Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: November 7, 20178
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 Per an assignment recorded on July 12, 2018, the Patent Owner is Uniloc
`2017 LLC. Patent Owner may wish to consider whether an updated power
`of attorney is warranted.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: November 7, 20178
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 Per an assignment recorded on July 12, 2018, the Patent Owner is Uniloc
`2017 LLC. Patent Owner may wish to consider whether an updated power
`of attorney is warranted.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,944,353 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’353 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 1. Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) waived its right to
`file a preliminary response. Paper 7, 2.
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when
`“the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition and
`evidence of record, we conclude the information presented shows there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’353 patent.
`
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The Petition identifies Apple Inc. as the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`Pet. 7. Patent Owner states that its real parties-in-interest are Uniloc 2017
`LLC, Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Licensing USA LLC. Paper 6, 1–2.
`
`C. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’353 patent is not subject to any
`
`district court litigation or any other Board proceeding. Pet. 7; Paper
`6, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`D. The Challenged Patent
`The ’353 patent discloses a personal security system and method for
`
`detecting and signaling the existence of a critical event. Ex. 1001, 1:15–17.
`The ’353 patent recognizes that when a critical event occurs, there may
`frequently be a delay in summoning assistance or dispatching emergency
`personnel or other equipment to the area of the emergency. Id. at 1:19–31.
`The ’353 patent further recognizes that reducing response times to critical
`events would improve security, provide a valuable public service, and
`increase individual and public safety. Id. at 1:38–41.
`
`Accordingly, the ’353 patent discloses a personal safety alert system
`that broadcasts the occurrence of a critical event or other emergency
`situation so that public safety personnel or other assistance may be notified
`quickly. Id. at 1:45–48. Purported advantages of the system include
`minimizing response time to an emergency, automatically determining if an
`event should be categorized as requiring an emergency response and a
`broadcast alert, and providing an advance warning of impending potentially
`negative events. Id. at 2:6–17. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a network of data processing systems in which illustrative
`embodiments may be implemented. Id. at 3:53–55. Data processing system
`100 contains network 102, servers 104, 106, storage unit 108, clients 110,
`112, 114, and recording subsystem 116. Id. at 3:55–4:27.
`
`The data processing system may be used as a digital life recorder for
`capturing still images, video, audio, biometric information, and other types
`of data associated with the daily activities of a person via recording
`subsystem 116. Id. at 4:10–15. The recorded data is input into an analysis
`subsystem that compares the data to other information stored in a glossary,
`which is similar to a database and contains data specific to the output of a
`certain type of sensor or class of sensors—referred to as “signature data.”
`Id. at 6:50–54, 7:3–8. The glossary may contain, for example, data related
`to sound, data related to faces, biometric signature data, and G-force
`signature data. Id. at 6:54–66. If the input data matches information in the
`glossary, the signature matches may be categorized as an event that the
`analysis subsystem reports to a reporting subsystem. Id. at 7:17–19, 28–32.
`A configuration database includes settings that establish sensitivity and
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`context that affect the accuracy of the comparison process, and may include
`a threshold setting that functions to filter out certain events that should not
`be reported. Id. at 7:19–28, 8:53–60.
`
`A reporting subsystem receives events reported by the analysis
`subsystem, and, if not filtered based on configuration settings, may
`broadcast an alert based on the event received. Id. at 7:34–38. The
`broadcast alert may be formatted as a text message, an automated telephonic
`message, an audible alarm, or may include any other type of notification
`signal. Id. at 7:51–55. The reporting subsystem may be configured to
`interface to a broadcasting subsystem, a public safety subsystem, or some
`other subsystem to broadcast an alert. Id. at 7:67–8:3. Upon receiving an
`alert, the broadcasting subsystem may broadcast the alert to a user-defined
`list of people, alarm companies, or any other user-defined entity specified in
`the configurations database. Id. at 8:4–8. The alert may also be a personal
`alert to the user of the system. Id. at 8:16–23. The public safety subsystem
`may interface with a plurality of reporting subsystems to send alerts to, for
`example, a hazardous material agency, missing persons bureau, traffic
`control, emergency, police, investigators, homicide detectives, and a Special
`Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) agency. Id. at 9:53–10:8.
