UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01093
`Patent No. 7,944,353
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,944,353
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’353 PATENT ........................................................................................... 2
`A. THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’353 PATENT ................................................................................. 2
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’353 PATENT ...................................................... 5
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................................ 7
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS ....................................................................... 7
`B. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) .......................................................... 7
`C. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................................................... 7
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................. 8
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)................................................................... 8
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ............. 8
`1. The Grounds for Challenge ...................................................................................................................................... 8
`2. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................................................................................. 9
`a)
`“signature data” .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
`b)
`“glossary” ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
`c)
`“configuration data” / “configuration setting” .................................................................................................... 11
`3. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................12
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’353 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE.................................................................................................................. 13
`A. SUMMARY OF LEMELSON ................................................................................................................... 13
`B. GROUND 1: LEMELSON IN VIEW OF ZHOU RENDERS CLAIMS 1-20 OBVIOUS ................................... 15
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 61
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests an Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-20 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,944,353 (“’353 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’353 Patent was filed on
`
`May 30, 2008 and issued on May 17, 2011 to Clifton E. Grim III, et al.
`
`(“Applicant”).’353 Patent (Ex. 1001). The ’353 Patent broadly describes a
`
`personal safety alert system that senses a “critical event” such as an abnormal heart
`
`rate, determines whether it is a medical emergency and, in response, may broadcast
`
`an alert to a remote location. Id. at 1:45-2:14, 7:33-41. As emphasized during
`
`prosecution, the ’353 Patent’s purported points of novelty were (1) repeatedly
`
`analyzing a “digitized stream of signature data” (2) determining an “event context”
`
`(3) assessing a “criticality” or “urgency” of the event context and (4) determining a
`
`reporting response. ’353 File History (Ex. 1002) at 104-06.
`
`These features are well represented in the prior art, as evidenced by the
`
`proposed ground of unpatentability presented herein. Ground 1 relies primarily on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,028,514 to Lemelson (“Lemelson”) (Ex. 1003), which 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 (Ex.
`
`1003) at 4:29-14. Lemelson teaches that if a variance of predefined degree exists
`
`between the person's current and normal medical conditions (such as the detection
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`of a medical emergency like a heart attack or stroke), the device generates and
`
`causes the transmission circuit to transmit signals defining the variance so as to
`
`alert the remote command control center where emergency medical personnel may
`
`respond. Id.
`
` As discussed herein, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)
`
`would have recognized that Lemelson’s system could be extended pursuant to the
`
`teachings of U.S. Patent No. 6,847,892 to Zhou et al. (“Zhou”) (Ex. 1004) to
`
`provide a similar alert device that also includes filtering alerts based on a user’s
`
`configuration setting (e.g., alerts are sent only when a user’s heart-rate is above a
`
`user-defined threshold). This straightforward modification is motivated by
`
`Lemelson’s stated intent to provide a “personal emergency, safety warning system
`
`and method that creates a more comprehensive, intelligent warning and response
`
`system for individual users.” As such, the key invention of the Challenged Claims
`
`is rendered obvious. Lemelson (Ex. 1003) at 2:60-63.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’353 PATENT
`a. THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’353 PATENT
`
`As explained in the ’353 patent, there frequently is a delay in reporting a
`
`
`
`critical event—such as an abnormal heart rate indicating a heart attack or stroke—
`
`thus causing a delay in assistance or the dispatching of emergency personnel. ’353
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:19-41. One of the described reasons for this delay is the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`uncertainty regarding whether an event should be treated as an emergency. Id. The
`
`’353 Patent further explains that while devices existed to continually sense and
`
`capture information associated with all aspects of a person’s daily activities, the
`
`systems were unable to analyze and report emergency events.
