`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 8,725,276
`
`
`
`Filed:
`
`
`
`March 8, 2013
`
`Issued:
`
`May 13, 2014
`
`Inventors: Michael D. Ellis, Caron Schwartz
`
`Title:
`
`Performance Monitoring Methods
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TED SELKER
`
`I, Dr. Ted Selker, make this declaration in connection with the petition for
`
`inter partes review submitted by Petitioner for U.S. Patent No. 8,725,276 (UA-
`
`1001 to the Petition, the “276 Patent”). All statements herein made of my own
`
`knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true. I am over age 21 and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`1
`
`UA-1003.001
`
`
`
`declaration, the positions articulated herein are my own, and I have no stake in the
`
`outcome of this proceeding or any related litigation or administrative proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`1. Appendix A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. I am currently an
`
`independent consultant with my own company, Selker Design Research. I also
`
`serve as Director of Research on Accessible Voting at University of California
`
`Berkeley. I spent the previous five years as Director of Considerate Systems
`
`research at Carnegie Mellon University Silicon Valley. While there, I worked to
`
`develop the PhD program and campus’ research mission. I taught a series of
`
`classes in research methods, HCI, Android product design, and research in voting
`
`with disabilities.
`
`2.
`
`I also spent ten years as an Associate Professor at the MIT Media
`
`Laboratory where I created the Context Aware Computing group, co-directed the
`
`Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, and directed the CI/DI kitchen of the
`
`future/design of the future project. My work strives to demonstrate considerate
`
`technology, in which people’s intentions are recognized and respected.
`
`3. My successes at targeted product creation and enhancement led to my role
`
`of IBM Fellow and director of User Systems Ergonomics Research at IBM. I have
`
`also served as a consulting professor at Stanford University, taught at Hampshire
`
`College, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Brown University. I also
`
`2
`
`UA-1003.002
`
`
`
`created research technology prototypes at Weyerhaeuser Research labs,
`
`Brown&Sharpe, Xerox PARC, and Atari Research Labs. I have also worked on
`
`related prototypes in many consulting engagements.
`
`4. My innovation has been responsible for profitable and award-winning
`
`products ranging from notebook computers to operating systems. For example, my
`
`design of the TrackPoint in-keyboard pointing device is used in many notebook
`
`computers. My visualization and visual interface work has made impacts in the
`
`performance of the PowerPC, usability in OS/2, ThinkPad setup, Google maps, etc.
`
`My adaptive help system has been the basis of products.
`
`5. My work has resulted in numerous awards, patents, and papers, and has
`
`often been featured in the press. I was given the American Association for People
`
`with Disabilities Thomas Paine Award for my work on voting technology, and I
`
`was co-recipient of the Computer Science Policy Leader Award for Scientific
`
`American 50.
`
`6. My opinions herein are based on my experience and knowledge and the
`
`information I have reviewed as of the date of this report. Pertinent to the
`
`technology at issue here, I helped supervise many projects using mobile computing
`
`relating to health. For example, in the 1990s I built exercise equipment that used a
`
`model of a user to encourage them. I made a pad including an array of pressure
`
`sensors used to measure sleep patterns, as well as identify and alert a user of
`
`3
`
`UA-1003.003
`
`
`
`dangerous symptoms of health risks such as sleep apnea or coma. I worked on
`
`many wearable demonstration systems for business education and entertainment
`
`that were widely written about. I informally advised the wearable research team at
`
`MIT Media lab starting in 1994. I advised Vadim Gerosimov’s Any Sign of Life
`
`wearable biosensing, recording, and feedback PhD project starting in 1998. I
`
`advised many students creating demonstrations of using a map to find and
`
`communicate opportunities at MIT starting in 1999. In the last 5 years, I created
`
`apps at CMU Silicon Valley to measure tremor, pulse, and blood oxygen to assess,
`
`among other things, elder pain. I also advised the creation of many location aware
`
`and persuasive exercise apps in my classes and research at CMU.