`
`E. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’353 patent. Pet. 1. Claims
`
`1, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A computer-implemented method of reporting a critical
`event, the method comprising:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`receiving input data, the input data comprising a digitized
`
`stream of signature data;
`
`repeatedly analyzing the input data to determine an event
`context;
`
`assessing a criticality of the determined event context;
`and
`responsive to the assessment of criticality, determining a
`
`reporting response.
`Ex. 1001, 11:47–55.
`
`
`
`F. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Reference
`Date
`U.S. Patent No. 6,028,514 (“Lemelson”) Feb. 22, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 6,847,892 B2 (“Zhou”)
`Jan. 25, 2005
`
`Exhibit
`1003
`1004
`
`G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–20 are unpatentable as being obvious
`
`over Lemelson and Zhou under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 Pet. 8. Petitioner
`submits a declaration of Dr. Kenneth Fyfe (Ex. 1005, “Fyfe Declaration”) in
`support of its contentions.
`
`
`2 The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’353 patent has an
`effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) “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.”
`Pet. 12–13; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 31.
`
`We find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill
`reasonable, and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given
`
`its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard). Consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption may be overcome by providing a
`definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms that are in controversy need be
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner contends that the terms of the ’353 patent claims should be
`interpreted to have their plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, and proposes express constructions for
`“signature data,” “glossary,” “configuration data,” and “configuration
`setting.” Pet. 9–12. Petitioner contends that “its proposed constructions are
`consistent with both the broadest reasonable interpretation (‘BRI’) and
`Phillips standards.” Id. at 9.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we
`determine that no construction of any term is necessary.
`
`C. The Challenge
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over
`
`Lemelson and Zhou. Pet. 15–61. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies
`upon the Fyfe Declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1005). We have reviewed
`Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed
`below, and based on the record before us, Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–20 would have
`been obvious over Lemelson and Zhou.
`
`1. Overview of the Prior Art
`a. Lemelson
`Lemelson discloses emergency warning systems and methods that
`
`have the capability to automatically warn individuals of a variety of types of
`emergencies in their immediate vicinity. Ex. 1003, 1:5–8. Figure 1
`illustrates the system and is reproduced below:
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a preferred embodiment of a personal emergency and
`safety warning system. Id. at 9:63–64. The system includes central alarm
`and warning monitor/response center 10, warning units 12 (which may be
`stationary or mobile), telecommunications and paging ground stations 11,
`telecommunications and paging satellites 14, and global positioning system
`(“GPS”) satellites 16. Id. at 9:65–10:21.
`
`In operation, the warning unit system calculates its current location
`based on GPS data and monitors for receipt of warning messages from the
`control center. Id. at 13:5–15. If a warning message is received, the system
`determines if a warning should be generated and sent to the user based on
`either the proximity of the calculated system location to the dangerous
`situation or the determined likelihood that the user will travel to the
`dangerous situation based on the user’s prior frequented locations. Id. at
`13:15–43. If the determination is made that a warning is to be sent, an alarm
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`is sent to the user and the system recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 13:20–25, Fig. 4A.
`
`If no warning message is received from the control center, the system
`monitors for medical alert generated by the person using the warning unit or
`the warning unit itself. Id. at 13:47–57. If the system detects a medical
`alert, the system notifies the user that a request for help is being sent, and, if
`not disabled by the user, the system recalculates its current location and an
`alarm message containing the determined location and the nature of the
`detected signal is sent to the control alarm and warning monitor/response
`center. Id. at 13:57–14:26, 15:43–50. The system will continue to update its
`current location and send the alarm message until it receives confirmation
`that the message was received by the control alarm and warning
`monitor/response center. Id. at 15:50–60. Once message receipt is
`confirmed, the system broadcasts an audible message notifying the user that
`help is on the way. Id. at 15:61–16:4. The system then recalculates its
`current location and again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at
`Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If no medical alert is detected, the system monitors for human speech.