`
`To address this problem, the ’353 Patent describes “a system and method for
`
`detecting and signaling the existence of a critical event.” Id. at 1:15-17. This is
`
`accomplished by a small, portable device worn by a user that “acquir[es] input data
`
`that may comprise a stream of digitized signature data” that is then “continuously
`
`analyzed to determine an event context.” Id. at Fig 1. and Abstract. Then, “[a]
`
`priority of the determined event context is assessed and responsive to the priority
`
`assessment, a reporting response is generated.” Id. at Abstract. The ’353 Patent
`
`describes many types of data that may be acquired and analyzed, including
`
`biometric and heart rate data. Id. at 3:37-40, 6:60-63.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`In the ’353 Patent, the data is collected and analyzed as depicted in Fig. 3
`
`below:
`
`
`
`Once the data—such as heart rate data—is acquired, it is stored in a system
`
`memory, depicted as the cache in box 310 where it is then provided to Analysis
`
`Subsystem 320. Id. at 6:34-40. The Analysis Subsystem 320 then “compare[s] the
`
`input data received to other information stored in a glossary.” Id. at 6:50-51. This
`
`glossary may include “biometric signature data” that includes “data that indicate
`
`nervousness, such as sweatiness, elevated blood pressure, and increased heart
`
`rate.” Id. at 6:60-63. As the captured data is “streamed to the analysis subsystem
`
`320, the analysis subsystem 320 may reference … a glossary of biometric sensor
`
`events 370 … to compare the incoming digital signature data with the signature
`
`data in the referenced glossaries.” Id. at 7:3-8. After comparing the captured data
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`with the data in the glossary, the “Analysis Subsystem 320 determines the context
`
`or origination of an event … and reports the event context to the reporting
`
`subsystem 330.” Id. at 7:28-33. An alert may then be broadcast based on the events
`
`received. Id. at 7:33-38. In other embodiments, the Configuration Database 390
`
`may be configured by the user to “define the criticality or importance of an event
`
`and determine whether an alert is necessary or required.” Id. at 7:24-26; 7:35-48.
`
`When the reporting subsystem 330 determines a reported event is critical it will
`
`“require an alert to be broadcast” to family, friends, emergency services, or any
`
`other user-defined entity.” Id. at 7:65-8:8.
`
`The claims of the ’353 Patent generally describe a system or method that
`
`determines an event context from collected sensory data (such as audio or
`
`biometric information), performs an analysis of the collected data by comparing it
`
`to stored data of a similar type, and generates a response, such as an alert. Id. at
`
`11:46-12:63. Further aspects of these claims, as described below, require that an
`
`alert may be “filtered” based on a “configuration setting” that assesses the
`
`criticality or importance of the event. Id. at 7:19-48.
`
`b. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’353 PATENT
`
`The ’353 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/130,471 (“the
`
`’471 Application”) (Ex. 1002), which was filed on May 30, 2008. For the purposes
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`of this IPR, it is assumed that all Challenged Claims are entitled to this priority
`
`date.
`
`The Examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on July 28, 2010, rejecting all
`
`claims as anticipated under § 102 and/or rendered obvious under § 103 by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,950,150 to Lloyd et al. (“Lloyd”), and in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,542,075 to Barker et al. (“Barker”) for dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-8. ’353
`
`Patent File History (Ex. 1002), Office Action at 79-82. The Examiner noted that
`
`Lloyd teaches an “apparatus for reporting a critical event and includes a PC 24 for
`
`repeatedly analyzing the input data from 10 through modems 16 and 22; assessing
`
`a criticality of the determined event[]; and responsive to the assessment of
`
`criticality, determining a reporting response[].” Id. at 79. Finally, the Examiner
`
`noted that the digital life and biometric information recorder disclosed in Barker
`
`would have been obvious to combine with Lloyd. Id. at 81-82.
`
`
`
`In response, the Applicant broadly argued that Lloyd does not teach any of
`
`repeatedly analyzing a “digitized stream of signature data,” determining an “event
`
`context,” assessing a “criticality” or “urgency” of the event context, and
`
`determining a reporting response. Id. at 105-06. The Examiner then allowed the
`
`claims and the ’353 Patent issued on May 17, 2011. ’353 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`a. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS
`
`Petitioner is the real party-in-interest. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner is unaware of any currently pending judicial or
`
`administrative proceeding involving the ‘353 Patent.
`
`b. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3)
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation and service information for
`
`lead and back-up counsel. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4). Please direct all
`
`correspondence regarding this proceeding to lead and back-up counsel at their
`
`respective email addresses listed below. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4).
`
`Lead Counsel
`Adam P. Seitz (Reg. No. 52,206)
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Paul R. Hart (Reg. No. 59,646)
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Ste. 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`c. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned submitted payment by deposit account with the filing of
`
`this Petition authorizing the Office to charge $33,500. 37 C.F.R. § 42.103.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`a. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’353 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’353 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the
`
`’353 Patent, (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the ’353 Patent, and (3) this Petition is not filed more than one year
`
`after the Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’353
`
`Patent.
`
`b. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and claims charts, claims 1-20 of the ’353
`
`Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1. The Grounds for Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`Lemelson in view of Zhou
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`
`Reference
`Exhibit Nos.