`
`7. Even more apropos of this Declaration and Petition, I was involved in
`
`creating hardware to support a scientific expedition to Everest in 1998. Indeed, I
`
`went to Everest and helped debug software and hardware to support both the GPS
`
`mapping initiative and the biometrics initiatives of that expedition. For the
`
`purpose of this report I in part rely on my experiences in all of these areas.
`
`II.
`Status as an Independent Expert Witness
`8. As a sub-contractor to IMS Expert Services, I was retained in this matter
`
`by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil”) to provide various observations
`
`regarding the 276 Patent and prior art thereto. IMS Expert Services is being
`
`compensated at the rate of $720 per hour for my work, of which I receive $500 per
`
`4
`
`UA-1003.004
`
`
`
`hour. Similarly, IMS Expert Services is being compensated at the rate of $375 per
`
`hour for my travel time, of which I receive $250 per hour. My fee is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of this matter or on any of the positions I have taken, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`9.
`
`I have been advised that Weil represents the Petitioner in this matter. I
`
`have no direct financial interest in the Petitioner.
`
`10. I have been advised that adidas AG (hereinafter referred to as “Adidas”)
`
`owns the 276 Patent. I have no financial interest in Adidas, including its
`
`subsidiaries, or the 276 Patent. I have never had any contact with Michael D. Ellis
`
`or Caron Schwartz, the named inventors of the 276 Patent.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`11. I have reviewed the 276 Patent and relevant portions of its prosecution
`
`history. I have also reviewed the prior art relied on in the Petition and herein
`
`including the Satava reference (UA-1004, Richard Satava et al., The Physiologic
`
`Cipher at Altitude: Telemedicine and Real-Time Monitoring of Climbers on Mount
`
`Everest, 6 TELEMEDICINE J. AND E-HEALTH 303 (Sept. 2000), “Satava”), the
`
`Garmin eTrex Summit reference (UA-1005, owner’s manual dated May 2000,
`
`“eTrex Summit”), the Stubbs patent (UA-1006, U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,759,
`
`“Stubbs”), and the Gardner patent (UA-1007, U.S. Pat. No. 7,454,002, “Gardner”).
`
`5
`
`UA-1003.005
`
`
`
`IV. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`12. I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field”
`
`is a person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with
`
`reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I have been
`
`informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. The prior art
`
`discussed herein and otherwise demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time the 276 Patent was filed, was aware of wearable computers and
`
`mobile systems, wireless communication of data, computer programming,
`
`embedded computing, basic human-computer interaction devices, basic movement,
`
`biometric, and position sensors, and basic media recording devices.
`
`13. A person having ordinary skill in the art would, through training or
`
`experience, demonstrate at least an understanding of basic analog and digital
`
`circuits, microcontrollers, transmitters, receivers, signaling, sensing, and embedded
`
`software. Such a person would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and three or more years
`
`of practical experience with sensing, signaling, and embedded and/or mobile
`
`systems, or the equivalent.
`
`14. Based on my experience, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have interviewed, hired, trained,
`
`supervised, directed, and advised many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`6
`
`UA-1003.006
`
`
`
`V. The 276 Patent
`15. The 276 Patent describes a personal data collection system that includes
`
`multiple modules that may be carried or worn by a user. 276 Patent at Abstract.
`
`16. The 276 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/791,174, filed March 8,
`
`2013, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/270,400, filed on
`
`Feb. 20, 2001.
`
`17. The 276 Patent describes personal performance monitoring devices—such
`
`as for athletes—that form modular personal networks containing individual
`
`components that can be worn or carried by a user. 276 Patent at 1:20-25. The
`
`patent correctly explains that, at the time of filing, “individual portable personal
`
`devices” such as “mobile phones, personal digital assistants, medical monitoring
`
`devices, personal entertainment systems, and athletic monitoring systems” already
`
`all existed. Id. at 1:27-32. However, the patent posits that “none of these
`
`individual devices [could] combine with any of the other devices to provide
`
`improved functions,” and thus the patent purports to create “a system in which
`
`individual portable device modules [could] be combined in a multitude of ways to
`
`provide an infinite variety of functions.” Id. at 1:36-43.
