Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 22
`
`
`
` Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-002891
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-
`01383, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 22
`
`
`
` Entered: May 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-002891
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-
`01383, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,872,646 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’646 patent”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), we determined Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of all challenged claims and
`
`instituted an inter partes review. Paper 7, 25. Patent Owner filed a
`
`Response (Paper 11, “Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 14, “Reply”). Petitioner also filed an unopposed
`
`Motion to Strike the Declaration of William Easttom. Paper 13. An oral
`
`hearing was held before the Board. Paper 21.
`
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered the record before us and as
`
`explained below, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of the ’646 patent are
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties assert that the ’646 patent is involved in Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00470 (E.D. Tex. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG
`
`Electronics USA, Inc., 4:17-cv-00830 (N.D. Tex. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00652 (E.D. Tex. 2017); and
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:17-cv-00746 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2017). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`B. THE ’646 PATENT
`
`The ’646 patent is titled “Method and System for Waking Up a
`
`Device Due to Motion” and describes a device with an accelerometer that
`
`wakes up from a low power idle state in response to detecting motion.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:27–28.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’646 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a flowchart for determining whether to wake up a device based
`
`on motion. Id. at 4:25–26. At block 315, the process gets sample motion
`
`data and calculates a current/updated acceleration average. Id. at 4:36–38.
`
`At block 320, the process determines whether the device is idle—i.e.,
`
`whether it is not moving and there are no active user-interactive
`
`applications. Id. at 4:45–47. If the device is idle, the process continues to
`
`block 325 and determines if the device has experienced any motion larger
`
`than a minimum threshold. Id. at 4:49–55. If so, at block 330, the process
`
`determines if the movement is a real motion that warrants waking up the
`
`device—i.e., movement from being picked up by a user intending to use the
`
`device, as opposed to a mere jostle or bump. Id. at 4:61–5:2. If the
`
`movement is real, the process continues to blocks 335 and 340, where the
`
`process wakes up the device and restores it to either a last active state or a
`
`user-customized configuration. Id. at 5:3–12.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’646 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a flowchart of a process to create a long average of
`
`accelerations. Id. at 5:14–15. At block 410, the process sends motion data
`
`from an accelerometer through a glitch correcting logic, which removes
`
`abnormal data before passing it along to a long average logic. Id. at 5:18–
`
`23. At block 415, the long average logic adds the sampled motion data to a
`
`long average, to create an updated long average of accelerations. Id. at
`
`5:24–26. The ’646 patent explains “[i]n one embodiment, the long average
`
`logic maintains a long average only for the dominant axis (e.g., the axis on
`
`which the gravitational effect is detected),” whereas “[i]n another
`
`embodiment, the long average logic maintains an average for one or more
`
`axes.” Id. at 5:26–30. At block 420, the process determines the dominant
`
`axis using long averages of accelerations for a plurality of axes. Id. at 5:32–
`
`38.
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent.
`
`Independent claim 1 (reproduced below) is representative.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`receiving motion data from a motion sensor in a device, the
`motion sensor sensing motion along three axes;
`
`verifying whether the motion data includes one or more glitches
`and removing the one or more glitches from the motion data;
`
`determining an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the
`device, the dominant axis defined as the axis with a largest
`effect from gravity among the three axes, the idle sample value
`comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period
`along the dominant axis recorded when the device goes to idle
`mode after a period of inactivity;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`registering a motion of the device based on the motion data
`from the motion sensor;
`
`determining whether the motion caused a change in the
`dominant axis; and
`
`waking up the device when the motion of the device indicates
`the change in the dominant axis of the device, the dominant
`axis being the axis with the largest effect from gravity among
`the three axes.
`
`Id. at 8:33–53.
`
`D. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Pasolini2, Goldman3,
`McMahan4, and Mizell5
`
`§ 103(a) 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and
`20
`
`Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
`Mizell, and Park6
`
`§ 103(a) 8, 16, and 18
`
`Pet. 18.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Patent Owner contends “[t]he Petition does not set forth the requisite
`
`analysis necessary to prove obviousness at least because . . . it fails to
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 B2 (Aug. 5, 2008) (Ex. 1003, “Pasolini”).
`3 Ron Goldman, Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer, Sun Microsystems
`Inc. (Feb. 23, 2007) (Ex. 1004, “Goldman”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,204,123 B2 (Apr. 17, 2007) (Ex. 1005, “McMahan”).
`5 David Mizell, Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer Orientation,
`Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Wearable
`Computers (2003) (Ex. 1007, “Mizell”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 B2 (Apr. 11, 2006) (Ex. 1014, “Park”).
