NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, 

INC.,

Appellants

v.

LOGANTREE, LP,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1108, 2020-1109

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

00564, IPR2018-00565.

______________________

Decided: September 11, 2020

______________________

ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, 

KS, for appellants. Also represented by MEGAN JOANNA 

REDMOND. 

 CHRISTOPHER BARKLEY, McCathern PLLC, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee. Also represented by JAMES E.

SHERRY, HOSSAIN ARNOLD SHOKOUHI, Dallas, TX. 

 ______________________

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2020
2 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, Garmin) appeal from two final written decisions 

of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) upholding the patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

6,059,576 (the ’576 patent). Because substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that Garmin failed to meet its 

burden of showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’576 patent is directed to a portable, self-contained

electronic device, system, and method used “to monitor and 

train an individual on proper motion during physical movement.” ’576 patent at abstract. The disclosed electronic 

device is used to “track[] and monitor[] an individual’s motion through the use of a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with the wearer’s movement,” id. at 

col. 2 ll. 9–12, helping the wearer correct movement and 

form to ultimately reduce injuries, see id. at col. 1 ll. 55–60. 

To accomplish this, the device employs a microprocessor 

connected to a movement sensor that analyzes and responds to the user’s movement data. See id. at col. 4 ll. 52–

57. Claims 1 and 20 of the ’576 patent1 are representative:

1. A portable, self-contained device for monitoring 

movement of body parts during physical activity, 

said device comprising:

a movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained movement in any 

1 The ’576 patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination which resulted in part in the addition of limitations to both claims 1 and 20. These additions are reflected 

in the recitation of the claims.

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2020
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP 3

direction and generating signals indicative of said 

movement;

a power source;

a microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source, said microprocessor 

capable of receiving, interpreting, storing and responding to said movement data based on user-defined operational parameters, detecting a first 

user-defined event based on the movement data 

and at least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the movement data, and storing first event information related to the detected 

first user-defined event along with first time stamp 

information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred; 

at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the operation of said device;

a real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;

memory for storing said movement data; and

an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence of user-defined 

events;

wherein said movement sensor measures the angle 

and velocity of said movement.

’576 patent at claim 1.

20. A method to monitor physical movement of a 

body part comprising the steps of:

attaching a portable, self-contained movement 

measuring device to said body part for measuring 

unrestrained movement in any direction;

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2020
4 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP

measuring data associated with said physical 

movement;

interpreting, using a microprocessor included in 

the portable, self-contained movement measuring 

device, said physical movement data based on userdefined operational parameters and a real-time 

clock;

storing said data in memory;

detecting, using the microprocessor, a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at 

least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the movement data; and 

storing, in said memory, first event information related to the detected first user-defined event along 

with first time stamp information reflecting a time 

at which the movement data causing the first userdefined event occurred.

Id. at claim 20. 

Relevant to this appeal, Garmin petitioned for inter 

partes review of claims 1 and 20, among others, of the ’576 

patent as obvious, relying on both Richardson2 and Stewart3 as primary references for its proposed obviousness 

challenges. The Board upheld the patentability of all

claims, finding that Garmin had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. LoganTree, LP, No. 

IPR2018-00564, 2019 WL 4072984 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019)

(’564 Decision); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. LoganTree, LP, No. 

IPR2018-00565, 2019 WL 4072985 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019) 

(’565 Decision).

2 U.S. Patent No. 5,976,083.

3 U.S. Patent No. 5,978,972.

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 09/11/2020
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP 5

Garmin appeals both decisions. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Obviousness “is a question of law based on underlying 

findings of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. 

Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). We review the Board’s factual 

findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions 

de novo. Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1251–52 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013).

Garmin first asserts that the Board incorrectly concluded that Stewart does not disclose a microprocessor interpreting the movement data as claimed in the ’576 

patent. Garmin argues particularly that the Board’s determination “rests on an unwritten and incorrect claim construction of ‘a microprocessor.’” Appellant’s Br. at 8. We 

disagree.