`
`18. Such systems already existed before February 20, 2001, as I explain in
`
`detail below in explaining why the challenged claims are invalid in light of the
`
`prior art discussed herein. The Satava article discussed herein, for example, details
`
`7
`
`UA-1003.007
`
`
`
`such a modular personal monitoring system used with climbers of Mt. Everest.
`
`Indeed, I helped build and deploy a similar wearable multisensory climber
`
`monitoring and telemetry system with MIT researchers as part of the 1998 Everest
`
`American Scientific Expedition. The system was based on Microchip Pic nodes in
`
`a modular personal network monitoring and conditioning system, and contained
`
`different biometric sensors and a GPS device worn by the climbers, connected with
`
`an I2C network, and was able to send data back to basecamp via radio signals.
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Ted Selker, proud of finally demonstrating stable blood oxygen signals from a sternum sensor, instead of from a
`finger sensor that climbers detested.
`
`
`
`19. Nevertheless, the 276 Patent addressed the aforementioned supposed
`
`problem by disclosing a “modular personal network (MPN)” that “allows multiple
`
`individual network components (INCs), each with one or more primary functions,
`
`to be used in a wireless personal network, and that INCs may be added and
`
`removed modularly to add or remove functions of the MPN.” Id. at 3:33-38. The
`
`8
`
`UA-1003.008
`
`
`
`patent explains that its INC devices “may be worn, carried, mounted on personal
`
`equipment, or otherwise used in proximity to the person associated with the MPN.”
`
`Id. at 3:40-42. The patent’s system may include a display (id. at 3:63-64),
`
`“[g]uidance functions” such as “providing position, elevation, and speed
`
`information” (id. at 4:47-48), and “[a]thletic functions” such as “measure[ing]
`
`distance, speed, heart rate, cadence, stride length, and other athletic data” (id. at
`
`4:54-62).
`
`20. The 276 Patent explains that positions of an individual can be determined
`
`using a global positioning system monitor (id. at 10:7-11), and that position
`
`information may be correlated with simultaneously collected performance
`
`information (id. at 41:42-43). The patent also explains that performance data may
`
`be displayed during an athlete’s workout, or displayed or printed on a personal
`
`computer at a later time. Id. at 41:51-53. Such a display may be in table form, in
`
`graph form, on a map, or on an elevation profile, among other suitable options. Id.
`
`at 41:53-55.
`
`21. Finally, the disclosed system is capable of providing audio feedback to an
`
`individual to inform the user that she may be within or outside a certain
`
`performance zone. Id. at 8:36-45.
`
`9
`
`UA-1003.009
`
`
`
`22. To help illustrate the system discussed in the 276 Patent, Figure 10 of the
`
`patent, reproduced below, depicts two individuals wearing various sensors and
`
`monitors:
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. The State of the Art
`23. As of February 20, 2001 (the date to which the 276 Patent claims priority),
`
`there already existed in the public domain the teachings of the 276 Patent. For
`
`example, when I began working with cyborg student-researchers at the MIT Media
`
`10
`
`UA-1003.010
`
`
`
`lab in 1995, Steve Mann was recording personal viewpoint images using wearable
`
`technology and attempting to share them as well. In 1998, Vadim Gerasimov was
`
`regularly exhibiting a baseball bat that measured swing characteristics and
`
`announced its performance to help the batter and delight onlookers. He was also
`
`regularly putting a helmet on people that included a breath sensor that was used to
`
`control a toy as part of a motivational biometric game. The helmet contained a
`
`sensor network and communicated with audio, graphical, and even robotic display
`
`systems controlled by a gaming engine.
`
`24. Scientists had already developed wearable sensor systems for animals to
`
`track and understand animal movements and health conditions, including by
`
`monitoring biometrics such as heart rate and breathing rate. In 1975, for example,
`
`I was briefly involved in assisting with electronics for biometric sensors that were
`
`implanted in dogs in the bioengineering department at Brown University. These
`
`sensors were designed to evaluate the health of the dog and send it to a base while
`
`the dog moved around.
