throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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 (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.
`
`11
`
`UA-1003.011
`
`

`
`25. First space monkeys like Albert IV in 1949, and then Astronauts1 even,
`
`used brain performance feedback in training 2 and of course wore complicated
`
`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.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`2 http://www.brainworksneurotherapy.com/history-and-development
`
`12
`
`UA-1003.012
`
`

`
`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
`
`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 (UA-1001) 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
`
`13
`
`UA-1003.013
`
`

`
`“[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.”
`
`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
`
`14
`
`UA-1003.014
`
`

`
`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,
`
`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
`
`15
`
`UA-1003.015
`
`

`
`(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
`
`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 (UA-1004) is prior art to the 276 Patent. I understand
`
`that Dr. Scott Bennett, a retired librarian and expert, has opined in the co-pending
`
`litigation that the Satava article was publicly available at least as early as
`
`November 29, 2000 (see UA-1016.006-.007), which is the same date that the
`
`Satava article (UA-1004) is date stamped as “RECEIVED” by the Tufts University
`
`Health Sciences Library. I also note that exhibit UA-1008 to the accompanying
`
`16
`
`UA-1003.016
`
`

`
`Petition shows a webpage from the publisher of the Satava article indicating that it
`
`was published in September 2000.
`
`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
`
`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. Moreover, I understand
`
`that UA-1013 to the Petition is a declaration from a Garmin employee regarding
`
`certain Garmin user manuals, including the eTrex Summit May 2000 version
`
`attached as UA-1005. According to that declaration, the eTrex Summit manual
`
`attached as UA-1005 (version 190-00193-00 / Rev. A) was publicly available as
`
`early as June 2000, the same time the corresponding product was first offered for
`
`public sale. See UA-1013.
`
`17
`
`UA-1003.017
`
`

`
`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
`
`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
`
`18
`
`UA-1003.018
`
`

`
`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.
`
`b)
`
`receiving position data relating to the geographical
`positions of an individual during the athletic activity
`with a global positioning satellite receiver;
`43. 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/module, 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
`
`19
`
`UA-1003.019
`
`

`
`explains that the climbers’ positions were monitored and acquired during the
`
`climbers’ ascents using the GPS modules worn by the climbers:
`
`“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.
`
`44. The GPS module described in the Satava article is depicted on the right
`
`side of Figure 2 in the article:
`
`20
`
`UA-1003.020
`
`

`
`Vital Signs
`Monitor
`
`
`
`GPS
`Module
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`21
`
`UA-1003.021
`
`

`
`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
`
`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
`
`22
`
`UA-1003.022
`
`

`
`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.
`
`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
`
`23
`
`UA-1003.023
`
`

`
`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:
`
`“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
`
`24
`
`UA-1003.024
`
`

`
`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:
`
`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
`
`
`
`25
`
`UA-1003.025
`
`

`
`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
`
`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. For example, Satava states
`
`that performance data (heart rate data) is “correlated” with GPS position data:
`
`“Three climbers were monitored 24 hours while climbing through Khumbu Icefall.
`
`Data were transmitted to Everest Base Camp (elevation 17,800 feet) and
`
`retransmitted to Yale University via telemedicine. Main outcome measures
`
`(location, heart rate, skin temperature, core body temperature, and activity level)
`
`all correlated through timestamped identification.” Satava at UA-1004.004.
`
`26
`
`UA-1003.026
`
`

`
`Further, the Satava article discloses that its system “geostamps” performance data
`
`with position data, and

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket