Paper No. ____
`Filed: March 4, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: Fitbit, Inc.
`
`By: Naveen Modi (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Michael C. Hendershot (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`David T. Okano (PH-Fitbit-Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALIPHCOM, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,446,275
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................. 3
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF
`CHALLENGE ................................................................................................. 3
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`The ’275 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’275 Patent Family ..................................... 7
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`VII. CLAIMS 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, AND 18–19 OF THE ’275 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................... 9
`A.
`The Board Should Adopt the Proposed Grounds .................................. 9
`B.
`Ground 1: Claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19 Are Anticipated by
`Hoffman ............................................................................................... 10
`Overview of Hoffman ............................................................... 10
`1.
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 12
`3.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 22
`4.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 23
`5.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 24
`6.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 25
`7.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 26
`8.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 27
`9.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 28
`10. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 29
`11. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 30
`12. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 31
`Ground 2: Claims 10 and 18–19 Are Obvious over Hoffman
`in view of Gilley .................................................................................. 43
`Overview of Gilley .................................................................... 43
`1.
`2.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 45
`3.
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 49
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`4.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 52
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`No.: 3:15-cv-02579 (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (ITC) .................................................................................. 2
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, Inc.,
`Nos. IPR2016-00607 and IPR2016-00658 ........................................................... 2
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 48, 49, 52, 54
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 8
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 .............................................................................................................. 1, 4, 7
`§ 102(b) ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 102(e) ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 103 .................................................................................................................. 4, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b) ................................................................................................................ 9
`§ 42.8 ..................................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.15 ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`§ 42.103 ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Patent Office Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275 to Utter et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark A. Musen
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012/0041767 to Hoffman et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0076637 to Gilley et al.
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/454,040
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/433,204
`
`Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-963, Order No. 31, Commission Investigative Staff’s
`Initial Markman Brief (Nov. 20, 2015)
`
`1008
`
`Reserved
`
`1009
`
`Reserved
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Prosecution file history of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/871,843
`
`Product review, Nike + iPod Sport Kit, PC Magazine (July 14, 2006),
`http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1989319,00.asp
`
`1012
`
`C.V. of Dr. Mark A. Musen
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fitbit, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–10,
`
`13–15, and 18–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275 (“the ’275 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`which is assigned to AliphCom, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). The ’275 patent discloses
`
`and claims a method and device for setting a target wellness score for a user based
`
`on profile data gathered from the user, tracking the user’s activity, awarding or
`
`deducting points based on the user’s activities as monitored by a wearable
`
`computing device having sensors, and then modifying the user’s target wellness
`
`score based on the activity data gathered from the user through the wearable
`
`computing device. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. Although the dependent claims recite
`
`certain additional features, such as determining the difference between the user’s
`
`score and their target score and then presenting the user with a recommendation to
`
`engage in a health-related activity (claim 10), or classifying the user as being at a
`
`certain level based on their score, and then changing that classification as their
`
`score changes (claim 18), all of these features were well known in the art.
`
`This petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and thus a trial should
`
`be instituted. This petition also establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the
`
`challenged claims of the ’275 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
`
`103. Accordingly, a trial should be instituted and these claims should be canceled.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Fitbit, Inc., as the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the
`
`following related matters. The ’275 patent and two patents in the same family as
`
`the ’275 patent, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,793,522 (“the ’522 patent”) and 8,529,811 (“the
`
`’811 patent”), are involved in AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc. v.
`
`Fitbit, Inc., No.: 3:15-cv-02579 (N.D. Cal.), and Certain Activity Tracking
`
`Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (ITC). The ’275
`
`patent claims priority to eight pending applications: U.S. Patent Application Nos.
`
`13/433,204, 13/433,208, 13/433,213, 13/361,919, 13/181,511, 13/180,000,
`
`13/158,416, and 13/158,372. In addition, the following pending application claims
`
`priority to the ’275 patent: U.S. Patent Application No. 13/871,843 (“the ’843
`
`application”) (Ex. 1010). Petitioner recently filed petitions for inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1–26 of the ’811 patent and claim 2 of the ’522 patent, Fitbit,
`
`Inc. v. AliphCom, Inc., Nos. IPR2016-00607 and IPR2016-00658.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Yar R. Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625), Michael C. Hendershot (pro hac
`
`vice admission to be requested) and David T. Okano (Reg. No. 66,657) are back-up
`
`counsel. The mailing address for all correspondence is Paul Hastings LLP, 875
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005 (Telephone: 202.551.1700/Fax:
`
`202.551.1705). Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents at PH-Fitbit-
`
`Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND
`CHALLENGE
`Petitioner certifies that the ’275 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such review on the
`
`grounds identified. Claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 of the ’275 patent are
`
`unpatentable in view of the following prior art references: U.S. Patent App.