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`provide or expressly rely upon any definition for the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art.” Resp. 4. We disagree.
`
`The Petition consistently cites to Dr. Paradiso’s Declaration, which
`
`both defines a person of ordinary skill in the art and explains that all of the
`
`opinions expressed are from that person’s perspective. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 17.
`
`We see no need to require more, and Patent Owner cites no authority for its
`
`contention that we should reject the petition based solely on Petitioner’s
`
`failure to expressly define the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Petition
`
`itself, as opposed to in an expert’s supporting declaration.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ’646 patent has not expired, and the Petition was filed before
`
`November 13, 2018. Therefore, we interpret terms of the challenged claims
`
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017).7 Unless the record shows
`
`otherwise, we presume a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`
`‘glitch’ includes a datum that is outside of an acceptable range.” Pet. 7. In
`
`
`
`7 See also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018) (“The Office will continue to apply
`the BRI standard for construing unexpired patent claims . . . in AIA
`proceedings where a petition was filed before the [November 13, 2018]
`effective date of the rule.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`contrast, Patent Owner asserts “glitch” “refer[s] to actual motion data
`
`deemed to not fit the signature of human motion indicative of someone
`
`preparing to interface with a device.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner,
`
`“[w]hile a ‘glitch’ is within the operational range of the sensor, it does not
`
`warrant waking up the device from an idle state to an active state.” Id.
`
`We agree with Petitioner. The Specification describes a glitch
`
`broadly and consistently with Petitioner’s construction. It explains “a glitch
`
`is a datum that indicates a motion outside an acceptable range. For example,
`
`it is extremely unlikely that a device would go from idle (e.g., no motion) to
`
`moving at an acceleration of 64 feet per second squared (equivalent to 2g).”
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:35–40. In addition, the Specification repeatedly uses “glitch”
`
`inconsistently with Patent Owner’s contention that a glitch must be motion
`
`data within the operational range of the motion sensor. See Ex. 1001, 5:19–
`
`23 (describing “a glitch correcting logic which removes abnormal data from
`
`the motion data”); id. at 6:56–65 (explaining “an excessive number of
`
`glitches may indicate a problem with the accelerometer”); id. at 3:33–37
`
`(noting “glitches generally are indicative that the accelerometer or sensor is
`
`malfunctioning”). Although, as Patent Owner notes, the Specification
`
`describes distinguishing between real motion that warrants waking up a
`
`device as opposed to “a mere jostle or bump,” none of the passages Patent
`
`Owner cites from the ’646 patent actually refers to jostle/bump motion data
`
`as a “glitch.” See Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:59–63, 2:35–51, 4:61–5:2).
`
`Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a glitch includes a datum that is outside
`
`of an acceptable range.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, AND 20
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would
`
`have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell. Pet. 28–
`
`64. We conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would have been
`
`obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell, as outlined below.
`
`1. Rationale for Combining Prior Art Teachings
`
`a. Combining Pasolini and Goldman
`
`Petitioner generally reads the ’646 patent’s claimed method of using
`
`motion as a prompt for waking up a device onto Pasolini’s teaching of
`
`activating an electronic device from a standby mode in response to detected
`
`acceleration. Petitioner relies on Goldman for teaching distinguishing
`
`between static acceleration due to gravity and dynamic acceleration due to
`
`movement when calculating acceleration. In particular, Petitioner explains
`
`with relevant support from its expert, Dr. Paradiso, that “when analyzing
`
`acceleration signals, it is beneficial to factor in calibration, sampling rates,
`
`and tilt,” as Goldman teaches, “because the results are more accurate.” Pet.
`
`23 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77). Thus, Petitioner explains, combining Pasolini’s
`
`device with Goldman’s accelerometer techniques amounts to no more than
`
`“using the known techniques of Goldman to improve the similar device of
`
`Pasolini in the same way.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner does not contest
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We conclude Petitioner has articulated
`
`sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`b. Combining McMahan with Pasolini/Goldman
`
`Petitioner relies on McMahan for teaching replacing sensor output
`
`that falls outside an acceptable range with a measure within the acceptable
`
`rage. According to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
`
`the art to combine McMahan’s method for replacing faulty output data “to
`
`enhance the accuracy of the accelerometer of the Pasolini and Goldman
`
`combination.” Pet. 25. In particular, Petitioner explains that one skilled in
`
`the art would have “recognized the desirability of removing accelerometer
`
`signal errors in order to have more reliable accelerometer data,” id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 82), and that the proffered combination would facilitate “a more
`
`‘accurate reflection of the stimulus that the sensor is designed to monitor,’”
`
`id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:29–30). Based on its assertions and supporting
`
`evidence, we find Petitioner has shown adequately that one skilled in the art
`
`would have had reason to combine the teachings of McMahan with Pasolini
`
`and Goldman. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s rationale is deficient because
`
`“[t]he Petition fails to prove (or even attempt to argue) that the electronic-
`
`circuitry concerns detailed in McMahan are present in the other cited
`
`references, much less their proposed combination, such that those
`
`references are all compatible with and would have the same articulated
`
`benefits of this particular aspect of the McMahan design.” Resp. 16.
`
`According to Patent Owner, “[t]he Petition offers no argument or evidence
`
`to conclude that [McMahan’s] sensor-specific technique could be applied to
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`the entirely different accelerometers of . . . the so-called and merely
`
`hypothetical accelerometer of the Pasolini and Goldman combination.” Id.
`
`at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). We disagree.
`
`The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`In particular, McMahan’s disclosure that its method is broadly applicable to
`
`sensors in general (see Ex. 1005, 3:29–31, 3:37–40) undermines Patent
`
`Owner’s contention that McMahan’s teaching is particular to a specific
`
`sensor and thus incompatible with the Pasolini/Goldman combination. In
`
`addition, Dr. Paradiso’s declaration testimony that “applying McMahan’s
`
`modification of sensor data determined to be outside an acceptable range
`
`would have improved the accuracy of the accelerometer” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 82)
`
`undermines Patent Owner’s suggestion that McMahon’s method would only
`
`benefit a system with McMahan’s unique internal circuitry. The same is true
`
`of Dr. Paradiso’s deposition testimony that at the time of the invention,
`
`accelerometer errors were common and, if unaccounted for, would adversely
`
`affect an accelerometer’s accuracy. See Ex. 2002, 20:3–21. Given the
`
`evidence of record, we conclude Petitioner has articulated sufficient
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
`
`that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418.
`
`c. Combining Mizell with McMahan/Pasolini/Goldman
`
`Petitioner relies on Mizell for teaching that accelerometer samples are
`
`averaged over a sampling interval (a sample period) to capture a
`
`representation of gravity for all three axes. Petitioner asserts, again with
`
`relevant support from Dr. Paradiso, that it would have been obvious to one
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`skilled in the art to combine Mizell’s method of capturing a device’s rest
`
`acceleration for each axis by averaging samples over a sampling interval to
`
`“smooth and reduce noise,” and thereby “obtain a more accurate
`
`representation of the gravity signal.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 84).
`
`Petitioner further explains “[t]he techniques of Mizell teach an exemplary
`
`solution for handling noise generated by accelerometer signals.” Id. Patent
`
`Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. Based on its
`
`assertions and supporting evidence, we conclude Petitioner has articulated
`
`sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`2. “remov[ing] the one or more glitches from the motion data”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13 require “removing the one or more
`
`glitches from the motion data.” Independent claim 20 has a similar
`
`limitation reciting a glitch corrector to “remove the one or more glitches
`
`from the motion data.” Petitioner explains McMahan teaches that “[w]hen
`
`the output of sensor 102 is not within the expected range of its normal
`
`operation, it is presumed that the output is an error.” Pet. 30 (quoting Ex.
`
`1005, 4:26–30). Then, after determining that an error (i.e., a glitch) is
`
`present, “McMahan teaches that ‘enhancement circuit 104 . . . provid[es] a
`
`value to electronic circuit 106 that is within the normal range of the output
`
`of sensor 102.’” Id. at 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:35–38). “Thus,”
`
`Petitioner asserts, “McMahan determines whether the motion data includes a
`
`glitch . . . and then removes the glitch from the motion data.” Id. at 31. We
`
`agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would understand that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`McMahan teaches removing one or more glitches from motion data, as
`
`claims 1, 13, and 20 require.
`
`Patent Owner argues that McMahan’s error modification is
`
`distinguishable from the claimed glitch removal. See Resp. 9–15.