`Id. at 14:27–31. If speech is detected, the detected words are compared to a
`database of speech data for specific words indicating that an alarm or
`distressful situation is occurring that requires attention or immediate
`response. Id. at 14:31–42. If such speech is detected, an alarm message is
`sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm message. Id. at
`14:42–44. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`If no human speech or no alarming speech is detected, the system
`
`monitors for gunshot sounds. Id. at 14:45–47. If a gunshot is detected, an
`alarm message is sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm
`message. Id. at 14:47–51. If no gunshot is detected, the received sound is
`monitored for other alarming noise, and, if such noise is detected, an alarm
`message is sent in the same manner as with the medical alert alarm message.
`Id. at 14:51–58. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If no gunshot or alarming noise is detected, the system uses the
`calculated system location to determine if the user has traveled too far from
`a source of emergency services. Id. at 14:58–15:2. If the system determines
`the user is dangerously far from a source of emergency services, an alarm is
`sent to the user and the system then recalculates its current location and
`again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 15:2–9, Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
`If the system determines the user is not dangerously far from a source
`of emergency services, the system monitors for unusual or dangerous motion
`or location. Id. at 15:9–13. Unusual motion is determined based on outputs
`from a motion detector and successive calculated system locations. Id. at
`15:14–23. If the system detects unusual motion or location, the system
`prompts the user to answer if he/she is in danger. Id. at 15:23–29. If the
`user responds that there is no danger, the current location is categorized as
`safe and the system then recalculates its current location and again monitors
`for receipt of warning messages. Id. at 15:29–33, Figs. 4A, 4B. If the
`motion or location is not acceptable, an alarm message is sent in the same
`manner as with the medical alert alarm message. Id. at 15:33–40; see also
`id. at 18:11–13. The system then recalculates its current location and again
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at Figs. 4A, 4B. If no unusual
`or dangerous motion or location is detected, the system then recalculates its
`current location and again monitors for receipt of warning messages. Id. at
`15:40–42.
`
`b. Zhou
`Zhou discloses systems and methods for monitoring and tracking
`
`individuals and objects. Ex. 1004, 1:23–26. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`shows a schematic overview of Zhou’s system. Id. at 1:63–64.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 provides an overview of the system components and the
`components’ relation to each other. Id. at 2:36–38. The system collects
`position and sensor data via one or more remote localization and sensing
`devices 100, stores the device data at Application Service Provider (“ASP”)
`200, and, via the ASP, makes such device position and sensor data available
`to one or more end users 25. Id. at 2:38–44. Each device is coupled to or
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`associated with the individual or object being monitored and tracked, and
`receives position data from a localization system (such as a GPS system) and
`sensor data from one or more types of known sensors. Id. at 2:62–67. The
`sensors may include, for example, sensors for monitoring physiological
`parameters (such as heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate), sensors
`for monitoring ambient parameters (such as temperature, motion, and
`speed), and inertial device-based fall detectors. Id. at 3:6–21, 8:42–44.
`
`The devices communicate with the ASP via a wireless communication
`system and a wired communication network, such as the Internet. Id. at
`3:25–48. The ASP stores the position and sensor data, and acts as an
`intermediary between the devices and the end users. Id. at 3:49–51. The
`ASP includes servers and databases, and provides the end users with the
`ability to access the device data, specify alert threshold values for
`comparison to measured sensor values, and receive notifications from the
`ASP via an alert device (such as a cellular telephone). Id. at 3:57–4:8. The
`devices and/or ASP monitor the sensor output and generate alert messages to
`the end users if the sensor data exceeds an alarm threshold. Id. at 3:22–24.