`
`25. First space monkeys like AlbertIV in 1949, and then Astronauts1 even,
`
`used brain performance feedback in training 2 and of course wore complicated
`
`
`
` 1
`
` RESULTS OF THE SECOND U.S. MANNED ORBITAL SPACE FLIGHT,
`MAY 24, 1962; 5B. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF THE ASTRONAUT
`http://history.nasa.gov/SP-6/ch5b.htm
`
`11
`
`UA-1003.011
`
`
`
`modular sensor systems to monitor their health while in space, and compile and
`
`present such information to remote displays for observation. And scientists such as
`
`Maria Redin published papers regarding modular wearable location and health
`
`tracking systems for athletes such as marathon runners.
`
`26. In sum, modular wearable monitoring systems such as those described in
`
`the 276 Patent already existed long before the patent’s claimed priority date.
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`27. In the instant proceeding, I have been advised that the claims are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, and that
`
`this standard differs from the standard used in district court patent litigation. I
`
`understand that I am thus not bound by any district court findings. My conclusions
`
`below may differ if I were to apply the claim construction standard used in district
`
`court.
`
`28. Below I give my opinions regarding the proper constructions of certain
`
`claim terms under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
`
`A.
`“position data” (all challenged claims)
`29. The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`term “position data” is data relating to geographic position, which is the
`
`
`
` 2
`
` http://www.brainworksneurotherapy.com/history-and-development
`
`12
`
`UA-1003.012
`
`
`
`construction I understand that the District Court adopted in the co-pending
`
`litigation. UA-1010 at 5. As an example of how the 276 Patent uses this term,
`
`claim 1 reads
`
`“receiving position data relating to the geographical positions
`
`of an individual during the athletic activity with a global
`
`positioning satellite receiver.”
`
`276 Patent at claim 1. Likewise, claim 10 reads
`
`“receiving with a global positioning satellite receiver position
`
`data relating to a position of an individual during an athletic
`
`performance.”
`
`Id. at claim 10 (bold added here and in quotes below for emphasis). Therefore,
`
`those two claims make clear that “position data” means geographic position data.
`
`30. The specification also explains that “position data” means data relating to
`
`geographic position—the patent explains that
`
`“[p]osition data collected in one session may also be used to
`
`simulate the same route in a later session. For example, a user
`
`may travel the route of an upcoming competition in one or more
`
`sessions and collect position and elevation information.”
`
`13
`
`UA-1003.013
`
`
`
`Id. at 42:33-36. Therefore, the patent explains that “position data” is used to
`
`simulate a geographic route, which supports my opinion on the meaning of this
`
`claim term.
`
`B.
`
`“during the athletic activity” (claims 1, 3), “during [the] traversal
`of the route” (claim 16), and “during an athletic performance”
`(claim 10)
`31. These three claim terms are readily understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and do not require further construction. To a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, “during the athletic activity” simply requires that certain things occur
`
`while the athletic activity is occurring, “during [the] traversal of the route” simply
`
`requires that certain things occur while an individual traverses the route, and
`
`“during an athletic performance” simply requires that certain things occur while
`
`the athletic performance is occurring.
`
`VIII. Prior Art to the 276 Patent
`32. I have been informed that the 276 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 13/789,266 filed on March 7, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,562,009), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/617,871
`
`filed on November 13, 2009, which is a division of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/645,713 filed on August 20, 2003 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,670,263), which is a
`
`continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/US02/04947 filed on February 20,
`
`14
`
`UA-1003.014
`
`
`
`2002, and that corresponding U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/270,400 was
`
`filed on February 20, 2001.
`
`33. Therefore, I am informed that Adidas contends that the 276 Patent is
`
`considered to have been filed on February 20, 2001 for purposes of determining
`
`whether a reference constitutes prior art. Thus, under such an assumption, I am
`
`informed that a reference will qualify as prior art to the 276 Patent if it disclosed or
`
`suggested the claimed invention(s) prior to February 20, 2001.