`1003, 1004
`
`prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the evidence relied
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenges raised is provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001-1012 are also attached.
`
`2. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Petitioner understands that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may soon
`
`apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard).
`
`Petitioner proposes all claim terms not specifically discussed below should be
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification. For those terms
`
`addressed below, Petitioner believes its proposed constructions are consistent with
`
`both the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) and Phillips standards. These
`
`assumptions are not a waiver of any argument in any litigation that claim terms in
`
`the ’353 Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid nor does Petitioner waive its
`
`right to raise additional issues of claim construction in any future litigation.
`
`
`
`a) “signature data”
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 15, and 17 recite “signature data.” ’353 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`at 11:46-12:62. The claims use this phrase in two related ways. First, claims 1 and
`
`2 recite “input data” that comprises “a digitized stream of signature data.” Second,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`claims 5, 12, 15, and 17 recite a “glossary” comprising signature data. Id. The
`
`following excerpt explains this phrase:
`
`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
`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). As explained in this excerpt, the input data is a
`
`stream of data from the sensor(s) that is continuously compared against stored
`
`“signatures” that define recognizable characteristics of events. Id. at 6:50-54.
`
`Examples of such signatures include “gunshots, screams and glass breaking” for
`
`sound sensors and “sweatiness, elevated blood pressure, and increased heart rate”
`
`for biometric sensors. Id. at 6:50-63. When the input data stream includes a portion
`
`of sensor data that matches a stored signature, those portions of the input data
`
`stream are also called “signature data.” In other words, using the ‘353 Patent
`
`parlance, the portion of input data that matches a stored “signature” is referred to
`
`as a “digitized stream of signature data.” Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`Thus, the BRI and Philips construction of “signature data” as recited in
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 15, and 17 is “data that defines recognizable characteristics of an
`
`event.” Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.
`
`b) “glossary”
`
`Claims 5, 12, 15, and 17 recite a “glossary” comprising or storing signature
`
`data. ’353 Patent at 11:46-12:62 (Ex. 1001). The ’353 Patent teaches the
`
`following:
`
` 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. A PHOSITA would have understood, based on
`
`this description, that a “glossary” is a “stored collection of signature data.” Fyfe
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 33, 36.
`
`
`
`c) “configuration data” / “configuration setting”
`
`Claim 6 recites “configuration data,” while claims 7 and 18 recite a
`
`“configuration setting.” ’353 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 12:8-4, 48-57. The ’353 Patent
`
`teaches:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`The configuration database 390 may include settings that establish
`sensitivity and context that affect the accuracy of the comparison
`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. As described, configuration data includes settings
`
`for adjusting the functionality of the system, such as thresholds or sensitivity, that
`
`may be “user-configured.” Thus,
`
`the BRI and Philips constructions of
`
`“configuration data” and a “configuration setting” as recited in claims 6, 7, and 18
`
`must at least include a “user-configured setting.” Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 33,
`
`37.
`
`3. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`As explained by Dr. Fyfe, biometric monitoring systems incorporating heart
`
`rate sensors and audio capture sensors date back to at least the 1960s. Fyfe Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 23-29. From the 1980s through the mid-1990s, a myriad of remote
`
`biometric monitoring systems were being patented and produced. Id.
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the ’353 Patent
`
`priority date in May 2008 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field with at least two
`
`years of experience in event monitoring device design or in biometric tracking.
`
`More direct industry experience can accommodate less formal education in the
`
`field and more formal education in the field can accommodate less direct industry
`
`experience. Id. at ¶¶ 30-32.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OF THE ’353 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. SUMMARY OF LEMELSON
`
`Lemelson relates to emergency warning systems that have the capability to
`
`automatically warn someone in the case of an emergency. Lemelson (Ex. 1003) at
`
`1:15-30. Lemelson further teaches that these emergency situations can include
`
`medical alerts that need to be transmitted for assistance. Id. at Abstract.