`
`Publication Nos. 2012/0041767 to Hoffman et al. (“Hoffman”) (Ex. 1003), and
`
`2008/0076637 to Gilley et al. (“Gilley”) (Ex. 1004). As discussed in section V, the
`
`’275 patent purports to be a continuation-in-part of ten different applications and to
`
`claim priority to four provisional applications. Ex. 1001 at 1:9–9:44. For the
`
`purpose of this petition only, Petitioner assumes the priority date for the ’275
`
`patent is the date of the earliest application to which it claims priority—June 10,
`
`2011. Petitioner reserves all rights to establish a later priority date after institution.
`
`Hoffman was filed on August 11, 2010 and was published on February 16, 2012;
`
`Gilley was published on March 27, 2008. Exs. 1003, 1004 at title pages. Under this
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`assumed priority date, Hoffman is prior art to the ’275 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) and Gilley is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 of the ’275 patent should be cancelled
`
`in view of the following grounds: Ground 1: claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hoffman; and Ground 2:
`
`claims 10 and 18–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Hoffman in view of Gilley.
`
`Supporting these grounds, Petitioner offers a declaration from Dr. Mark A.
`
`Musen, Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics) at Stanford University and
`
`Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶ 1–13, 39. Dr. Musen is also principal investigator of the National Center for
`
`Biomedical Ontology, one of the National Centers for Biomedical Computing
`
`created by the National Institute of Health. Id. at ¶ 7. Dr. Musen’s CV is attached
`
`as Exhibit 1012.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`The ’275 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. No. 13/454,040 (“the ’040
`
`application”) (Ex. 1005), which was filed on April 23, 2012, and purports to be a
`
`continuation-in-part of ten applications: U.S. Patent Application Nos. 13/433,204
`
`(“the ’204 application”) (Ex. 1006), 13/433,208, 13/433,213, 13/361,919,
`
`13/181,511, 13/181,495, 13/180,000, 13/180,320, 13/158,416, and 13/158,372, and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`also purports to claim priority to four U.S. Provisional Application Nos.:
`
`61/495,994, 61/495,995, 61/495,996, and 61/495,997. Ex. 1001 at 1:9–9:44.
`
`A. The ’275 Patent
`The ’275 patent relates to an activity monitoring system and device. See Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 20. The system claims to be a “general health and wellness management”
`
`device and system which receives “user data” from the user that includes “profile”
`
`and “preferences” information (Ex. 1001 at 20:62–64), tracks the user’s activity
`
`using wearable devices having sensors (id. at Abstract), and then rewards a user’s
`
`activity with “points” determined based on “reference values” that define activity-
`
`to-point conversion rates. (id. at 44:6–12). The system can also set a “target score”
`
`for a user as a means of increasing user motivation. Id. at 38:58–59.
`
`Like prior activity tracking systems, the ’275 patent utilizes sensors disposed
`
`in wearable devices to track user activity. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 21. For example, a
`
`“pedometer 312 may . . . measure various types of data associated with pedestrian-
`
`oriented activities such as running or walking.” Ex. 1001 at 18:29–32. The user of
`
`such a device can establish a user profile by providing data to the system. Id. at
`
`41:18–21. Based on the profile, the system can “generate data representing a subset
`
`of acquired parameters,” which represent activities used by the system to award
`
`points to a user. Id. at 41:21–22. The points awarded to the user can then be
`
`“aggregated to form an overall health and wellness score.” Id. at 38:45–46. A
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`“target score” can also be set for the user, which is meant to “ensure the user is
`
`motivated or induced to continue to improve his or her health.” Id. at 38:58–59.