`
`34. I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`anticipated where a single prior art reference explicitly or inherently discloses each
`
`and every limitation of the patent claim.
`
`35. I have also been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that 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
`
`relevant field. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a consideration
`
`of (l) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claimed
`
`inventions and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and
`
`(4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. I have been informed that the
`
`Supreme Court has recognized several rationales for combining references or
`
`modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed subject matter. I
`
`15
`
`UA-1003.015
`
`
`
`understand these rationales include the following: a) combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; b) simple substitution of
`
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results; c) use of a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way;
`
`d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; e) choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`A. The Satava Article is Prior Art
`36. The Satava article is prior art to the 276 Patent. I note that exhibit UA-
`
`1008 to the accompanying Petition shows a webpage from the publisher of the
`
`Satava article indicating that it was published in September 2000. I also note that
`
`the copy of the Satava article attached to the Petition as UA-1004 is date stamped
`
`as “RECEIVED” on November 29, 2000 by the Tufts University Health Sciences
`
`Library, as shown on the second page of the document.
`
`B.
`The eTrex Summit Manual is Prior Art
`37. The eTrex Summit manual is also prior art. It is dated May 2000.
`
`Furthermore, I have been informed that the third page of the document attached to
`
`16
`
`UA-1003.016
`
`
`
`the Petition as UA-1009 is a screen shot of a webpage from August 17, 2000—
`
`captured using the WayBackMachine, and supported by an affidavit Petitioner
`
`obtained from the Internet Archives (UA-1009.001)—showing that the eTrex
`
`Summit manual was available for download by the public at least as early as
`
`August 17, 2000. UA-1009.003. As I understand from the affidavit, the number
`
`“20000817” in the URL at the bottom of the webpage screen shot means that the
`
`screen shot was captured August 17, 2000. UA-1009.001.
`
`C. The Stubbs and Gardner Patents are Prior Art
`38. The Stubbs patent (UA-1006, U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,759) was filed on
`
`November 9, 1999—I am informed it therefore qualifies as prior art at least under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Gardner patent (UA-1007, U.S. Pat. No. 7,454,002) was
`
`filed on January 8, 2001—I am informed it therefore also qualifies as prior art at
`
`least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`IX. Unpatentability of the 276 Claims Based On Prior Art
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 16-19, and 21-23 are Anticipated by
`Satava
`39. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 16-19, and 21-23 of the 276 Patent are invalid as
`
`anticipated by the prior art Satava article.
`
`40. The Satava article documented a May 1999 experiment on Mt. Everest
`
`wherein three climbers wore portable monitoring devices that tracked data such as
`
`the climbers’ locations, heart rates, and other physiological vital signs. See Satava
`
`17
`
`UA-1003.017
`
`
`
`at UA-1004.004-.005. The system described in the article used a GPS receiver to
`
`monitor the climbers’ positions, and a separate heart rate monitor to monitor the
`
`climbers’ heart rates. Id. at .006. The article explains that during the climbers’
`
`ascents, the modular monitoring systems transmitted data to a laptop computer at
`
`Everest base camp, and that laptop in turn transmitted the data to Yale University.
`
`Id. at .004-.005. According to the article, scientists at Yale then used computers to
`
`analyze and display the data using various display interfaces, during the climbers’
`
`ascents. Id. at .007.
`
`41. As I noted above in introducing my background, I was personally involved
`
`in creating hardware to support a scientific expedition to Everest in 1998. I went
`
`to Everest and helped debug software and hardware to support both the GPS
`
`mapping initiative and the biometrics initiatives of that expedition.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`
`A method for monitoring an athletic activity,
`comprising…
`42. The Satava article discloses the preamble of claim 1 of the 276 Patent,
`
`because the article discloses a system that monitors an athletic activity;
`
`specifically, climbing and/or hiking Mt. Everest. See, e.g., Satava at UA-1004-
`
`.004.
