`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Patent No. 7,944,353
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KENNETH FYFE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Kenneth Fyfe, hereby declare the following:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My name is Kenneth Fyfe and I am over 21 years of age and otherwise
`
`competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts and
`
`matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Counsel for Apple
`
`Inc. to provide my independent opinions on certain issues requested by Counsel for
`
`Petitioner relating to the accompanying petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,944,353 (“the ’353 Patent”). My compensation in this matter is not
`
`based on the substance of the opinions rendered here.
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. I have also attached a current version of
`
`my curriculum vitae as Appendix A. It lists over 90 articles, conference
`
`presentations and technical reports that I have authored or co-authored in these
`
`areas. My research has been funded in excess of 2 million dollars by a variety of
`
`grants awarded by both federal and provincial governments and from private
`
`industry.
`
`4.
`
`I have been awarded a total of 11 patents in various countries,
`
`including the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, Finland and
`
`Belgium, issued from the period of 1999 to 2006. These patents are primarily in
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`the field of motion analysis and exercise monitoring. My first patent was U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,955,667, entitled “Motion Analysis System.” It issued on September
`
`21, 1999, claimed priority to an October 11, 1996 provisional application, and was
`
`directed to the use of accelerometers to measure motion, for example a body-worn
`
`device that determined the speed and distance travelled of a runner. This concept
`
`was commercialized by a company that I cofounded (Dynastream Innovations, as
`
`mentioned below) and has sold millions of units around the world.
`
`5.
`
`Since January 2014, I have been working for 4iiii Innovations. For
`
`almost four years, I was the Director of Algorithms. However since December 1,
`
`2017, I am now the Managing Director for our SaaS division. Prior to 2014, I was
`
`a professor at the Engineering Transfer Program at MacEwan University in
`
`Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, where I had taught since 2010. I was a faculty
`
`member at the University of Alberta where I worked as a professor in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from 1989 to 2003.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Waterloo in 1986 specializing in vibration, acoustics and signal processing. I
`
`obtained my Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Alberta in 1983 specializing in vibration. My Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
`
`Engineering was obtained from the University of Alberta in 1980.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`7. Between 1986 and 1989, I did post-doctoral research at the Katholieke
`
`University of Belgium and worked for a private company, Dynamic Engineering,
`
`performing vibration, acoustics and signal analysis on automotive, rail and
`
`aerospace structures.
`
`8. Then during the period from 1989 to 2003, I was employed as a
`
`professor
`
`in Mechanical Engineering performing
`
`teaching,
`
`research and
`
`administrative duties. My research areas of interest included biomedical sensors,
`
`motion analysis, and acoustics. During this time, I developed an inertial device to
`
`measure the speed and distance of a person walking, jogging or running. This
`
`device was a small pod with accelerometers, processor and radio, attached to a
`
`shoe, which computes the kinematics of the person and transmits the resulting
`
`information to the user. I began development in 1994 and had developed a
`
`prototype of the device by 1995.
`
`9.
`
`I cofounded Dynastream Innovations to commercialize this technology
`
`in 1999. In 2003, I left the university to work with Dynastream in product
`
`development. In 2006, Garmin purchased Dynastream and I continued to work
`
`there until 2007.
`
`10.
`
`In 2009 and 2010, I worked for the NeuroScience Department at the
`
`University of Alberta applying our inertial methodology to assistive technologies.
`
`From 2010 to 2013, I worked at MacEwan University as a professor involved in
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`teaching and research in Engineering. Since January 2014, I have been working for
`
`4iiii Innovations developing personal measurement devices that involve inertial
`
`sensors, strain gauges and signal processing.