`
`End users interact with the ASP via a user device (such as a computer
`connected to the Internet) or a conventional telephone communication
`network. Id. at 4:9–45.
`
`2. Claims 1–11
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson to teach most of the limitations of
`
`independent claim 1, including repeatedly analyzing input data. Pet. 16–35.
`Petitioner relies on Zhou as an additional teaching of repeatedly analyzing
`input data. Id. at 27–29.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`i. A computer-implemented method of reporting a critical
`event
`Petitioner notes that Lemelson’s warning unit 12 includes
`
`microprocessor 42, and argues that Lemelson’s method, therefore, is
`computer-implemented. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:39–46, 6:7–13,
`11:30–49, Figs. 2, 6).
`
`We find that the cited portions of Lemelson support Petitioner’s
`contentions. We additionally note that Lemelson discloses that its
`monitor/response center 10 also includes computer system 100 that includes,
`inter alia, database computer 102, database storage 104, processor 106, and
`memory 108, and, thus, the monitor/response center is computer-
`implemented. See Ex. 1003, 12:9–47, Fig. 3.
`
`ii. receiving input data, the input data comprising a
`digitized stream of signature data
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson’s microphone 60 and medical sensor 51
`
`as providing input data, in the form of streams of signature data, that is
`received by microprocessor 42 of warning unit 12. Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex.
`1003, 4:29–41, 7:42–57, 11:24–49, 14:29–44, Fig. 2; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 34–35,
`39). Petitioner notes that Lemelson discloses that its medical monitoring
`system monitors current medical conditions of the person wearing the
`warning unit, and argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood the warning unit system receives a continuous stream of
`data from the medical monitoring system. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003,
`4:29–32, Fig. 4A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner similarly argues that
`Lemelson’s audio monitoring system provides a continuous stream of data
`that is received by the warning unit. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4A; Ex.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner further notes that Lemelson discloses the
`response center continually searches for alarm messages from the warning
`units, and argues that this indicates that the warning unit continuously
`monitors the user’s medical conditions and that such indicated continuous
`monitoring teaches a stream of input data. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003,
`16:10–19, 17:18–21; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner argues that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the stream of input
`data to be digitized because it is received by microprocessor 42. Id. at 22
`(citing Ex. 1003, 11:1–8, 38–39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 39).
`
`Lemelson discloses that its warning units monitor for such indications
`as medical alerts, speech-imparted alerts, and gunshot sounds, and, if such
`an indication is perceived, the warning units send an appropriate alarm
`message to the control center. Ex. 1003, 13:5–17:22, Figs. 4A, 4B. Thus,
`we find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`iii. repeatedly analyzing the input data to determine an
`event context
`Petitioner argues that Lemelson teaches analyzing a user’s biometrics
`
`or medical history data to determine an abnormal medical condition. Pet.
`22–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–41, 7:48–54; Ex. 1005 ¶ 41). Petitioner
`similarly argues that Lemelson teaches analyzing audio data to determine an
`emergency event context. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003, 14:29–44; Ex. 1005
`¶ 42). Petitioner argues that Lemelson’s Figure 4A teaches that the analysis
`of the medical and audio data is performed repeatedly. Id. at 25–27 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 13:50–14:7, 15:29–42, Fig. 4A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44). Petitioner
`also argues that Lemelson’s analysis is performed repeatedly due to the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`aforementioned reference to monitoring the user’s current medical
`condition. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–32; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40–44).
`
`Lemelson discloses its warning units monitor for such indications as
`medical alerts, speech-imparted alerts, and gunshot sounds and, if such an
`indication is perceived, the warning units send an appropriate alarm message
`to the control center. Ex. 1003, 13:5–17:22, Figs. 4A, 4B. After
`transmitting the alarm message, the warning unit repeats the cycle of
`monitoring for alert indications. See, e.g., id. at 13:20–25, Fig. 4A.