`
`18
`
`UA-1003.018
`
`
`
`b)
`
`receiving position data relating to the geographical
`positions of an individual during the athletic activity
`with a global positioning satellite receiver;
`43. As I noted above, the Satava article discloses the limitations of this claim
`
`element. For example, the Satava article explains that the portable system
`
`disclosed in the article includes a GPS receiver, and more specifically “[a]ccurate
`
`position tracking using the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system (Lassen
`
`SK-8, Trimble, Inc., San Jose, CA).” Satava at UA-1004.006. The Satava article
`
`also explains that the climbers’ positions were monitored and acquired during the
`
`climbers’ ascents with the GPS receiver:
`
`“vital signs and position were acquired every 5 minutes and
`
`archived and transmitted every 5 minutes. These data
`
`(Table 1) consisted of…GPS location…. During the daily
`
`morning telemedicine conference between Yale University and
`
`EBC on the day of the trek to Camp 1, vital signs were
`
`retransmitted to Yale University in real time from the climbers,
`
`allowing physicians at Yale University to follow vital signs and
`
`location while the climbers were ascending through the
`
`icefall.”
`
` Id. at .008-.009.
`
`19
`
`UA-1003.019
`
`
`
`44. The GPS module described in the Satava article is depicted on the right
`
`side of Figure 2 in the article:
`
`
`
`Id. at .006, Fig. 2 (Caption: “FIG. 2. The vital-signs monitoring (VSM) system of
`
`Fitsense, Inc., demonstrating (right to left) the global positioning satellite (GPS)
`
`module, ….”).
`
`45. Accordingly, the Satava article discloses this claim step of receiving
`
`position data relating to the geographical positions of an individual during the
`
`athletic activity with a global positioning satellite receiver.
`
`20
`
`UA-1003.020
`
`
`
`c)
`
`receiving performance data about the individual
`during the athletic activity with a performance
`monitor that is physically separate from the global
`positioning satellite receiver;
`46. The Satava article discloses this claim element, for example by explaining
`
`that its system receives heart rate data with a physically separate heart rate monitor
`
`during the climbers’ ascents.
`
`47. First, I note that the 276 Patent itself explains that a heart rate monitor can
`
`be the claimed “performance monitor”—for example, claim 19 recites “wherein
`
`the performance monitor comprises a heart rate monitor,” and claim 6 recites
`
`“wherein the performance data comprises heart rate data.”
`
`48. Second, the Satava article explains that
`
`“Figure 2 illustrates the three modules which comprise the
`
`system: 1. Non-invasive physiologic sensors to measure vital
`
`and physical signs. This includes: heart rate (accurate to + 4
`
`beats per minute), 3-lead EKG….”
`
`Satava at UA-1004.006. Figure 2 above clearly shows that the Vital Signs Monitor
`
`(VSM) module on the left side of the picture is physically separate from the GPS
`
`module on the right side of the picture.
`
`49. Third, the Satava article discloses that its performance monitor receives
`
`performance data about an individual during the athletic activity. For example, the
`
`21
`
`UA-1003.021
`
`
`
`Satava article discloses that during the climbers’ ascents the vital signs monitor
`
`and heart rate monitor receive heart rate data:
`
`“vital signs and position were acquired every 5 minutes and
`
`archived and transmitted every 5 minutes. These data
`
`(Table 1) consisted of…heart rate…. During the daily morning
`
`telemedicine conference between Yale University and EBC on
`
`the day of the trek to Camp 1, vital signs were retransmitted to
`
`Yale University in real time from the climbers, allowing
`
`physicians at Yale University to follow vital signs and location
`
`while the climbers were ascending through the icefall.”
`
`Id. at .008-.009.
`
`50. Therefore Satava discloses receiving performance data (heart rate data)
`
`about the individual during the athletic activity (during the climbs) with a
`
`performance monitor (heart rate monitor) that is physically separate from the
`
`global positioning satellite receiver.
