PTAB

IPR2019-00536

Blast Motion Inc v. NewSpin Sports LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Motion Capture and Analysis
  • Brief Description: The ’122 patent discloses a motion-capture system for analyzing the movement of an object used in sports or leisure activities, such as a golf club. The system uses a motion sensor unit (MSU) coupled to the object to capture data, a processor to analyze the data and translate it to a different location on the object, and a wireless transmitter to send the analysis to a display unit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Farrington and Hackman - 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 key components of the challenged claims: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) with accelerometers and gyroscopes integrated into a golf club's grip (the MSU), a processor that analyzes sensor data to determine movement characteristics at the club head (translating to a second location), and a wireless transmitter for sending data to a remote display. To address the limitations in claims 11 and 19 requiring a non-integrated, adjustably coupled MSU, Petitioner asserted that Hackman taught a similar swing-analysis system with a sensor unit that detachably and adjustably clamps to a golf club's shaft. The combination of Farrington's comprehensive analytics with Hackman's removable attachment mechanism was argued to render all claim limitations obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Farrington's system with Hackman's removable attachment method to gain significant cost and flexibility benefits. An integrated system like Farrington's requires a separate sensor in each piece of sports equipment, whereas Hackman's removable approach allows a single sensor unit to be used across multiple clubs or different types of equipment, reducing cost and increasing user convenience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the individual components and techniques were well-known. Designing an IMU with appropriate processing power, implementing well-understood attachment mechanisms like those in Hackman, and applying standard analytical techniques to translate data from the sensor's location to the club head were all routine and predictable tasks.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kirby and Kimber - 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 attaches to a golf club's shaft (an MSU), captures motion data, processes it to determine club head characteristics (translation), and wirelessly transmits the data for display. While Kirby's primary embodiment used an optical sensor, it expressly contemplated including optional analog sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes. Petitioner argued that Kimber taught the missing details, disclosing a motion-capture device that uses an accelerometer to measure swing data and a processor with computational techniques to translate that data into club head velocity and other parameters. The combination of Kirby's adjustable system with Kimber's specific teachings on accelerometer-based analysis allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA reading Kirby's disclosure of an optional analog sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) would have been motivated to consult a reference like Kimber to learn how to implement it effectively. Kimber provided the specific computational techniques for analyzing accelerometer data to determine club head movement, directly enabling the optional feature contemplated by Kirby. This would have been a logical step to improve the accuracy and robustness of Kirby's system by adding a different sensor modality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected success in this combination. Incorporating accelerometers and gyroscopes into motion-capture devices was routine. While there were known challenges with placing sensors away from the club head (e.g., shaft flex, noise), a POSA would have known how to mitigate these issues using familiar techniques. The combination was a predictable implementation of known technologies to achieve a known goal.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "at least one of the data and the values": Petitioner argued this phrase, present in the independent claims, should be interpreted to mean "at least one of the listed items (i.e., the data, the values, or both)" rather than requiring at least one of each. This construction is supported by the patent's abstract, which refers to displaying "the data and/or values," and is critical to mapping prior art that may transmit or display only one type of information.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’122 patent as unpatentable.