`
`The system utilizes “reference values” that define conversion rates to
`
`convert the user’s health-related activities into points—for example, a “profile
`
`[that] includes data that equates 45 milligrams [of vitamin C] as 20 points” would
`
`award a user with only 10 points if the user consumed only 22 milligrams. Id. at
`
`44:6–21. After activity has been converted into points, those points can be added to
`
`the user’s “overall score” which “represent[s] the user’s progress . . . in meeting a
`
`target score” and “can be express[ed] as a percentage of the target score, such as
`
`71% with 100 points set as the target score.” Id. at 44:24–33. As a user engages in
`
`measured activity, the system can “adjust[]” (id. at 44:33–34 and Fig. 17B) the
`
`user’s score “toward or away from the target score” (id. at 44:33–34) “based on
`
`one or more of the acquired parameters” (Id. at Fig. 17B). See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 23.
`
`A user’s accumulated points “may be used for obtaining various types of
`
`rewards, or as a virtual or actual currency” to purchase “virtual prizes” or “physical
`
`goods.” Ex. 1001 at 28:7–14. The system can provide the user with graphical
`
`feedback that “may be a simple representation of a facial expression” (id. at 25:33–
`
`34) or may be a graphical representation of the user’s attained score (id. at Figs.
`
`10–11). See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`
`B.
` Prosecution History of the ’275 Patent Family
`Hoffman was not cited to or applied by the examiner during prosecution of
`
`the ’275 patent. Patent Owner did not disclose or cite Hoffman in any of its
`
`Information Disclosure Statements. See Ex. 1005 at 146–170, 273–279, 551.
`
`Hoffman was, however, applied by different examiners in the ’204 and ’843
`
`applications that are part of the ’275 patent family, where it was used to reject
`
`claims containing elements substantially similar to those recited in the claims of
`
`the ’275 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Ex. 1010 at 116, 231–38
`
`(rejecting a claim in the ’843 application identical to claim 1 of the ’275 patent but
`
`for elements 1F and 1G); Ex. 1006 at 475–84 (rejecting claim elements in the ’204
`
`application that are substantially identical to most elements of claim 1 of the ’275
`
`patent, including element 1F); id. at 96–102 (finding Hoffman discloses claim
`
`elements such as “an activity profile manager configured to modify the activity
`
`profile to change the target score” in the ’204 application); id. at 96–102, 475–84,
`
`581–87 (rejecting a claim substantially similar to claim 2 of the ’275 patent). None
`
`of the pending claims of the ’843 or ’204 applications have been allowed. See Ex.
`
`1010 at 247–86; Ex. 1006 at 581–88.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`interpretation (BRI).1 In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, claim terms are given their “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740
`
`F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are also “generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning that the term would have
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art2 at the time of the invention. See In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The U.S.
`
`Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari in Cuozzo on issues including
`
`whether the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their BRI
`
`rather than their plain and ordinary meaning. 793 F.3d 1268, cert. granted, 2016
`
`WL 205946, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016).
`
`1 Petitioner notes that district courts and the International Trade Commission
`
`(“ITC”) currently apply a claim construction standard based on a term’s plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Petitioner reserves its rights to make arguments based on that
`
`different standard in the district court and before the ITC.
`
`2 A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least two years of relevant
`
`college-level coursework in an engineering field with one to two years of post-
`
`education relevant work experience. Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 16–19.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`Under either legal standard, there is (1) a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims and (2) a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 of the
`
`’275 patent are unpatentable. Thus, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in
`
`Cuozzo should not impact the Board’s decision to institute this petition or to find
`
`the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, all terms should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Patent Owner has agreed that this is the appropriate construction
`
`for all the terms of the ’275 patent claims asserted in the pending ITC proceeding.
`
`See Ex. 1007 at 1. As demonstrated in the grounds below, the prior art discussed
`
`herein teaches or suggests every limitation of the challenged ’275 patent claims
`
`under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, AND 18–19 OF THE ’275 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. The Board Should Adopt the Proposed Grounds
`The Board should adopt all grounds. For all but one challenged claim, only
`
`one ground is raised. For claim 19, Petitioner relies on Gilley in Ground 2 for its
`
`teachings of modifying a target score. Further, Petitioner has streamlined the
`
`petition by relying on a single primary reference—Hoffman. This achieves the goal
`
`of “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Moreover, neither Hoffman nor Gilley were before the Office and the examiner did
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`not have the benefit of the declaration of Dr. Musen (Ex. 1002), an expert in a
`
`relevant field to the ’275 patent.
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19 Are Anticipated by
`Hoffman
`1. Overview of Hoffman
`Hoffman teaches an athletic performance monitoring system that can
`
`“encourage individuals to participate in athletic activities and improve their fitness
`
`levels.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 0004. In particular, the system motivates users to exercise by
`
`rewarding them with “activity points” when they perform certain athletic and non-
`
`athletic activities. Id at ¶ 0005. Accumulated activity points can then be “spent” on
`
`rewards such as products, services, discounts, and status upgrades. Id. See Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 26.
