`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Under Armour Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ‘345 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged
`in the petition is unpatentable ................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`The Law of Obviousness ....................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction ................................................ 7
`
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT SATISFY ITS BURDEN UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 314(A) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Ground 1 – The Combination of Mault in view of DeLorme
`does not render the Challenged Claims Obvious .................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to combine
`Mault and DeLorme ...................................................................8
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “journal software with which a user
`interacts and creates a new journal and is capable of” ............16
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “software to format the journal
`entries to a common file format” .............................................19
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 1 further
`comprising a database comprising a plurality of database
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`entries wherein a journal entry may be tagged with one of
`the plurality of database entries”..............................................21
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 6 wherein the
`database comprises an athletic database, a nutrition
`database, a treatment database, a diagnostic database, a
`patient database, a pharmaceutical database, an insurance
`database, a medical instrument database, a health alert
`database, a competition database, or a personal database” ......22
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 1 further
`configured to provide route guidance” ....................................23
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 1 further
`configured to provide localized advertisements or
`discounts” .................................................................................23
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Mault in view of
`DeLorme discloses “formatting the journal entry to a
`common file format” ................................................................25
`
`B. Ground 2 – The Combination of Telemedicine Kit in view of
`DeLorme does not render the Challenged Claims Obvious ................ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit is
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .........................................25
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “software to format the
`journal entries to a common format” .......................................29
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 1
`further comprising a database comprising a plurality of
`database entries wherein a journal entry may be tagged
`with one of the plurality of database entries” ..........................31
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`wherein the database comprises an athletic database, a
`nutrition database, a treatment database, a diagnostic
`database, a patient database, a pharmaceutical database,
`an insurance database, a medical instrument database, a
`health alert database, a competition database, or a
`personal database” ....................................................................33
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 1
`further configured to allow the user to download
`information related to a region into the journal” .....................33
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “[t]he journal of claim 15
`wherein the information related to a region comprises
`language information, dialect information, currency
`exchange rate information, time zone information,
`location information, business information, custom
`information, law information, geography information,
`wildlife information, climate information, weather
`forecasts, transit schedules, entertainment schedules,
`attractions information, park information, or plant
`information” .............................................................................35
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Telemedicine Kit in
`view of DeLorme discloses “formatting the journal entry
`to a common file format” .........................................................35
`
`VII. THE PETITION IGNORES THE BOARD’S RULES ................................. 36
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Redundancy ......................................................................................... 36
`
`The Petition fails to adequately present the asserted grounds for
`relief. .................................................................................................... 38
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`adidas AG, et. al. v. Under Armour, Inc. and MapMyFitness, Inc.,
`Case No. 14-130-GMS (D. Del.) ........................................................................... 3
`
`Advanced Display Systems v, Inc. v. Kent State University,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 .................................................................... 39
`
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 27
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 13
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)................................................................................ 39
`
`Fontaine Engineered Products, Inc. v. Raildecks (2009), Inc.,
`IPR2013-00360, 2013 WL 8595308 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2013) .......................... 40
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus. LLC,
`IPR2013-00551, 2014 WL 2527812 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28 2014) ....................... 5, 14
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, 2013 WL 4181227 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) .........................6, 9
`
`I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp.,
`250 F. Supp. 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) ....................................................................... 27
`
`In re Bayer,
`568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978) ............................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 27, 28
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.2007) .............................................................................. 13
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 5, 12
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 26, 27
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................... 7, 15, 23, 24
`
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) ................................................................................. 27
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 5
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, (2007) ................................................................................... 5, 6, 18
`
`Lake Cable LLC v. Windy City Wire Cable & Tech. Prods. LLC,
`IPR2013-00528, 2014 WL 721999 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014) ............................. 15
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) .......................................... 36
`
`Printing Indus. of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2013-00474, 2013 WL 8595751 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013) ................... 14, 40
`
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2014-00514, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2014) ............................................ 29
`
`SRI Int’l v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 27
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Temporal Power, Ltd. v. Beacon Power, LLC,
`IPR2015-00147, 2015 WL 1940223 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2015) ......................... 29
`
`The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap LLC,
`IPR2013-00491, 2013 WL 8595755 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013) ............................... 6
`
`Voter Verified v. Premier Election Solutions,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 27
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 25, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................2, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b .................................................................................................... 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 1, 18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............................................................................................2, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 39
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. Vol. 157 (August 14, 2012) 78464 ..................................................... 40
`
`Rules
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertisement .............................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should not institute trial because the Petition fails to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1-11, 15-18, and 20 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345 (“the ‘345 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As an initial matter, the Petition does not comply with
`
`the Board’s rules. The Petition is disorganized, provides cursory analysis of the
`
`claim limitations, and contains redundant Grounds for institution. Further, the
`
`Petition fails to provide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim
`
`challenged to the extent it seeks to rely on references not specifically identified as
`
`grounds for its challenges Additionally, the Petition relies on incorporation of Dr.