`
`To accomplish this goal, Lemelson describes a portable warning unit that is
`
`worn by a user and that includes a medical monitoring system that “monitors and
`
`generates signals defining selected current medical conditions of the person
`
`wearing the warning unit.” Id. at 4:29-33. The portable warning unit will include
`
`“data defining abnormal medical conditions” and it will compare “the signals
`
`generated by the medical monitoring system to the data stored in memory defining
`
`abnormal medical conditions.” Id. at 4:33-37. The system of Lemelson continually
`
`compares the signals indicative of the user’s current condition with the pre-stored
`
`data and, “[i]f a variance of predefined degree exists between the person’s current
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`and normal medicinal conditions, the computer generates and causes the
`
`transmission circuit to transmit signals defining the variance to the command
`
`control center.” Id. at 4:37-41. Disclosed examples include detecting abnormal
`
`medical conditions in the blood, circulatory system, respiratory system, and
`
`nervous system. Id. at 4:41-43. Once a signal is received by the command control
`
`center, the system determines the severity, or priority, of the emergency and
`
`responds accordingly by, for example, dispatching the proper emergency
`
`assistance. Id. at 4:48-50.
`
`This process in Lemelson of collecting and analyzing data is depicted in
`
`annotated Fig. 4A below:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`As illustrated above, the Lemelson system “determine[s] whether there is a
`
`medical alert at block 153. [] The warning unit 12 generates medical alerts when
`
`the person’s body functions or medical conditions being monitored (i.e. heart rate,
`
`blood level, sugar level, circulatory system, respiratory system, nervous system,
`
`etc.) reach abnormal levels. If a medical alert is detected, control is passed to
`
`activate alarm at block 162.” Id. at 13:50-58. If no alert is detected, no alarm is
`
`activated and “[t]he system continually searches for received alarm messages from
`
`unit(s) 12.” Id. at 15:40-42; 16:15-17.
`
`B. GROUND 1: LEMELSON IN VIEW OF ZHOU RENDERS CLAIMS 1-20 OBVIOUS
`
`Lemelson was filed on October 30, 1998 and published on February 22,
`
`2000. Accordingly, Lemelson qualifies as prior art as to the ’353 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Lemelson (Ex. 1003). Lemelson was not cited or
`
`discussed during prosecution of the ’353 Patent.
`
`Lemelson is also analogous prior art to the ’353 Patent. Lemelson is directed
`
`to the same problem as the ’353 Patent, namely, monitoring health signals,
`
`determining if those signals are abnormal and require reporting to emergency
`
`personnel, and reporting identified emergencies. Additionally, and as further
`
`illustrated below, the ’353 Patent and Lemelson both relate to biometric monitoring
`
`and both provide alerts based on detected biometric data. Lemelson is thus in the
`
`same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’353 Patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 38. Therefore, Lemelson is analogous to the claimed
`
`invention in the ’353 Patent.
`
`Zhou was filed on October 29, 2001 and published on January 25, 2005.
`
`Accordingly, Zhou qualifies as prior art as to the ’353 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) (pre-AIA). Zhou (Ex. 1004). Zhou was not cited as prior art of record or
`
`discussed during prosecution of the ’353 Patent. Like the ’353 Patent, Zhou’s
`
`teaching relates to methods of monitoring and tracking individuals, such as in the
`
`case of “caregivers monitoring patients.” Id. at 1:23-26, 2:52. Zhou is thus in the
`
`same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’353 Patent.
`
`Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 45. Therefore, Zhou is also analogous to the claimed
`
`invention in the ’353 Patent.
`
`As explained in detail below, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to implement the Lemelson system modified to implement the
`
`periodic analysis of input data and sophisticated filtering schemes in accordance
`
`with the teachings of Zhou.
`
`Claim 1
`
`i.
`1. A computer-implemented method of reporting a critical event, the method
`comprising:
`
`
`
`To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Lemelson discloses a
`
`computer-implemented method of reporting a critical event. For example,
`
`Lemelson teaches reporting a critical event, such as a heart attack or stroke via an
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`electronic personal emergency safety-warning unit (hereafter “warning unit”),
`
`illustrated in Figure 6 below.
`
`Lemelson (Ex. 1003) at 6:7-13, 5:39-46, Fig. 6. The warning unit includes a
`
`microprocessor 42, and thus its method is “computer-implemented.” Id. at 11:30-
`
`
`
`49, Fig. 2.
`
`[1(a)] receiving input data, the input data comprising a digitized stream of
`signature data;
`
`
`
`Lemelson teaches that the warning unit may receive a variety of input data
`
`related to the user of the warning unit and his surroundings, such as signals
`
`indicative of sounds or biometric conditions. Id. at 11:24-49. Particularly, as seen
`
`below in Figure 4, the warning unit includes a medical sensor 51 for monitoring
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`the user’s heart rate, blood pressure, and other “measurable indicators and medical
`
`signs that determine a need for emergency medical attention.”