`
`According to Patent Owner, “McMahan defines its ‘error’ as a value that is
`
`impossible and not an accurate reflection of motion because it is outside
`
`what the sensor is designed to monitor,” whereas the claimed glitch “refer[s]
`
`to actual motion data deemed to not fit the signature of human motion
`
`indicative of someone preparing to interface with a device.” Id. at 9–10. In
`
`addition, Patent Owner contends, McMahan’s “‘modify’ block 308 refers to
`
`processing an erroneous output which, due to its impossible value, is never
`
`included as part of anything that can be considered motion data (and thus it
`
`cannot be removed from such data).” Id. at 14. We disagree with Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments because they rely on Patent Owner’s proposed “glitch”
`
`claim construction, which we decline to adopt for the reasons explained
`
`above.
`
`3. Undisputed Claim Elements
`
`As outlined below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell
`
`teaches the remaining limitations of claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and
`
`20. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches “[a] method comprising: receiving motion data from a
`
`motion sensor in a device, the motion sensor sensing motion along three
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`axes,” as claim 1 requires. See Pet. 28–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:1, 2:26–
`
`34, 3:17–19, Fig. 1, claim 3; Ex. 1004, 1; Ex. 1010, 47). Petitioner made an
`
`adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
`
`“the dominant axis defined as the axis with a largest effect from gravity
`
`among the three axes,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 33–34 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 5:41–48; Ex. 1010, 49–50). Petitioner made an adequate showing
`
`that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, and Mizell teaches “the idle
`
`sample value comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period
`
`along the dominant axis,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 34–35 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 5; Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1010, 50–51). Petitioner made an adequate
`
`showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “recorded
`
`when the device goes to idle mode after a period of inactivity,” as claim 1
`
`requires. See id. at 35–37 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:59–65; Ex. 1010, 51–52).
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that Goldman teaches “registering a
`
`motion of the device based on the motion data from the motion sensor,” as
`
`claim 1 requires. See id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5; Ex. 1010, 52–53).
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and
`
`Goldman teaches “determining whether the motion caused a change in the
`
`dominant axis,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:31–
`
`39; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 53–54). Petitioner made an adequate showing
`
`that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “waking up the device
`
`when the motion of the device indicates the change in the dominant axis of
`
`the device,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:35–41;
`
`Ex. 1010, 54–55). Petitioner also made an adequate showing that the
`
`combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “the dominant axis being the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`axis with the largest effect from gravity among the three axes,” as claim 1
`
`requires. See id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1010, 55).
`
`b. Claim 3
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that Pasolini teaches the
`
`additional limitation in dependent claim 3: “wherein the motion sensor
`
`comprises an accelerometer.” See id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:13–23, 55–
`
`62, 4:65–5:9; Ex. 1010, 55).
`
`c. Claim 5
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 5:
`
`“wherein registering the motion of the device comprises: processing the
`
`motion data to determine a current sample value along the dominant axis of
`
`the device.” See id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 55–56).
`
`d. Claim 6
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 6:
`
`“further comprising comparing a difference between a current sample value
`
`along the dominant axis determined based on the motion of the device and
`
`the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a threshold value.” See
`
`id. at 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:17–20, 5:31–41; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 57–
`
`58).
`
`e. Claim 7
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 7:
`
`“wherein the change in the dominant axis comprises a change in acceleration
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`along the dominant axis.” See id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:31–39;
`
`Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 53–54), 44 (citing Ex. 1010, 58).
`
`f. Claim 9
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
`
`Goldman, and Mizell teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 9:
`
`“wherein the current sample value of the dominant axis of the device is an
`
`average of accelerations over a sample period.” See id. at 44–45 (citing
`
`Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1010, 58–59).
`
`g. Claim 10
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that Goldman teaches the
`
`additional limitation in dependent claim 10: “further comprising
`
`determining the current sample value for each of the other axes of the
`
`device.” See id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1010, 59).
`
`h. Claim 11
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 11:
`
`“further comprising determining that the device is to be woken up based on
`
`the difference between the current sample value and the idle sample value
`
`being greater than a threshold value.” See id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`5:31–41; Ex. 1010, 59–60).
`
`i.