`
`Paradiso’s declaration rather than presenting the full scope of Petitioner’s
`
`arguments in the Petition as the rules require.
`
`Moreover, the Petition fails to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to combine Mault and DeLorme as suggested
`
`by Petitioner.
`
` In attempting
`
`to combine
`
`these references,
`
`the Petition
`
`oversimplifies and ignores much of the teachings of the individual prior art
`
`references on which a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely. Further,
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Telemedicine Kit qualifies as a printed publication
`
`and thus constitutes prior art to the ‘345 patent. Finally, Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated that a number of key claim limitations in the Challenged Claims are
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`shown under the two proposed Grounds for Institution.
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) to prove that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Thus, the Board should
`
`deny the Petition and decline to institute inter partes review of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`II. THE ‘345 PATENT
`
`The ‘345 patent describes a customizable, modular personal network system
`
`wherein the individual components are designed to be worn, carried or used on or
`
`about the user. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. In particular, the ‘345 patent claims a
`
`portable electronic journal designed to be worn or carried by a user and a method
`
`of providing said portable electronic journal.
`
` Ex. 1001 at 71:30-72:57.
`
`Independent claim 1 is an exemplary claim of the ‘345 patent:
`
`A portable electronic journal configured to be worn or carried by a
`
`user comprising a memory to store journal entries, journal software
`
`with which a user interacts and creates a new journal and is capable of
`
`creating individual text or audio journal entries for the journal and
`
`optionally linking one or more images to the journal, a user input
`
`device that is used in creating journal entries, wherein the user input
`
`device is selected from the group consisting of a voice input device
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`and a text input device to create journal entries, a digital camera that
`
`creates images to store with the created journal entries, a clock to tag
`
`the journal entries with date and time, a communication device to
`
`upload the journal entries to a personal computer, and software to
`
`format the journal entries to a common file format.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 71:30-43. Independent claim 20 covers a method of providing a
`
`portable electronic journal that generally corresponds to the limitations of claim 1.
`
`Dependent claims 2 – 19 include a variety of limitations regarding the types of
`
`information collected by the journal, the manner in which the information is
`
`collected, and how information is stored within the portable electronic journal.
`
`The ‘345 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. No. 12/617,985 filed on
`
`November 13, 2009. The ‘345 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60,270,400, filed on February 20, 2001.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The ‘345 patent has been asserted against Petitioner in the District of
`
`Delaware in the litigation styled as: adidas AG, et. al. v. Under Armour, Inc. and
`
`MapMyFitness, Inc., Case No. 14-130-GMS (D. Del.). Petitioner filed petitions to
`
`institute inter partes reviews of two patents that are related to the ’345 patent,
`
`IPR2015-00697 (U.S. 7,905,815) and IPR2015-00700 (U.S. 8,579,767), and three
`
`other patents asserted in the litigation: IPR2015-00694 (U.S. 7,292,867),
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2015-00695 (U.S. 7,805,149), and IPR2015-00696 (U.S. 8,068,858).
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in
`the petition is unpatentable
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) identifies the threshold standard that must be met to
`
`institute an inter partes review:
`
`(a) Threshold.— The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`
`any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`B.
`
`The Law of Obviousness
`
`An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) examines the difference
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art to determine whether “the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made” to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art. Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d
`
`1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The factual underpinnings, often referred to as the
`
`Graham factors, include 1) the scope and content of prior art; 2) the level of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`ordinary skill in the art; 3) the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art; and 4) evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`“Rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006)). See also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688
`
`F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Even if the references disclosed all of the
`
`limitations of the asserted claims, which they do not, S & N still needed to proffer
`
`evidence indicating why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine
`
`the references to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Instead, obviousness requires
`
`the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of
`
`research and development to yield the claimed invention. KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at
`
`421. Petitions providing “unexplained citations [to references] are inadequate to
`
`demonstrate a reason to modify the teachings of a particular reference or to
`
`combine the teachings of two or more references to teach or suggest a limitation of
`
`a challenged claim.” Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Indus. LLC, IPR2013-00552, 2014
`
`WL 1384070, at 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2014)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The Board emphasizes this requirement in Heart Failure Technologies, LLC
`
`v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, 2013 WL 4181227, at *5 (P.T.A.B. July
`
`31, 2013). In Heart Failure Technologies, the Board denied an IPR petition,
`
`stating:
`
`The fact that Murphy, Khairkhahan, and Lane all concern human heart
`
`repair is not in itself sufficient rationale for making the combination.