`
`11. As part of my work in connection with this proceeding, I have
`
`reviewed the following materials:
`
`• U.S. Patent 7,944,353 B1 to Grim III et al. (’353 Patent) (Ex. 1001)
`• File History of U.S. Patent 7,944,353 to Grim III et al. (’353 Patent File
`History) (Ex. 1002)
`• U.S. Patent 6,028,514 to Lemelson (Lemelson) (Ex. 1003)
`• U.S. Patent 6,847,892 to Zhou et al. (Zhou) (Ex. 1004)
`• U.S. Patent 3,051,165 to Kompelien (Kompelien) (Ex. 1006)
`• U.S. Patent 3,639,907 to Greatbatch (Greatbatch) (Ex. 1007)
`• U.S. Patent 3,769,974 to Smart (Smart) (Ex. 1008)
`• U.S. Patent 5,333,616 to Mills (Mills) (Ex. 1009)
`• U.S. Patent 6,614,348 to Ciccolo (Ciccolo) (Ex. 1010)
`• U.S. Patent 6,487,442 to Wood (Wood) (Ex. 1011)
`• U.S. Patent 6,579,231 to Phipps (Phipps) (Ex. 1012)
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`A. Obviousness
`12.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior
`
`art. I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`14.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to
`
`the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`“analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2)
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if
`
`it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a
`
`reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have
`
`commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In
`
`determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the
`
`specification. I believe that all of the references that my opinions in this IPR are
`
`based upon are well within the range of references a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would consult to address the type of problems described in the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of
`
`the reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when
`
`there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
`
`invention, to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of
`
`the following rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for
`
`another to obtain predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art; or (G) identifying an explicit 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 the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
`
`demands known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`17.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`need not be sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences
`
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior
`
`art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need
`
`not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the problem
`
`addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves
`
`need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. I am informed that,
`
`under the KSR obviousness standard, common sense is important and should be
`
`considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes.
`
`18.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
`
`obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`invention. I am informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must
`
`do more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the
`
`field at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art
`
`and the solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the
`
`technology in the field.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the patent applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the
`
`line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`productive of the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference
`
`teaches away, for example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly
`
`inoperative device, or (2) the references leave the impression that the product
`
`would not have the property sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however,
`
`that a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
`
`an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
`
`investigation into the invention claimed.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
` I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`22.
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art
`
`features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that
`
`the Patent Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I
`
`will supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`23.
`I was asked to briefly summarize the background of the prior art from
`
`the standpoint of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (which I
`
`have expressly defined in Section III.B below) prior to May 2008.
`
`24. Biometric monitoring systems that incorporate sensors such as heart
`
`rate monitors and audio capture devices have been in use since at least the late
`
`1950s. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,051,165 to Kompelein (“Kompelein”)
`
`discloses an apparatus for “sensing and recording” physical functions of a human
`
`being, such as blood pressure and pulse rate. Kompelein (Ex. 1006) at 1:9-12. Even
`
`at this early date, Kompelein expresses a desire that would become widespread
`
`throughout the field of biometric sensing of “rapid measurement of blood pressure
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`and pulse rate in a continuous sequence without effecting physical response or
`
`discomfort of the body to which it is applied.” Id. at 1:50-55.
`
`25. By the 1970s, biometric monitoring systems were being configured to
`
`transfer captured data to remote locations. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,639,907
`
`to Greatbatch (“Greatbatch”) teaches an apparatus for monitoring from a single
`
`station a “physiological condition” of each of a plurality of remotely located
`
`patients. Greatbatch (Ex. 1007) at Abstract. Like Kompelein, Greatbatch
`
`“continuously” monitors physiological conditions of patients, possibly up to one
`
`hundred patients simultaneously. Id. at 1:42-45. To do so, each patient is equipped
`
`with a monitoring device including a radio transmitter capable of communicating
`
`the patient’s physiological condition to another radio receiver at a central
`
`“monitoring station.” Id. at 1:58-70, 2:11-20, Fig. 1. Greatback further teaches a
`
`decision circuit operable to determine whether signals generated by the monitoring
`
`devices are “indicative of normal or abnormal physiological behavior.” Id. at 3:21-
`
`33. For example, the patient’s heart rate may be found to be too fast, indicating
`
`tachycardia, while if it is found to be too slow, cardiac arrest may be determined.
`
`Id.
`
`26. Other patents from the early 1970s, such as U.S. Patent No. 3,769,974
`
`to Smart et al. (“Smart”), illustrate the advanced nature of heart rate monitors
`
`already known at the time. Smart’s “pulse transducer” was capable of providing an
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`output signal that varied as a function of a human’s pulse, using reflections of light
`
`generated by red light emitting diodes (LEDs). Smart (Ex. 1008) at Abstract, 1:35-
`
`50. Such technology would later become ubiquitous in biometric monitoring.