`
`
`
`Id. at 7:42-57, 11:44-49, Fig. 2 (annotated). A PHOSITA would understand that
`
`data captured by microphone 60 and medical sensor 51 is “received” by
`
`microprocessor 42 via the illustrated Signal Routing and Control Circuitry. Fyfe
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 39.
`
`Under the claim construction set forth in Section IV.b.2.a above, “signature
`
`data” is “data that defines recognizable characteristics of an event.” See Section
`
`IV.b.2.a. Lemelson teaches a microphone 60 that creates an input data stream that
`
`can include recognizable words or sounds indicative of dangerous situations, i.e.,
`
`events. Lemelson further teaches medical sensor 51 that creates an input data
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`stream that can include biometric data indicative of a medical emergency, i.e., a
`
`medical event. The following excerpts describes both examples:
`
`Speech/sound recognition circuit 46 is used for recognition of spoken
`words or other sounds such as gun shots, screams, or other noises
`indicative of dangerous situations. Speech/sound recognition circuit
`46 is also coupled to the memory 44 as indicated in FIG. 2 to output
`alarm signals and
`indications at appropriate
`times
`to
`the
`microprocessor control 42. FIG. 2 also shows medical sensor 51 used
`to detect emergency medical conditions and to automatically transmit
`requests for assistance along with G.P.S. coordinates and specific
`information about the emergency such as a heart attack, failure to
`respond to stimuli, etc.
`
`Lemelson (Ex. 1003) at 11:38-49 (emphasis added).
`
`The speech detection circuitry at block 154 is used to determine
`whether or not human speech is present. If speech is recognized,
`control is passed to compare the speech to data stored in a speech
`library at block 158. The spoken words are compared with a speech
`library stored in memory at block 160 as illustrated in FIG. 4A.
`Particular or specific words stored in the library memory at block 160
`determines and indicates whether an alarm or distressful situation is
`occurring that requires attention or immediate response. Such words,
`for example, might include "robbery," "rape," "help," "heart attack,"
`or similar selected phrases indicating an emergency situation. The
`system determines at block 162 from the speech library if there is an
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`emergency. If an emergency is detected, control is passed to activate
`alarm 162 with subsequent operation as described above.
`
`Id. at 14:29-44 (emphasis added).
`The warning unit carried by the person further includes a medical
`monitoring system that monitors and generates signals defining
`selected current medical conditions of the person wearing the warning
`unit. The portable warning unit computer controller memory includes
`data defining abnormal medical conditions. The computer
`is
`programmed
`to compare the signals generated by
`the medical
`monitoring system to the data stored in memory defining abnormal
`medical conditions.
`
`Id. at 4:29-41 (emphasis added).
`
`A PHOSITA would thus have recognized that Lemelson teaches receiving
`
`input data comprising “signature data” under
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation. Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶¶ 34-35, 39.
`
`Lemelson teaches that the warning unit medical monitoring system
`
`“monitors” current medical conditions of the person wearing the warning unit.
`
`Lemelson (Ex. 1003) at 4:29-32. A PHOSITA would have understood this
`
`“monitoring” teaches a continuous “stream” of input data from the medical
`
`monitoring system that is constantly or periodically assessed to identify abnormal
`
`conditions. Fyfe Decl. (Ex. 1005) at ¶ 40-44. Because a single isolated observation
`
`of the user’s medical condition would almost certainly miss critical events, only
`
`continuous monitoring would suffice for the medical “monitoring” system
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353
`
`
`described by Lemelson. Id. A PHOSITA would similarly have understood audio
`
`“monitoring” is constantly or periodically assessed to identify event context. Id.
`
`Because noises such as gun shots may happen at any time, a single isolated
`
`observation of the microphone data would almost certainly miss critical events. Id.
`
`For both audio and medical monitoring, Fig. 4A, shows a continuous loop of
`
`analysis on incoming data by the system, which would have been understood by a
`
`PHOSITA to constitute a continuous “monitoring” of the input data. Id.
`
`Further, Lemelson teaches that the warning units may transmit alarms to a
`
`central alarm and warning monitor/response center 10 (hereafter “response center”)
`
`upon determination of a critical event such as a heart attack. Lemelson (Ex. 1003)
`
`at 4:43-47 (“If the medical monitoring system detects abnormal conditions in the
`
`user's blood, circulatory system, respiratory system, or nervous system, the medical
`
`monitoring system alerts the command control center of the user's location and
`
`condition.”). Lemelson then teaches that the response center “continually searches
`
`for received alarm messages” from a warning unit, stating “Control center 10
`
`conti