Trials@uspto.

gov Paper 22
571-272-7822 Entered: May 21, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

APPLE, INC. and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioners,

v.
UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2018-002891
Patent 8,872,646 B2
____________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and

GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION

35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

1
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-
01383, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

I. INTRODUCTION
Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,872,646 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’646 patent”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), we determined Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that it
would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of all challenged claims and
instituted an inter partes review. Paper 7, 25. Patent Owner filed a
Response (Paper 11, “Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
Owner’s Response (Paper 14, “Reply”). Petitioner also filed an unopposed
Motion to Strike the Declaration of William Easttom. Paper 13. An oral
hearing was held before the Board. Paper 21.
We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered the record before us and as
explained below, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of the ’646 patent are
unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
The parties assert that the ’646 patent is involved in Uniloc USA, Inc.
v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00470 (E.D. Tex. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG
Electronics USA, Inc., 4:17-cv-00830 (N.D. Tex. 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00652 (E.D. Tex. 2017); and
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:17-cv-00746 (E.D. Tex.
2017). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2.

2
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

B. THE ’646 PATENT

The ’646 patent is titled “Method and System for Waking Up a
Device Due to Motion” and describes a device with an accelerometer that
wakes up from a low power idle state in response to detecting motion.
Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:27–28.
Figure 3 of the ’646 patent is reproduced below.

3
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

Figure 3 is a flowchart for determining whether to wake up a device based

on motion. Id. at 4:25–26. At block 315, the process gets sample motion
data and calculates a current/updated acceleration average. Id. at 4:36–38.
At block 320, the process determines whether the device is idle—i.e.,
whether it is not moving and there are no active user-interactive
applications. Id. at 4:45–47. If the device is idle, the process continues to
block 325 and determines if the device has experienced any motion larger
than a minimum threshold. Id. at 4:49–55. If so, at block 330, the process
determines if the movement is a real motion that warrants waking up the
device—i.e., movement from being picked up by a user intending to use the
device, as opposed to a mere jostle or bump. Id. at 4:61–5:2. If the
movement is real, the process continues to blocks 335 and 340, where the
process wakes up the device and restores it to either a last active state or a
user-customized configuration. Id. at 5:3–12.
Figure 4 of the ’646 patent is reproduced below.

4
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

Figure 4 is a flowchart of a process to create a long average of

accelerations. Id. at 5:14–15. At block 410, the process sends motion data
from an accelerometer through a glitch correcting logic, which removes
abnormal data before passing it along to a long average logic. Id. at 5:18–
23. At block 415, the long average logic adds the sampled motion data to a
long average, to create an updated long average of accelerations. Id. at
5:24–26. The ’646 patent explains “[i]n one embodiment, the long average
logic maintains a long average only for the dominant axis (e.g., the axis on
which the gravitational effect is detected),” whereas “[i]n another
embodiment, the long average logic maintains an average for one or more
axes.” Id. at 5:26–30. At block 420, the process determines the dominant
axis using long averages of accelerations for a plurality of axes. Id. at 5:32–
38.
C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent.
Independent claim 1 (reproduced below) is representative.
1. A method comprising:
receiving motion data from a motion sensor in a device, the
motion sensor sensing motion along three axes;
verifying whether the motion data includes one or more glitches
and removing the one or more glitches from the motion data;
determining an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the
device, the dominant axis defined as the axis with a largest
effect from gravity among the three axes, the idle sample value
comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period
along the dominant axis recorded when the device goes to idle
mode after a period of inactivity;

5
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

registering a motion of the device based on the motion data

from the motion sensor;
determining whether the motion caused a change in the
dominant axis; and
waking up the device when the motion of the device indicates
the change in the dominant axis of the device, the dominant
axis being the axis with the largest effect from gravity among
the three axes.
Id. at 8:33–53.
D. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
References Basis Challenged Claims
Pasolini2, Goldman3, § 103(a) 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and
McMahan4, and Mizell5 20
Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, § 103(a) 8, 16, and 18
Mizell, and Park6
Pet. 18.