`
`Independent Claim 13
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches “[a] mobile device comprising: a motion sensor to
`
`sense motion along three axes and generate motion data,” as claim 13
`
`requires. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:1, 2:26–34, 3:17–19,
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1004, 1; Ex. 1010, 60–62). Petitioner made an adequate
`
`showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a dominant
`
`axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the
`
`mobile device based on the motion data,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at
`
`50–52 (citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5, Fig. 3; Ex. 1010, 63–65). Petitioner made an
`
`adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
`
`“the dominant axis defined as an axis with a largest effect from gravity
`
`among three axes,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 65–
`
`66). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
`
`Goldman, and Mizell teaches “and the idle sample value comprising an
`
`average of accelerations over a sample period along the dominant axis,” as
`
`claim 13 requires. See id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 66–67). Petitioner made
`
`an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
`
`“recorded when the device goes to idle mode after a period of inactivity,” as
`
`claim 13 requires. See id. (citing Ex. 1010, 67–68). Petitioner made an
`
`adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a
`
`computation logic to determine whether the motion caused a change in the
`
`dominant axis,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 52–54 (citing Ex. 1010, 68–
`
`70). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches “a power logic to wake up the device when the motion
`
`of the device indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device,” as claim
`
`13 requires. See id. at 54–55 (citing Ex. 1010, 70–71). Petitioner made an
`
`adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
`
`“the dominant axis being the axis with the largest effect from gravity among
`
`the three axes,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1010, 71).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`j. Claim 14
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
`
`Goldman, and Mizell teaches the additional limitation in dependent
`
`claim 14: “a long average logic to calculate an average of accelerations over
`
`a sample period.” See id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1010, 71–72).
`
`k. Claim 15
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 15: “the
`
`dominant axis logic further to compare a difference between a current
`
`sample value along the dominant axis determined based on the motion of the
`
`device and the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a threshold
`
`value.” See id. at 57–58 (citing Ex. 1010, 71–73).
`
`l. Claim 17
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 17:
`
`“wherein the motion sensor logic comprises an accelerometer to detect
`
`acceleration along one or more axes.” See id. at 58–59 (citing Ex. 1010, 73).
`
`m. Independent Claim 20
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
`
`and Goldman teaches “[a] system to wake up a mobile device comprising: a
`
`motion sensor to detect motion along three axes and generation motion
`
`data,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:26–28, 2:42–44;
`
`Ex. 1010, 73–76). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
`
`combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a dominant axis logic to
`
`determine an idle sample value,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 60–61
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5, Fig. 3; Ex. 1010, 77–78). Petitioner made an adequate
`
`showing that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, and Mizell teaches
`
`“comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period along a
`
`dominant axis,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1010, 78–79).
`
`Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and
`
`Goldman teaches “the dominant axis defined as an axis with a largest effect
`
`of gravity among the three axes,” as claim 20 requires. See id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1010, 79–80). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
`
`combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a power logic to move the
`
`device from the inactive state to an active state upon detection of a change in
`
`the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the largest effect of
`
`gravity,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 62–64 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:35–48;
`
`Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 80–82).
`
` OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 8, 16, AND 18 BASED ON PASOLINI,
`GOLDMAN, MCMAHAN, MIZELL, AND PARK
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 8, 16, and 18 would have been obvious over
`
`Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park. Pet. 64–69. We conclude
`
`that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8,
`
`16, and 18 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
`
`Mizell, and Park.
`
`As noted above, Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
`
`combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell teaches each
`
`limitation in independent claims 1 and 13. Petitioner also made an adequate
`
`showing (unchallenged by Patent Owner) that Park teaches the additional
`
`limitation in dependent claims 8 and 16—“wherein waking up the device
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`further comprises configuring the device to return to a last active device
`
`state”—as well as the additional limitation in dependent claim 18—“a
`
`device state logic to restore the device to a last active state.” See id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1014, 2:53–65, 3:61–63, 4:4–14, 5:37–40; Ex. 1010, 84–85). In
`
`addition, Petitioner provided a sufficient reason why a skilled artisan would
`
`have combined Park’s teaching of saving system status data when a device
`
`goes into a suspend mode and using the data to restore the system back to its
`
`pre-suspension state. In particular, Petitioner explains one skilled in the art
`
`would have been motivated to apply Park’s method to the asserted
`
`combination to “enhance[] convenience to the user because the user does not
`
`have to manually put the device back into the state it was in before the
`
`device went to sleep.” Pet. 64–65. Patent Owner does not challenge
`
`Petitioner’s assertion in this regard. We conclude that Petitioner has
`
`established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8, 16, and 18 would
`
`have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park.
`
`III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Strike the Declaration of
`
`Patent Owner’s declarant, William Easttom. Paper 13. Because this
`
`Decision does not rely on that declaration, we deny Petitioner’s Motion as
`
`moot.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`
`1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 are unpatentable over Pasolini, Goldman,
`
`McMahan, and Mizell. Patent Owner has also shown by a preponderance of
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`the evidence that claims 8, 16, and 18 are unpatentable over Pasolini,
`
`Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of the ’646 patent are
`
`unpatentable;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Paper 13)
`
`is DENIED as moot; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`
`the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