`
`27. At least as early as the 1990s, systems employing wrist-worn “cardiac
`
`data and event monitor[s]” were known, such as that described in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,333,616 to Mills et al. (“Mills”). Mills teaches a “self-contained, wrist-worn ECG
`
`monitor that provides at least single event recording and telecommunication of
`
`ECG data to a remote site for professional diagnosis.” Id. at 1:31-35. Mills
`
`expressly states that it includes “digital circuitry.” Id. at 6:27-32, 8:45-63. Mills
`
`EX1009
`
`28. By the early 2000s, many systems for intelligent remote monitoring of
`
`biometrics had arisen, such as those described in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,614,348 to
`
`Ciccolo et al. (“Ciccolo”), U.S. Patent No. 6,487,442 to Wood (“Wood”), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,579,231 to Phipps (“Phipps”). Ciccolo teaches monitoring behavior
`
`patterns to “effectively distinguishes between alarming and non-alarming behavior
`
`patterns” by comparing data collected from a plurality of sensors. Ciccolo (Ex.
`
`1010) at 2:61-65, 3:8-17. Ciccolo’s system further was configured to “inititate a
`
`variety of responses” based on collected data and “precipitate the transmission of
`
`an alarm or other information” to a remote location based on the input data,
`
`including a call placed to emergency responders. Id. at 3:24-55. Wood teaches an
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`apparatus and method for predicting potentially fatal heart arrhythmias through
`
`comparison of a user’s heart rate to predetermined upper and lower limits. Wood
`
`(Ex. 1011) at Abstract, 6:48-67. When the user’s heart rate exceeds a threshold for
`
`a certain amount of time, an ALARM condition is determined and relayed to a
`
`central monitoring station, informing the patient’s doctor. Id. Phipps teaches a
`
`medical monitoring unit for the continued examination and care of a subject by
`
`“continuous storing of a subject’s current physiological or medical data.” Phipps
`
`(Ex. 1012) at 1:7-17. Phipps teaches that the evaluation of the current medical data
`
`enables the early detection of adverse health conditions should they arise, and the
`
`providing of real time notification of such health conditions to the appropriate
`
`recipients to determine an appropriate response. Id. Specifically, Phipps teaches
`
`that the invention is directed to the “continuous real time collection, monitoring,
`
`and storage of an individual’s physiological data” that can “send out a distress call
`
`when the individual’s vital signs reach a dangerous level.” Id. at 2:22-28.
`
`29. A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would have
`
`been well aware of the above-described state of the art as of May 2008.
`
`B.
`
`30.
`
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a
`
`PHOSITA of the ’353 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, which counsel
`
`has informed me to assume is May 30, 2008, the filing date of the Parent
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`Application to the ’353 Patent. In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical
`
`PHOSITA of the ’353 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, I was told to
`
`consider several factors, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the
`
`field, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed
`
`invention, and considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA at the time of the claimed invention of the
`
`’353 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in
`
`event monitoring device design or in biometric tracking. A person with more direct
`
`industry experience could accommodate having less formal education, and more
`
`formal education in the field, such as a master’s degree with relevant specialization
`
`can accommodate less direct industry experience. Such a PHOSITA would have
`
`been capable of understanding the ’353 patent and the prior art references
`
`discussed herein.
`
`32. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the time of the claimed invention of the ’353 Patent.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that the first step in an
`
`unpatentability analysis involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine
`
`their scope. And, second, the construed claim language is then compared to the
`
`disclosures of the prior art. In proceedings before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, I have been informed that the claims of an unexpired patent are
`
`to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the
`
`specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. And I have been informed that the ’353 Patent is unexpired. I
`
`have further been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may
`
`soon apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). I
`
`understand the Phillips standard ascribes claim terms the meaning they would have
`
`to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention, taking into consideration the patent, its
`
`file history, and, secondarily, any applicable extrinsic evidence such as dictionary
`
`definitions. For those terms discussed below, it is my opinion that the proposed
`
`constructions are correct under either the BRI standard or Phillips standard. In
`
`comparing the claims of the ’353 Patent to the prior art, I have carefully considered
`
`the ’353 Patent and its prosecution history based upon my experience and
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`knowledge in the relevant field. For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the
`
`claim constructions set forth in the claim construction section of the IPR Petition
`
`that this declaration accompanies when analyzing the prior art and the claims. For
`
`those terms that have not expressly been construed, I have applied the meaning of
`
`the claim terms of the ’353 Patent that is generally consistent with the terms’
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood them at the time of the invention.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 15, and 17 - “signature data”
`i.