II. ANALYSIS
LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
Patent Owner contends “[t]he Petition does not set forth the requisite
analysis necessary to prove obviousness at least because . . . it fails to

2
U.S. Patent No. 7,409,291 B2 (Aug. 5, 2008) (Ex. 1003, “Pasolini”).
3
Ron Goldman, Using the LIS3L02AQ Accelerometer, Sun Microsystems
Inc. (Feb. 23, 2007) (Ex. 1004, “Goldman”).
4
U.S. Patent No. 7,204,123 B2 (Apr. 17, 2007) (Ex. 1005, “McMahan”).
5
David Mizell, Using Gravity to Estimate Accelerometer Orientation,
Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Wearable
Computers (2003) (Ex. 1007, “Mizell”).
6
U.S. Patent No. 7,028,220 B2 (Apr. 11, 2006) (Ex. 1014, “Park”).
6
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

provide or expressly rely upon any definition for the level of ordinary skill in
the pertinent art.” Resp. 4. We disagree.
The Petition consistently cites to Dr. Paradiso’s Declaration, which
both defines a person of ordinary skill in the art and explains that all of the
opinions expressed are from that person’s perspective. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 17.
We see no need to require more, and Patent Owner cites no authority for its
contention that we should reject the petition based solely on Petitioner’s
failure to expressly define the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Petition
itself, as opposed to in an expert’s supporting declaration.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The ’646 patent has not expired, and the Petition was filed before
November 13, 2018. Therefore, we interpret terms of the challenged claims
according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017).7 Unless the record shows
otherwise, we presume a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary
meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Petitioner proposes that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
‘glitch’ includes a datum that is outside of an acceptable range.” Pet. 7. In

7
See also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018) (“The Office will continue to apply
the BRI standard for construing unexpired patent claims . . . in AIA
proceedings where a petition was filed before the [November 13, 2018]
effective date of the rule.”).
7
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

contrast, Patent Owner asserts “glitch” “refer[s] to actual motion data

deemed to not fit the signature of human motion indicative of someone
preparing to interface with a device.” Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner,
“[w]hile a ‘glitch’ is within the operational range of the sensor, it does not
warrant waking up the device from an idle state to an active state.” Id.
We agree with Petitioner. The Specification describes a glitch
broadly and consistently with Petitioner’s construction. It explains “a glitch
is a datum that indicates a motion outside an acceptable range. For example,
it is extremely unlikely that a device would go from idle (e.g., no motion) to
moving at an acceleration of 64 feet per second squared (equivalent to 2g).”
Ex. 1001, 6:35–40. In addition, the Specification repeatedly uses “glitch”
inconsistently with Patent Owner’s contention that a glitch must be motion
data within the operational range of the motion sensor. See Ex. 1001, 5:19–
23 (describing “a glitch correcting logic which removes abnormal data from
the motion data”); id. at 6:56–65 (explaining “an excessive number of
glitches may indicate a problem with the accelerometer”); id. at 3:33–37
(noting “glitches generally are indicative that the accelerometer or sensor is
malfunctioning”). Although, as Patent Owner notes, the Specification
describes distinguishing between real motion that warrants waking up a
device as opposed to “a mere jostle or bump,” none of the passages Patent
Owner cites from the ’646 patent actually refers to jostle/bump motion data
as a “glitch.” See Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:59–63, 2:35–51, 4:61–5:2).
Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a glitch includes a datum that is outside
of an acceptable range.

8
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, AND 20

Petitioner asserts claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would
have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell. Pet. 28–
64. We conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of
evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would have been
obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell, as outlined below.
1. Rationale for Combining Prior Art Teachings
a. Combining Pasolini and Goldman
Petitioner generally reads the ’646 patent’s claimed method of using
motion as a prompt for waking up a device onto Pasolini’s teaching of
activating an electronic device from a standby mode in response to detected
acceleration. Petitioner relies on Goldman for teaching distinguishing
between static acceleration due to gravity and dynamic acceleration due to
movement when calculating acceleration. In particular, Petitioner explains
with relevant support from its expert, Dr. Paradiso, that “when analyzing
acceleration signals, it is beneficial to factor in calibration, sampling rates,
and tilt,” as Goldman teaches, “because the results are more accurate.” Pet.
23 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77). Thus, Petitioner explains, combining Pasolini’s
device with Goldman’s accelerometer techniques amounts to no more than
“using the known techniques of Goldman to improve the similar device of
Pasolini in the same way.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner does not contest
Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We conclude Petitioner has articulated
sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have