`
`The system includes a “platform that maintains user account information.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 0069. This allows users to “register with [the system] to track and
`
`monitor their athletic performance and other types of activity.” Id. The system
`
`collects and stores information likely to “produce insights into various aspects of
`
`the user” such as their interests in sports, personal styles, and strengths, their
`
`preferences for events or event locations, shopping and/or browsing interests, their
`
`social network memberships, and event participation and workout data. Id at
`
`¶ 0073. This allows the system to “customize content based [] user interests” and to
`
`“personalize the user’s experience” with the system. Id. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`The system also includes a wearable “athletic parameter measurement
`
`device” housing one or more sensors for measuring “athletic parameters” relating
`
`to activity, such as running or walking. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 0037. The device may be
`
`“located [in] the sole of a user’s shoe,” id. at ¶ 0038, Fig. 4, or within an exercise
`
`watch, id. at ¶ 0049, or wristband, id. at ¶ 0070. The acquired parameters from this
`
`device can include “calories burned, miles run, steps taken,” see id. at ¶ 0096, as
`
`well as more activity-specific parameters such as heart rate, duration, and force
`
`exerted during weightlifting or step exercises, see id. at ¶ 0082, or speed and/or
`
`distance traveled during running exercises, see id. at ¶ 0038. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 28.
`
`The system converts the acquired parameters into “activity points” using a
`
`determined conversion rate based on the type of activity performed, Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 0077, “user characteristics such as weight, gender, height, age, resting heart rate,
`
`an[d] activity level,” id. at ¶ 0078, or the user’s athleticism determined by the
`
`system and measured by, for example, a “SPARQ rating,” id. at ¶ 0079. The
`
`system aggregates, or sums, a user’s activity points across all their tracked
`
`activities into a single activity-point “score,” which “allow[s] a user to measure
`
`[their] athletic performance across multiple types of activities.” Id. at ¶ 0091; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 29.
`
`Based on the user’s interests in their profile, the system can suggest target
`
`activity-point reward goals that may be “purchased” with a certain number of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`activity points. See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 0005, 0114, 0122–0123. These reward goals can
`
`include “VIP treatment” at stores or events, product and/or service discounts, and
`
`“video game related items.” Id. at ¶ 0122. Hoffman teaches modifying the “cost” of
`
`these rewards based the user’s interests, for example reducing the target activity-
`
`point reward goal for items relating to those interests. See id.; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 30.
`
`The system also displays the user’s accumulated activity points relative to
`
`their target activity-point reward goal in order to “visually represent [the] progress
`
`a user has made toward earning a number of activity points needed to purchase [a]
`
`corresponding reward.” See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 0087, 0114, 0123, 0130, Figs. 14–16.
`
`This allows the user to compare their progress towards their activity-point reward
`
`goal over multiple types of athletic and non-athletic activities. See id. at ¶¶ 0091,
`
`0123; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 31.
`
`i.
`
`Claim 1
`
`2.
`[1A] “A method comprising: receiving data representing a profile
`defining parameters upon which a target score is established
`based on one or more health-related activities;”
`
`Hoffman teaches a method performed by an activity monitoring system that
`
`receives data representing a profile defining parameters such as a user’s interests,
`
`upon which a target number of activity points for a goal or reward (i.e., a target
`
`score) is established based on one or more health-related activities. See Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶ 40. In particular, Hoffman teaches a system that includes a “platform that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`maintains user account information” (i.e., a profile) in order “to track and monitor
`
`their athletic performance and other types of activity.” See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 0069. The
`
`system “customize[s] content based on a user interests and other aspects of a user’s
`
`profile.” Id. at ¶ 0073 (emphasis added).
`
`The user’s profile defines a wide range of parameters used to “formulate a
`
`digital portrait of the user,” id. at ¶ 0069, including the user’s interests (id. at
`
`¶ 0073 and Claim 9), the type of activity data the user wishes to monitor and track
`
`in the system (id. at ¶ 0109), “athletic activity performance data, shopping history,
`
`browsing history” (id.), “a lifetime listing of activity submissions, activity point
`
`accumulating events, activity point consumption events and the like” (id. at
`
`¶ 0118), and “characteristics such as [the user’s] weight, gender, height, age,
`
`resting heart rate, [and] activity level” (id. at ¶ 0078).