`
`Many heart repair devices exist. That fact alone would not make it
`
`obvious to combine their features. Petitioner must show some reason
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to
`
`combine particular available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by
`
`the prior art, to reach the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). This, the Petitioner has not
`
`done. That the references relied upon all relate to human heart repair
`
`does not amount to “some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See id.
`
`(internal quotations omitted).
`
`Id. (emphasis in original). See also The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00491, 2013 WL 8595755, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013).
`
`It is also improper for Petitioner to use hindsight reconstruction for
`
`obviousness based on Applicant’s own disclosure. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by
`
`using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references,
`
`combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the
`
`claims in suit.’”).
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Petition must identify how each challenged claim is to be construed. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because the ‘345 Patent has not expired, all claims are to
`
`be construed with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`
`“advertisement.” Petitioner and Dr. Paradiso proposed construing “advertisement”
`
`as “a calling attention to or making known.” Petitioner offers absolutely no
`
`support in the record for such a construction. Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`appears to come from dictionary.reference.com, where in the third definition for
`
`advertisement is “the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention
`
`of the public.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertisement. However,
`
`Petitioner ignores the primary definition from this resource, which defines an
`
`advertisement as “a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`magazines, on radio or television, etc.” Id. For purposes of this Preliminary
`
`Response, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would understand
`
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “advertisement” is “an announcement
`
`presented to help sell a product or service.” This is consistent with the
`
`specification’s disclosure that a user of the ‘345 patent’s claimed invention may be
`
`presented with an advertisement for a local business. Ex. 1001 at 65:39-42; 66:50-
`
`59.
`
`Patent Owner reserves its full arguments and evidence, including expert
`
`testimony, related to any claim construction issues that may be relevant to this
`
`proceeding for its Patent Owner Response, in the event the Board decides to grant
`
`institution.
`
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT SATISFY ITS BURDEN UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 314(A)
`
`A. Ground 1 – The Combination of Mault in view of DeLorme does
`not render the Challenged Claims Obvious
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a motivation to combine Mault
`and DeLorme
`
`The Petition does not identify an adequate motivation to combine Mault
`
`(Exhibit 1004) and DeLorme (Exhibit 1005). Petitioner argues that it would have
`
`been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two references
`
`because “[e]ach reference discloses advantages associated with portable electronic
`
`devices that are aimed at tracking personal information about a user . . . .” Petition
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`at 10. However, this description of the two references grossly simplifies the
`
`disclosures of the two references and fails to sufficiently identify a motivation to
`
`combine. Simply citing two references and alleging that they relate to the same
`
`subject matter does not establish prima facie obviousness. Heart Failure
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, 2013 WL 4181227, at 5
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013). Rather, the Petition must articulate a substantive reason
`
`to combine the references. The Petition fails to do so.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,513,532 to Mault describes its field of invention as activity
`
`and diet monitors. Ex. 1004 at 1:23-25. Mault identifies a number of deficiencies
`
`with pre-existing diet and activity monitors. Id. at 1:29-3:6. Mault then discloses
`
`that the invention described therein improves on the prior art by providing a
`
`combination diet and activity monitor. Id. at 3:9-11. Specifically, Mault discloses
`
`a portable monitoring device that is interconnected with a number of sensors,
`
`including a body activity monitor that may include a heart rate monitor or a GPS
`
`antenna. Id. at 3:34-48; 7:6-9.
`
`Petitioner describes Mault as teaching “that a PDA can be used to record a
`
`user’s location over time.” Petition at 10. This is an overstatement of the
`
`disclosures of Mault. Mault does teach that, in one embodiment, the body activity
`
`monitor includes a GPS antenna that is used to periodically or continuously
`
`determine the location of the subject. Ex. 1004 at 8:47-53. In this embodiment,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`the GPS information is used to determine changes in position of the subject as well
`
`as rate of change in position to evaluate body activity. Id. at 8:57-61. However,
`
`Mault does not teach that this embodiment takes the form of a PDA.