9
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
b. Combining McMahan with Pasolini/Goldman
Petitioner relies on McMahan for teaching replacing sensor output
that falls outside an acceptable range with a measure within the acceptable
rage. According to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to combine McMahan’s method for replacing faulty output data “to
enhance the accuracy of the accelerometer of the Pasolini and Goldman
combination.” Pet. 25. In particular, Petitioner explains that one skilled in
the art would have “recognized the desirability of removing accelerometer
signal errors in order to have more reliable accelerometer data,” id. (citing
Ex. 1010 ¶ 82), and that the proffered combination would facilitate “a more
‘accurate reflection of the stimulus that the sensor is designed to monitor,’”
id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:29–30). Based on its assertions and supporting
evidence, we find Petitioner has shown adequately that one skilled in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of McMahan with Pasolini
and Goldman. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s rationale is deficient because
“[t]he Petition fails to prove (or even attempt to argue) that the electronic-
circuitry concerns detailed in McMahan are present in the other cited
references, much less their proposed combination, such that those
references are all compatible with and would have the same articulated
benefits of this particular aspect of the McMahan design.” Resp. 16.
According to Patent Owner, “[t]he Petition offers no argument or evidence
to conclude that [McMahan’s] sensor-specific technique could be applied to

10
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

the entirely different accelerometers of . . . the so-called and merely

hypothetical accelerometer of the Pasolini and Goldman combination.” Id.
at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). We disagree.
The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.
In particular, McMahan’s disclosure that its method is broadly applicable to
sensors in general (see Ex. 1005, 3:29–31, 3:37–40) undermines Patent
Owner’s contention that McMahan’s teaching is particular to a specific
sensor and thus incompatible with the Pasolini/Goldman combination. In
addition, Dr. Paradiso’s declaration testimony that “applying McMahan’s
modification of sensor data determined to be outside an acceptable range
would have improved the accuracy of the accelerometer” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 82)
undermines Patent Owner’s suggestion that McMahon’s method would only
benefit a system with McMahan’s unique internal circuitry. The same is true
of Dr. Paradiso’s deposition testimony that at the time of the invention,
accelerometer errors were common and, if unaccounted for, would adversely
affect an accelerometer’s accuracy. See Ex. 2002, 20:3–21. Given the
evidence of record, we conclude Petitioner has articulated sufficient
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418.
c. Combining Mizell with McMahan/Pasolini/Goldman
Petitioner relies on Mizell for teaching that accelerometer samples are
averaged over a sampling interval (a sample period) to capture a
representation of gravity for all three axes. Petitioner asserts, again with
relevant support from Dr. Paradiso, that it would have been obvious to one

11
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

skilled in the art to combine Mizell’s method of capturing a device’s rest

acceleration for each axis by averaging samples over a sampling interval to
“smooth and reduce noise,” and thereby “obtain a more accurate
representation of the gravity signal.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 84).
Petitioner further explains “[t]he techniques of Mizell teach an exemplary
solution for handling noise generated by accelerometer signals.” Id. Patent
Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. Based on its
assertions and supporting evidence, we conclude Petitioner has articulated
sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion that its proffered combination of prior art teachings would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. “remov[ing] the one or more glitches from the motion data”
Independent claims 1 and 13 require “removing the one or more
glitches from the motion data.” Independent claim 20 has a similar
limitation reciting a glitch corrector to “remove the one or more glitches
from the motion data.” Petitioner explains McMahan teaches that “[w]hen
the output of sensor 102 is not within the expected range of its normal
operation, it is presumed that the output is an error.” Pet. 30 (quoting Ex.
1005, 4:26–30). Then, after determining that an error (i.e., a glitch) is
present, “McMahan teaches that ‘enhancement circuit 104 . . . provid[es] a
value to electronic circuit 106 that is within the normal range of the output
of sensor 102.’” Id. at 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:35–38). “Thus,”
Petitioner asserts, “McMahan determines whether the motion data includes a
glitch . . . and then removes the glitch from the motion data.” Id. at 31. We
agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would understand that

12
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

McMahan teaches removing one or more glitches from motion data, as

claims 1, 13, and 20 require.
Patent Owner argues that McMahan’s error modification is
distinguishable from the claimed glitch removal. See Resp. 9–15.
According to Patent Owner, “McMahan defines its ‘error’ as a value that is
impossible and not an accurate reflection of motion because it is outside
what the sensor is designed to monitor,” whereas the claimed glitch “refer[s]
to actual motion data deemed to not fit the signature of human motion
indicative of someone preparing to interface with a device.” Id. at 9–10. In
addition, Patent Owner contends, McMahan’s “‘modify’ block 308 refers to
processing an erroneous output which, due to its impossible value, is never
included as part of anything that can be considered motion data (and thus it
cannot be removed from such data).” Id. at 14. We disagree with Patent
Owner’s arguments because they rely on Patent Owner’s proposed “glitch”
claim construction, which we decline to adopt for the reasons explained
above.
3. Undisputed Claim Elements
As outlined below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell
teaches the remaining limitations of claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and
20. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
a. Independent Claim 1
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches “[a] method comprising: receiving motion data from a
motion sensor in a device, the motion sensor sensing motion along three