`
`The Hoffman system establishes a target reward goal (i.e., a target score)
`
`based on parameters in the user’s profile. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 40. In particular, the
`
`Hoffman system converts measured amounts of a user’s athletic activity into
`
`“activity points”
`
`that—in addition
`
`to representing a user’s health-related
`
`activities—represent a “form of currency” that the user can “spen[d] on various
`
`rewards.” See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 0005, 0077.
`
`The number of activity points necessary to “purchase” a reward is
`
`established and presented to the user as a “goal” (i.e., a target score). See id. at
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`¶ 0123; id. at ¶ 0114 (“[I]nterface 1400 may further display a goal 1411 and a
`
`number of points 1413 needed to achieve goal 1411”), Claim 10 (“determine a goal
`
`defined for the user, wherein the goal corresponds to a goal amount of virtual
`
`currency”). This reward goal (i.e., target score) is based, for example, on
`
`parameters in the user’s profile defining the user’s interests. See id. at ¶ 0115 (“The
`
`rewards 1425 displayed in portion 1405 may be selected in a variety of ways
`
`including based on a user’s interests.”).
`
`The reward goal (i.e., a target score) and the parameters upon which the goal
`
`is established are themselves based on one or more health-related activities. See
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶ 40. In particular, the reward goal is defined in terms of a number of
`
`activity points. See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 0114, 0123, Figs. 14–16. These points represent
`
`and are based on athletic or exercise activities (i.e., health-related activities) such
`
`as those measured by the sensors in the system’s wearable athletic-monitoring
`
`device. See id. at ¶¶ 0080, 0091. Certain parameters in the user’s profile upon
`
`which the reward goal is established are based on health-related activities. Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 40. For example, a user’s interests defined in their profile comprise a
`
`parameter based on health-related activities such as the user’s exercise history. See
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 0115 (“A user’s interests [i.e., a parameter in the user’s profile] may
`
`be determined based on a history of user activity including types of workouts [i.e.,
`
`health-related activities].”), 0073 (“interests” are part of “a user’s profile”).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`ii.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`[1B] “acquiring data representing one or more subsets of
`acquired parameters based on one or more sensors disposed in a
`wearable computing device;”
`The Hoffman system acquires data from sensors disposed in a wearable
`
`“athletic parameter measurement device” that represents one or more subsets of
`
`measured athletic parameters. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 40. In particular, the Hoffman
`
`system acquires data from an “athletic parameter measurement device” that can be
`
`located in the sole of a user’s shoe, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 0038, or worn in a watch, id. at
`
`¶ 0049, or a wristband, id.at ¶ 0070, Figs. 7A–B. The device includes one or more
`
`sensors for measuring an “athletic parameter” such as accelerometers, pedometers,
`
`heart-rate sensors, blood oxygen monitors, satellite positioning devices, and/or
`
`EKG monitors. Id. at ¶¶ 0048, 0062–0063.
`
`The sensors acquire data representing parameters such as calories burned,
`
`miles run, steps taken, heart-rate, amount of time exercised, and the speed and/or
`
`distance traveled by the user. See id. at ¶¶ 0038, 0096, and 0082. The Hoffman
`
`system is configured to acquire data representing all or some subset(s) of these
`
`parameters. See id. at ¶¶ 0109 (“[T]he system may provide an opportunity for the
`
`user to select a subset of the information by only submitting certain types of
`
`activity information such as athletic workout information or shopping history
`
`data.”), 0116, 0093 (“Devices might also be configured to be sport-specific by
`
`defining a subset of athletic activity measures [i.e., acquired parameters] that may
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275
`
`
`be monitored.”).
`
`iii.
`
`[1C] “determining data representing values for the one or more
`subsets of the acquired parameters based on reference values for
`the parameters set forth in the profile;”
`
`The Hoffman system determines data representing activity-point values for
`
`the one or more subsets of monitored athletic parameters (i.e., acquired
`
`parameters) based on conversion rates for the parameters (i.e., reference values)
`
`determined based on information set forth in the user’s profile. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 40. In
`
`particular, Hoffman teaches a two-step process for generating point values for the
`
`subset of parameters specified in the profile. Id.
`
`First, the “electrical signals output by the sensors” indicative of athletic
`
`parameters are converted into a representa