`Similarly, if the warning unit determines that no message is to be sent, the
`warning unit repeats the cycle of monitoring for alert indications. Id. at
`15:40–42, Figs. 4A, 4B. Thus, we find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s
`contentions.
`
`Petitioner alternatively relies on Zhou to teach repeatedly analyzing
`data. Pet. 27–29. Petitioner notes that Zhou discloses a system and method
`for tracking the status of individuals through a wireless device that may
`monitor periodically such individuals’ biological parameters and send an
`emergency signal based on such monitoring. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1004,
`1:23–26, 3:6–12, 4:9–17, 8:4–12, 45:20–37). Petitioner argues that such
`periodic monitoring is a repeated analysis of the input data. Id. at 27–28
`(citing Ex. 1003, 8:4–23; Ex. 1005 ¶ 44). Petitioner argues that it would
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine
`Zhou’s periodic monitoring with Lemelson’s monitoring for abnormal
`medical or audio-indicated emergency conditions to “conserve[] the limited
`power stored in Lemelson’s battery 32.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003, 11:8–
`11; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23–29, 44–45).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`Zhou discloses that “the sensing of parameters by the at least one
`
`sensor 240 may be a periodic (e.g., time based).” Ex. 1004, 8:7–9.
`Processing unit 260 of device 100 receives the signals from the sensor. Id.
`at 8:5–7. In the heart monitoring embodiment, “[t]he Device will transmit
`GPS signal location to the ASP when vital signs indicate the need for
`emergency care.” Id. at 45:23–25. Thus, we find that Zhou supports
`Petitioner’s contentions. Petitioner further sets forth articulated reasoning
`with rational underpinning why it would have been obvious to modify
`Lemelson based on the teachings of Zhou. Pet. 28–29.
`
`iv. assessing a criticality of the determined event context
`Petitioner notes that Lemelson discloses comparing the user’s current
`
`medical condition to a database of abnormal medical conditions and
`determining a variance of predefined degree between the user’s current and
`normal medical conditions. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–41).
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood this to be a teaching of assessing the criticality of the event
`context of the user’s medical condition. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:42–
`54,3 13:50–58; Ex. 1005 ¶ 45). Petitioner similarly argues that Lemelson
`discloses assessing the criticality of an audio-indicated emergency condition.
`Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:26–28; Ex. 1005 ¶ 45).
`
`Lemelson explains that its warning unit includes “a medical
`monitoring system that monitors and generates signals defining selected
`current medical conditions of the person wearing the warning unit.” Ex.
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s citation to column 7, lines 42–48 of Exhibit 1003 appears to be
`a typographical error, as the quoted language appears at lines 42–54.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`1003, 4:29–32. The portable warning unit includes a computer that is
`programmed to compare the signals generated by the medical monitoring
`system to the data defining abnormal medical conditions. Id. at 4:32–37. If
`the computer detects a variance of predefined degree between the person’s
`current and normal medical conditions, it generates and causes the
`transmission circuit to transmit signals defining the variance to the command
`control center. Id. at 4:37–41. “The command control center determines the
`severity of the emergency and dispatches the proper emergency assistance.”
`Id. at 4:48–49. The warning unit further includes a sound recognition
`system that detects loud noises, and the command center uses fuzzy logic to
`determine the “degree of danger.” Id. at 4:67–5:10. Thus, we find that
`Lemelson supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`v. responsive to the assessment of criticality, determining
`a reporting response
`Petitioner argues that, in response to determining the variance of
`
`predefined degree of the user’s abnormal medical condition, Lemelson alerts
`the control center of the user’s condition. Pet. 31–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–
`47, 7:42–544; Ex. 1005 ¶ 46). Petitioner argues that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood such an emergency
`transmission to be a reporting response. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 45).
`Petitioner similarly argues that Lemelson discloses determining a reporting
`response based on the assessed criticality of the audio-indicated emergency
`condition. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:14–22; Ex. 1005 ¶ 46).