13
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

axes,” as claim 1 requires. See Pet. 28–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:1, 2:26–
34, 3:17–19, Fig. 1, claim 3; Ex. 1004, 1; Ex. 1010, 47). Petitioner made an
adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
“the dominant axis defined as the axis with a largest effect from gravity
among the three axes,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 33–34 (citing
Ex. 1003, 5:41–48; Ex. 1010, 49–50). Petitioner made an adequate showing
that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, and Mizell teaches “the idle
sample value comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period
along the dominant axis,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 34–35 (citing
Ex. 1004, 5; Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1010, 50–51). Petitioner made an adequate
showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “recorded
when the device goes to idle mode after a period of inactivity,” as claim 1
requires. See id. at 35–37 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:59–65; Ex. 1010, 51–52).
Petitioner made an adequate showing that Goldman teaches “registering a
motion of the device based on the motion data from the motion sensor,” as
claim 1 requires. See id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5; Ex. 1010, 52–53).
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and
Goldman teaches “determining whether the motion caused a change in the
dominant axis,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:31–
39; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 53–54). Petitioner made an adequate showing
that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “waking up the device
when the motion of the device indicates the change in the dominant axis of
the device,” as claim 1 requires. See id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:35–41;
Ex. 1010, 54–55). Petitioner also made an adequate showing that the
combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “the dominant axis being the
14
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

axis with the largest effect from gravity among the three axes,” as claim 1
requires. See id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1010, 55).
b. Claim 3
Petitioner made an adequate showing that Pasolini teaches the
additional limitation in dependent claim 3: “wherein the motion sensor
comprises an accelerometer.” See id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:13–23, 55–
62, 4:65–5:9; Ex. 1010, 55).
c. Claim 5
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 5:
“wherein registering the motion of the device comprises: processing the
motion data to determine a current sample value along the dominant axis of
the device.” See id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 55–56).
d. Claim 6
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 6:
“further comprising comparing a difference between a current sample value
along the dominant axis determined based on the motion of the device and
the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a threshold value.” See
id. at 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:17–20, 5:31–41; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 57–
58).
e. Claim 7
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 7:
“wherein the change in the dominant axis comprises a change in acceleration

15
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

along the dominant axis.” See id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:31–39;
Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 53–54), 44 (citing Ex. 1010, 58).
f. Claim 9
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
Goldman, and Mizell teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 9:
“wherein the current sample value of the dominant axis of the device is an
average of accelerations over a sample period.” See id. at 44–45 (citing
Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1010, 58–59).
g. Claim 10
Petitioner made an adequate showing that Goldman teaches the
additional limitation in dependent claim 10: “further comprising
determining the current sample value for each of the other axes of the
device.” See id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1010, 59).
h. Claim 11
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 11:
“further comprising determining that the device is to be woken up based on
the difference between the current sample value and the idle sample value
being greater than a threshold value.” See id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1003,
5:31–41; Ex. 1010, 59–60).
i. Independent Claim 13
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches “[a] mobile device comprising: a motion sensor to
sense motion along three axes and generate motion data,” as claim 13
requires. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:1, 2:26–34, 3:17–19,

16
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1004, 1; Ex. 1010, 60–62). Petitioner made an adequate

showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a dominant
axis logic to determine an idle sample value for a dominant axis of the
mobile device based on the motion data,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at
50–52 (citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5, Fig. 3; Ex. 1010, 63–65). Petitioner made an
adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
“the dominant axis defined as an axis with a largest effect from gravity
among three axes,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 65–
66). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
Goldman, and Mizell teaches “and the idle sample value comprising an
average of accelerations over a sample period along the dominant axis,” as
claim 13 requires. See id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1010, 66–67). Petitioner made
an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
“recorded when the device goes to idle mode after a period of inactivity,” as
claim 13 requires. See id. (citing Ex. 1010, 67–68). Petitioner made an
adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a
computation logic to determine whether the motion caused a change in the
dominant axis,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 52–54 (citing Ex. 1010, 68–
70). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches “a power logic to wake up the device when the motion
of the device indicates a change in the dominant axis of the device,” as claim
13 requires. See id. at 54–55 (citing Ex. 1010, 70–71). Petitioner made an
adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches
“the dominant axis being the axis with the largest effect from gravity among
the three axes,” as claim 13 requires. See id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1010, 71).
17
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