`
`d)
`
`displaying athletic performance information with a
`display screen during the athletic activity based on
`the performance data received by the performance
`monitor;
`51. The Satava article discloses this claim element because the article discloses
`
`displaying the climbers’ heart rate data on display screens at Yale during the
`
`climbers’ ascents, based on the data gathered by the portable heart rate monitors.
`
`22
`
`UA-1003.022
`
`
`
`52. For example, the Satava article teaches that Figure 4 (below)
`
`“illustrates the home screen of the laptop computer that was the
`
`interface for viewing the data from the climbers. … On the right
`
`side of the screen are the ‘thumbnail’ graphics of the continuous
`
`vital-signs summaries of the three climbers (two being active at
`
`the time of the screen capture) along with their latest updated
`
`values. … The data were monitored in real time and stored on
`
`both the receiving computer and the wearable data logger.”
`
`Satava at UA-1004.010.
`
`Id. at 307, Fig. 4, Caption:
`
`
`
`23
`
`UA-1003.023
`
`
`
`“FIG. 4. The laptop computer screen, showing the intuitive
`
`graphical interface. …on the right are the individual climber’s
`
`vital signs.”
`
`See also id. at .008-.009:
`
`“During the daily morning telemedicine conference between Yale
`
`University and EBC on the day of the trek to Camp 1, vital signs
`
`were retransmitted to Yale University in real time from the
`
`climbers, allowing physicians at Yale University to follow vital
`
`signs and location while the climbers were ascending through
`
`the icefall.”
`
`That is one way the teachings in the Satava article meet this claim element.
`
`53. As a second example, the Satava article also discloses displaying heart rate
`
`data during the climbers’ ascents on the Yale computer screens using a second type
`
`of display screen, shown in Figure 5 here:
`
`24
`
`UA-1003.024
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at .009. Figure 5 shows performance data in the form of vital signs such as
`
`heart rate data and temperature, during the climbers’ ascents:
`
`“[a]ccess to individual continuous display of vital signs
`
`(temperature and heart rate) was linked by simply clicking on
`
`the climber number, and the chronological graph was plotted
`
`(Fig. 5).”
`
`Id. at .007; see also id. at .010 (“Clicking on any of the climber boxes takes you to
`
`the detailed individual vital-signs screen (Fig. 5), which provides specific overall
`
`information as well as the chronological, high-fidelity presentation of data points
`
`acquired in real time and plotted every 5 minutes. … The data were monitored in
`
`25
`
`UA-1003.025
`
`
`
`real time and stored on both the receiving computer and the wearable data
`
`logger.”).
`
`54. In this way, the Satava article discloses the step of displaying athletic
`
`performance information with a display screen during the athletic activity based on
`
`the performance data received by the performance monitor.
`
`e)
`
`correlating the performance data received by the
`performance monitor with the position data received
`by the global positioning satellite receiver with at least
`one processor.
`55. The Satava article discloses this claim element by explaining that its
`
`system “geostamps” performance data with position data using a processor, for
`
`example through the following explanation: “Each datum is time-stamped and
`
`geostamped with the GPS sensor.” Satava at UA-1004.007.
`
`56. More specifically, the Satava article explains that “[t]he vital signs and
`
`position were acquired every 5 minutes and archived and transmitted every 5
`
`minutes. These data (Table 1) consisted of time stamps (using Greenwich Mean
`
`Time), GPS location, heart rate, activity status, skin temperature, and core body
`
`temperature.” Id. at .008. I have reproduced Table 1 below, which shows that the
`
`performance data (e.g., heart rate data) is correlated with the position data (e.g.,
`
`latitude and longitude data):
`
`26
`
`UA-1003.026
`
`
`
`
`
`57. This “timestamping” and “geostamping” of performance data (such as
`
`heart rate data) meets this claim element because it results in correlating the heart
`
`rate data received by the heart rate monitor with the position data received by the
`
`global positioning satellite receiver.
`
`58. Further, the Satava article discloses that such correlating is perf