The ’332 Patent
- A method of operating a heart rate monitor of a wearable fitness monitoring device comprising a plurality of sensors including the heart rate monitor and a motion detecting sensor, the method comprising:
(a) detecting motion of the wearable fitness monitoring device using the motion detecting sensor;
(b) in response to detecting the motion in (a), operating the heart rate monitor in a worn detection mode configured to detect near proximity of the wearable fitness monitoring device to a user’s skin; and
(c) upon determining via the worn detection mode that the wearable fitness monitoring device is proximate to the user’s skin, operating the heart rate monitor in a first mode configured to determine one or more characteristics of the user’s heartbeat waveform, and wherein operations (b) and (c) are carried out by a processor.
The ’377 Patent
- A portable activity monitoring device to calculate activity points corresponding to physical activities of a user, the portable activity monitoring device comprising:
a housing having a physical size and shape that is adapted to couple to the body of the user;
a plurality of sensors, disposed in the housing, to generate sensor data which is representative of activity of the user, wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least three accelerometers;
processing circuitry, disposed in the housing and electrically coupled to the plurality of sensors, to:
calculate the activity points of the user using the sensor data, wherein the activity points correlate to an amount of one or more physical activities of the user; and
a display, coupled to the processing circuitry, to output the data which is representative of the activity points to the user.
The ’760 Patent
- An apparatus for encouraging physical activity of a user, the apparatus comprising:
a wearable device comprising a removable component having one or more motion sensors that monitor physical activity of the user based on a motion of the removable component,
wherein the removable component includes a computer memory,
wherein the removable component includes circuitry configured to disregard physical activity monitored by the one or more motion sensors that is less than a value of a threshold amount of physical activity set in the computer memory, the circuitry further configured to record in the computer memory physical activity monitored by the one or more motion sensors that is greater than the value of the threshold amount of physical activity set in the computer memory,
wherein the removable component includes a visual indicator that indicates an amount of the monitored physical activity recorded in the memory; and
wherein the removable component wirelessly communicates information related to the monitored physical activity recorded in the memory to at least one secondary device.
Motion for Summary Determination.
Abstract Idea: Yes
The ’332 Patent (Yes)
The Court determined that the claims of the ’332 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of “automat[ing] the human behavior of turning on and off the heart rate monitoring function when the user wears or removes the fitness monitoring device.” According to the Court, “[s]uch human behavior has been performed manually for years” and “[t]he mere automation or computerization of human behavior is an abstract concept.”
The ’377 Patent (Yes)
The Court determined that the claims of the ’377 Patent are also directed to an abstract idea – namely, “the naked abstract idea of a portable activity monitoring device to calculate activity points corresponding to an amount and/or intensity of physical activities of a user.” Rejecting a comparison to Enfish, the Court found that the claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality, but merely monitoring the physical activities of a user through the use of generic sensors and processing circuitry.
The ’760 Patent (Yes)
Finally, the Court determined that the claims of the ’760 Patent are also directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice/Mayo test. Here, the Court stated that the claims are “directed to the abstract concept of collecting information about a user’s physical activity based on threshold stored in computer memory.” The Court went on to compare the claims of the ’760 Patent to those at issue in Intellectual Ventures I (792 F.3d 1363) which were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting).”
Something More: No
The ’332 Patent (No)
The Court determined that the claims of the ’332 Patent also failed to satisfy step two of the Mayo/Alice test, stating:
“In other words, the asserted claims are not limited to a discrete and specific way of operating the heart rate monitor to detect near proximity to a user’s skin but, through the use of a generic processor, pre-empt the user’s predictable manual and/or mental decision to tum on or off the heart rate monitoring function of the heart rate monitor, depending on whether the user wears or removes the fitness monitoring device, for the predictable purpose of conserving battery power.”
The ’377 Patent (No)
Regarding the ’377 Patent, the Court stated that “each of the elements of the claimed portable activity monitoring device [are] generic and conventional.” Further, even as an ordered combination, “the computer components add nothing that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.”
The ’760 Patent (No)
Similar to the ’377 Patent, the Court found: (1) that the individual claim elements recited in the ’760 Patent are “generic and conventional,” and (2) that the ordered combination add nothing more to the separately considered elements.