j. Claim 14
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini,
Goldman, and Mizell teaches the additional limitation in dependent
claim 14: “a long average logic to calculate an average of accelerations over
a sample period.” See id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1010, 71–72).
k. Claim 15
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 15: “the
dominant axis logic further to compare a difference between a current
sample value along the dominant axis determined based on the motion of the
device and the idle sample value of the dominant axis against a threshold
value.” See id. at 57–58 (citing Ex. 1010, 71–73).
l. Claim 17
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches the additional limitation in dependent claim 17:
“wherein the motion sensor logic comprises an accelerometer to detect
acceleration along one or more axes.” See id. at 58–59 (citing Ex. 1010, 73).
m. Independent Claim 20
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini
and Goldman teaches “[a] system to wake up a mobile device comprising: a
motion sensor to detect motion along three axes and generation motion
data,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:26–28, 2:42–44;
Ex. 1010, 73–76). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a dominant axis logic to
determine an idle sample value,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 60–61

18
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

(citing Ex. 1004, 2, 5, Fig. 3; Ex. 1010, 77–78). Petitioner made an adequate
showing that the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, and Mizell teaches
“comprising an average of accelerations over a sample period along a
dominant axis,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1010, 78–79).
Petitioner made an adequate showing that the combination of Pasolini and
Goldman teaches “the dominant axis defined as an axis with a largest effect
of gravity among the three axes,” as claim 20 requires. See id. (citing
Ex. 1010, 79–80). Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
combination of Pasolini and Goldman teaches “a power logic to move the
device from the inactive state to an active state upon detection of a change in
the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the largest effect of
gravity,” as claim 20 requires. See id. at 62–64 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:35–48;
Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1010, 80–82).
OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 8, 16, AND 18 BASED ON PASOLINI,
GOLDMAN, MCMAHAN, MIZELL, AND PARK
Petitioner asserts claims 8, 16, and 18 would have been obvious over
Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park. Pet. 64–69. We conclude
that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8,
16, and 18 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
Mizell, and Park.
As noted above, Petitioner made an adequate showing that the
combination of Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell teaches each
limitation in independent claims 1 and 13. Petitioner also made an adequate
showing (unchallenged by Patent Owner) that Park teaches the additional
limitation in dependent claims 8 and 16—“wherein waking up the device

19
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

further comprises configuring the device to return to a last active device

state”—as well as the additional limitation in dependent claim 18—“a
device state logic to restore the device to a last active state.” See id. (citing
Ex. 1014, 2:53–65, 3:61–63, 4:4–14, 5:37–40; Ex. 1010, 84–85). In
addition, Petitioner provided a sufficient reason why a skilled artisan would
have combined Park’s teaching of saving system status data when a device
goes into a suspend mode and using the data to restore the system back to its
pre-suspension state. In particular, Petitioner explains one skilled in the art
would have been motivated to apply Park’s method to the asserted
combination to “enhance[] convenience to the user because the user does not
have to manually put the device back into the state it was in before the
device went to sleep.” Pet. 64–65. Patent Owner does not challenge
Petitioner’s assertion in this regard. We conclude that Petitioner has
established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8, 16, and 18 would
have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park.

III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Strike the Declaration of
Patent Owner’s declarant, William Easttom. Paper 13. Because this
Decision does not rely on that declaration, we deny Petitioner’s Motion as
moot.

IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 are unpatentable over Pasolini, Goldman,
McMahan, and Mizell. Patent Owner has also shown by a preponderance of

20
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

the evidence that claims 8, 16, and 18 are unpatentable over Pasolini,
Goldman, McMahan, Mizell, and Park.

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 of the ’646 patent are
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Paper 13)
is DENIED as moot; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

21
IPR2018-00289
Patent 8,872,646 B2

PETITIONER:

Andrew S. Ehmke
[email protected]

Thomas W. Kelton
[email protected]

Calmann Clements
[email protected]

Jamie McDole
[email protected]

PATENT OWNER:

Ryan Loveless
[email protected]

Sean Burdick
[email protected]

Brett Mangrum
[email protected]

James Etheridge
[email protected]

Jeffrey Huang
[email protected]

22