`Petitioner argues that, similarly to the ’353 patent, Lemelson teaches
`
`4 Petitioner’s citation to column 7, lines 42–48 of Exhibit 1003 appears to be
`a typographical error, as the quoted language appears at lines 42–54.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`determining such reporting responses at the control center. Id. at 34–35
`(citing Ex. 1001, 2:6–10, 8:9–15; Ex. 1003, 4:43–49; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–46).
`
`As noted above, Lemelson’s command control center determines the
`severity of a medical emergency and dispatches the proper emergency
`assistance. Ex. 1003, 4:48–49. The command center also uses fuzzy logic
`to determine the degree of danger of a detected loud noise. Id. at 4:67–5:10.
`Thus, we find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that Lemelson and Zhou render obvious claim 1.
`
`b. Dependent Claims 2–11
`Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:23. The
`
`Petition maps these challenged dependent claims to Lemelson and Zhou.
`Pet. 35–50. Based on our review of the current record before us, we
`determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to
`claims 2–11.
`
`3. Claims 12–17
`a. Independent Claim 12
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson to teach all of the limitations of
`
`independent claim 12. Pet. 51–52.
`
`i. A system comprising a plurality of integrated
`subsystems configurable for processing sensory data
`Petitioner argues that Lemelson’s warning unit comprises a plurality
`
`of subsystems. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 11:24–56, Figs. 2–3).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`We find that the cited portions of Lemelson support Petitioner’s
`
`contentions.
`
`ii. an analysis subsystem that determines an event context
`based on a glossary comprising signature data
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson as with respect to claim 1. Id. We
`
`understand Petitioner to rely on Lemelson’s analysis of medical and audio
`data as described in sections II.C.2.a.iii, iv above.
`
`For the same reasons as discussed above, we find that Lemelson
`supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`iii. a reporting subsystem, communicatively coupled to
`the analysis subsystem, that receives the event context
`determined by the analysis subsystem
`Petitioner argues that the transmit/receive radio and antenna of
`
`Lemelson’s warning unit constitute a reporting subsystem. Id. at 51–52
`(citing Ex. 1003, 3:22–24, 4:29–47, 7:42–57, 11:60–12:2). Petitioner argues
`that “common sense would have indicated to a PHOSITA that . . .
`Lemelson’s reporting subsystem ‘receives’ the event context from the
`analysis subsystem.” Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 54).
`
`As noted above, Lemelson explains that the medical monitoring
`system of its warning unit compares monitored signals with data defining
`abnormal medical conditions, and detects the degree of variance between the
`two. Ex. 1003, 4:29–37. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that in order for Lemelson’s
`warning unit to transmit signals defining an abnormal medical condition, the
`transmitting portions of the warning unit must have received such
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`information from the analysis components of the warning system. Ex. 1005
`¶ 54. Thus, we find that Lemelson supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that Lemelson and Zhou render obvious claim 12.
`
`b. Dependent Claims 13–17
`Claims 13–17 depend from claim 12. Ex. 1001, 12:32–47. The
`
`Petition maps these challenged dependent claims to Lemelson and Zhou.
`Pet. 52–54. Based on our review of the current record before us, we
`determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to
`claims 13–17.
`
`4. Claims 18–20
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson to teach most of the limitations of
`
`independent claim 18, including logging a receipt of a reported event and
`grading the urgency of a received reported event. Pet. 54–59. Petitioner
`relies on Zhou as an additional teaching of logging a receipt of a reported
`event and grading the urgency of a received reported event. Id. at 56–59.
`
`a. Independent Claim 18
`i. A system for broadcasting a critical alert
`Petitioner relies on Lemelson as with respect to claim 1. Id. at 54.
`
`For the same reasons as discussed above, we find that Lemelson supports
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01093
`Patent 7,944,353 B2
`
`
`ii. an external interface
`Petitioner argues that Lemelson’s central alarm and warning
`
`monitor/response center 10, which it refers to as “command control center,”
`corresponds to the recited external interface because it communicates with
`the warni
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