`34. The ’353 Patent explains that “signature data” is “data specific to the
`
`output of a certain type of sensor or class of sensors” that defines recognizable
`
`characteristics of events such as gunshots, screams, elevated blood pressure, and
`
`increased heart rate. ’353 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:50-63. Particular types and classes
`
`of sensors given as examples by the ’353 Patent include sensors intended for
`
`capturing sound, faces, and/or biometric signals including heart rate. Id. at 6:61-63.
`
`The ’353 Patent provides further detail, stating:
`
`As the input data is streamed to the analysis subsystem 320, the
`analysis subsystem 320 may reference a glossary of sounds 360, a
`glossary of biometric sensor events 370, a glossary of faces 380, and
`any other glossaries that may be present, to compare the incoming
`digital signature data with the signature data in the referenced
`glossaries. For example, in one embodiment, the incoming digital
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`
`signature data may be compared to a sound signature in the glossary
`of sounds 360 and the incoming digital signature data may match a
`scream signature. In the same or another embodiment, the comparison
`may result in a gunshot signature match.
`
`Id. at 7:3-14 (emphasis added); see also 6:50-63. In other words, an input data
`
`stream is a stream of data from a sensor. That stream of input data is continuously
`
`analyzed to determine whether its data matches any stored “signatures”—data that
`
`define recognizable characteristics of events. For example, an input data stream
`
`from a heart rate sensor may be continuously compared against stored “signatures”
`
`applicable to heart rate data. If the user experiences an elevated heart rate, the
`
`system would locate a match between a portion of the input data stream and the
`
`stored “signature” for an elevated heart rate event. This matching portion of the
`
`input data stream is referred to as “a digitized stream of signature data.” See Claim
`
`1. A PHOSITA would understand that the portions of the input data stream that
`
`match stored “signatures” are “signature data” and those portions that do not match
`
`a stored “signature” are just raw sensor data that are not properly characterized as
`
`“signature data.”
`
`35. Therefore, the correct construction of “signature data” is “data that
`
`defines recognizable characteristics of an event.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`
`Claims 5, 12, 15 and 17 - “glossary”
`ii.
`36. The ’353 Patent gives a clear description of the meaning of a
`
`“glossary:”
`
`The glossary may be similar to a database or other file repository and
`may organize signature data, that is, data specific to the output of a
`certain type of sensor or class of sensors. For example, one glossary
`may store digital signature data related to sound….Another glossary
`may store digital signature data related to faces, such as faces of
`missing persons, criminals, and friends. An additional glossary may
`include biometric signature data.
`’353 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:51-63. In each of the above examples, a “glossary”
`
`stores in memory a plurality of data files of a given type of data, each of which
`
`constitute “signature data.” A PHOSITA would have recognized, based on this
`
`description, that the broadest reasonable construction of a “glossary” is a “stored
`
`collection of signature data.”
`
`iii.
`
`Claims 6, 7, and 18 - “configuration data” / “configuration
`setting”
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA would have understood
`
`that a
`
`configuration setting is one kind of configuration data, and thus these terms may be
`
`construed together. The ’353 Patent gives a direct example of configuration setting
`
`data being “user-configured”:
`
`The configuration database 390 may include settings that establish
`sensitivity and context that affect the accuracy of the comparison
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Apple Inc. Ex. 1005 Page 20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent 7,944,353
`
`
`process. For example, the sensitivity and context of a configuration
`setting for sound may affect whether or not an incoming sound of a
`firecracker gets matched with a shotgun signature or pistol signature.
`The settings of the configuration database 390 may be user-
`configured. For example, the configuration database 390 may include
`options that may raise or lower a level or awareness, or a threshold, of
`a subsystem.
`
`Id. at 7:19-28, see also 49-64. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“configuration data” and a “configuration setting” at least include a “user-
`
`configured setting.”
`
`D. Obvious to Combine Lemelson and Zhou
`
`38. Lemelson teaches a “medical monitoring system that monitors and
`
`generates signals of a user’s current medical conditions in order to detect abnormal
`
`medical conditions.” Lemelson at 4:29-32 (Ex. 1003). The “warning unit”
`
`monitoring device taught by Lemelson is configured to detect when “variance of
`
`predefined degree” exists between the user’s
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