`
`In fact, Mault’s disclosures regarding a PDA are limited at best. Mault
`
`discloses that in one embodiment, the monitoring device may take the form of a
`
`wrist-mounted embodiment. Id. at 6:21-24. Mault discloses that this embodiment
`
`may be enabled to communicate with a local computer or a PDA, but in no way
`
`suggests that the local computer or PDA are used to provide route directions to the
`
`user. Id. at 6:41-65. Finally, Mault discloses that the monitoring device may take
`
`the form of a PDA, but makes no disclosures as to the ability of the PDA to
`
`provide route directions. Id. at 18:7-19. Moreover, Mault cautions against using
`
`this embodiment of the monitor in that “[u]se of the PDA as the monitoring device
`
`allows enhanced functionality at the cost of additional bulk.” Id. at 18:14-15.
`
`In sum, Mault discloses the use of a GPS antenna to determine user activity,
`
`but in no way suggests the use of a GPS antenna to provide route guidance.
`
`Mault’s limited discussion of the PDA embodiment makes no reference to
`
`incorporating a GPS antenna or other functionality from other disclosed
`
`embodiments, and identifies distinct disadvantages associated with the PDA
`
`embodiment. Id. at 18:14-15.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158
`
`to DeLorme relates
`
`to an
`
`integrated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`routing/mapping information system capable of allowing cooperation between
`
`desktop computer cartographic applications and handheld devices, such as PDAs.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Abstract. The PDA of DeLorme “may be optionally linked to a GPS
`
`receiver.” Id. The system described in DeLorme is used to provide location and
`
`route guidance information for travel planning. Id. at 13:2-6.
`
`In setting forth its alleged motivation to combine, Petitioner makes no
`
`attempt to address the clear difference in the needs of a user that is using route
`
`guidance for travel purposes versus a user that is using GPS systems to evaluate
`
`athletic performance in the way that Mault discloses. Instead, Petitioner simply
`
`states that both systems allow a user to track information about a user’s location
`
`over time. However, that conclusory claim ignores that Mault and DeLorme seek
`
`to collect different quality information regarding the user’s location.
`
`For instance, the Petition at pages 42-43 points to DeLorme’s Figure 1 in
`
`support of its argument. Portions of Figure 1 include excerpts from a user manual
`
`included with DeLorme’s SOLUS software. Portions of this manual related to the
`
`SOLUS software teach away from being able to use the device to track user
`
`activity. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
`
`upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
`
`in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Here, Figure 1 of DeLorme includes the following description of using the
`
`SOLUS software to track a user’s position:
`
`Safety Warning: Bring a passenger along to serve as GPS operator
`
`while you are driving a vehicle. Solus Pro should not be used in
`
`automatic navigation or guidance systems or for any purpose
`
`requiring precision measurement of distance or direction. See GPS
`
`Position Accuracy for additional information.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1A6-5; see also Ex. 1005 at 17:3-9.. The warning and disclaimer are
`
`repeated throughout DeLorme (see Ex. 1005, at Figs. 1A5, 1A6-2, 1A6-4, 1A6-7,
`
`1A6-8, 1A6-10, 1A6-12, 1A6-13) and the inability of the SOLUS system to
`
`provide precise measurement of distance and direction is further confirmed by
`
`DeLorme’s various Figures, such as Figures 1C and 1N. Thus, the embodiment
`
`upon which the Petition relies contains two key disclaimers that would teach away
`
`from using that system for tracking athletic performance: 1) the system should not
`
`be used in automatic navigation or guidance systems and 2) the system should not
`
`be used for any purpose requiring precision measurement of distance or direction.
`
`
`
`However, a system using route guidance for athletic purposes plainly
`
`requires both automatic navigation and precision measurement. An individual
`
`using route guidance while on a run plainly will not want to have to continually use
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`scroll buttons to zoom in and out of the map to determine her position, heading, or
`
`the remainder of the route. Further, said user would want precision measurement
`
`of distance and direction as distances, not only for accurately evaluating the user’s
`
`performance, but also because distances of 40 feet can greatly impact the user’s
`
`path while on a run. Thus, the portions relied upon by Petitioner plainly indicate
`
`that DeLorme’s system would not be useable for a user requiring tracking athletic
`
`performance. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
`
`1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“An inference of nonobviousness is especially strong
`
`where the prior art’s teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to
`
`why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.”); In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[A] reference
`
`teaches away from a combination when using it in that combination would produce
`
`an inoperative result.”).
`
`Petitioner makes absolutely no attempt to explain how a system, such as the
`
`SOLUS system, which expressly and repeatedly insists that it has limitations and
`
`should not be used for activities requiring automatic navigation or precise
`
`measurement of distance and direction, could actually be utilized by a person
`
`engaged in physical activity. Simply put, the location tracking needs of a user
`
`operating a vehicle are drastically different than the location tracking n