. Newspin Sports LLC
1. Case Identification
- Case #: IPR2019-00536
- Patent #: 9,656,122
- Filed: January 9, 2019
- Petitioner(s): Blast Motion, Inc., and TaylorMade Golf Company, Inc.
- Patent Owner(s): Newspin Sports, LLC
- Challenged Claims: 1-22
2. Patent Overview
- Title: Motion Capture and Analysis
- Brief Description: The ’122 patent describes a motion-capture system for analyzing the movement of an object used in a sports or leisure activity, such as a golf swing. The system comprises a motion sensor unit (MSU) coupled to the object, a processor to analyze sensor data, a wireless transmitter, and a display unit.
3. Grounds for Unpatentability
Ground 1: Claims 1-22 are obvious over Farrington in view of Hackman.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Farrington (Application # 2005/0261073) and Hackman (WO 00/29075).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Farrington taught a complete motion-capture system with all the claimed components. Farrington’s system used an inertial measurement unit (IMU) with accelerometers and gyroscopes integrated into a golf club’s grip (a first location) to capture movement data. The system’s processor analyzed this data to determine movement characteristics at the club’s head (a second location), and a wireless transmitter sent the analysis to a remote computer for display. To the extent the claims require a non-embedded, adjustably attached sensor, Petitioner asserted that Hackman taught a swing-analysis system with a sensor unit that was removably and adjustably attached to a club’s shaft using various attachment mechanisms.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the robust system of Farrington with the removable attachment mechanism of Hackman to achieve significant cost benefits and flexibility. This combination would allow a user to purchase a single, removable sensor for use on multiple clubs, rather than requiring the purchase of multiple, distinct instruments each with its own integrated sensor. This would also provide greater flexibility, as the user would not be tied to a single, specific club for analysis.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The components (accelerometers, gyroscopes, processors) and their functions were well-understood. Designing and implementing an attachment mechanism like Hackman’s for a sensor system like Farrington’s was a routine task, and the analytical techniques needed to translate data from a grip or shaft location to the club head were well-known and predictable.
Ground 2: Claims 1-22 are obvious over Kirby in view of Kimber.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Kirby (Application # 2007/0206837) and Kimber (Great Britain Patent Application Publication 2430890).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kirby taught a portable swing analyzer that functions as the claimed MSU, which adjustably attached to the upper shaft of a golf club. During a swing, Kirby's analyzer captured motion data—primarily via an optical sensor—to determine movement characteristics of the club's head. Kirby disclosed that this analysis could be performed onboard the analyzer or remotely, with results transmitted wirelessly to a display unit. While Kirby primarily used an optical sensor, it expressly contemplated using analog sensors like accelerometers. Petitioner argued that Kimber taught the specific computational techniques for translating movement data captured by an accelerometer to a distanced location, such as calculating club head velocity.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement Kirby's system using the well-understood accelerometers and gyroscopes that Kirby itself suggested as optional sensors. In doing so, a POSITA would look to a reference like Kimber for the established techniques needed to process data from an accelerometer to determine swing parameters. This combination would leverage the benefits of a portable system like Kirby's while using a more common sensor technology with well-known data processing methods, potentially improving accuracy over an image-only analysis.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success. Kirby already contemplated using accelerometers, and Kimber provided the routine, well-understood methods for processing accelerometer data to analyze a golf swing. A POSITA would have been familiar with the advantages of placing the sensor near the grip (as taught by Kirby) to reduce impact-related noise and would have possessed the ordinary skill to mitigate any inaccuracies using known techniques, such as those described by Kimber, yielding predictable results.
4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- "at least one of the data and the values": Petitioner argued that this term, present in the independent claims, should be construed to mean "at least one of the listed items (i.e., the data, the values, or both) rather than at least one of each (i.e., at least one datum and at least one value)." This construction is broader and supported by the patent's abstract, which described the system as displaying "the data and/or values." This interpretation lowers the burden for the prior art, as a reference need only show the transmission and display of sensor data, or processed values, or both, but not necessarily both simultaneously.
5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 9,656,122 as unpatentable.