Before the Board, Garmin argued that Stewart’s processor 52 is the claimed microprocessor of the ’576 patent 

that interprets movement data. See J.A. 113; see also ’564 

Decision, 2019 WL 4072984, at *7. Specifically, Garmin argued that processor 52 meets the claimed interpreting limitation because processor 52 “interpret[s] the 

accelerometer data by comparing it to a predetermined 

threshold.” J.A. 113.

In its decision, the Board explained that it was not persuaded that Stewart’s processor 52 interprets the movement data as required by the ’576 claims. ’564 Decision, 

2019 WL 4072984, at *7.4 Instead, the Board found that 

“Stewart’s disclosure indicates that the comparing function 

is accomplished by a receiver remote from the self4 Because the Board’s conclusions on the challenged 

issues are substantially the same in both proceedings, we 

cite to only the ’564 Decision. 

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 09/11/2020
6 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP

contained helmet system, thereby identifying at least one 

function that is not performed by the processor [52].” Id. at 

*8 (emphasis added) (citing Stewart at col. 14 ll. 6–9). 

Garmin interprets this statement from the Board to 

mean that the Board believed this receiver in Stewart to be 

another processor, i.e., a second separate processor remote 

from the rest of the system. See Appellant’s Br. at 15. 

Therefore, Garmin argues, the Board could have only 

reached the conclusion it did by limiting the ’576 claim language as directed to solely one processor. To the contrary, 

the Board simply concluded that Garmin failed to meet the 

burden of proving its own theory of obviousness, that is, 

that processor 52 meets the microprocessor limitation of 

the ’576 patent.

This determination from the Board is supported by 

substantial evidence. Garmin never asserted, prior to its 

briefing on appeal, that Stewart’s ringside receiver was a 

processor, nor did it ever contend that the ringside receiver 

corresponded in any way to the claimed microprocessor 

limitation. In fact, when Garmin’s petition quoted a relevant passage from Stewart, it cropped the reference to the 

“ringside receiver” from the quote. See J.A. 113. In response to the Board’s concerns as to whether Stewart 

teaches the microprocessor claim limitation, Garmin 

pointed only to the disclosure from Stewart that processor 

52 “controls the operation of the [] system.” Stewart at col. 

8 ll. 61–62. The Board found, and we agree, that without 

further relevant evidence from Garmin, this general disclosure from Stewart is not sufficient to find that processor 52 

controls every aspect of the system, and particularly, the 

comparing function.5 Of note, Garmin does not now contest 

5 At the hearing in front of the Board, Garmin suggested that its expert opined on whether Stewart’s processor performs the comparing process, vel non. The Board, 

however, correctly found that Garmin’s expert merely 

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 09/11/2020
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP 7

on appeal that it is Stewart’s ringside receiver, as opposed 

to Stewart’s processor 52, that performs the comparison 

function, see Appellant’s Br. at 14–16—the sole process it 

asserted in its petition as disclosing the interpreting the 

movement data limitation of the ’576 patent, see J.A. 113–

14. Because Garmin did not present adequate evidence as 

to why Stewart’s processor 52 performs the comparison 

function, the Board’s finding that processor 52 does not interpret movement data as required by the ’576 claims is 

supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Garmin’s 

assertion, the Board, in making this finding, did not rely 

on an overly limited claim construction; it instead simply 

identified a fatal flaw in Garmin’s obviousness argument. 

Garmin also challenges the Board’s findings as to the 

microprocessor disclosed by Richardson. Just as with the 

Stewart reference, the Board concluded that Garmin did 

not meet its burden of establishing that Richardson discloses a microprocessor interpreting the movement data. 

See ’564 Decision, 2019 WL 4072984, at *11. Garmin asserts that Richardson’s microprocessor 123 interprets 

movement data as claimed, in particular by executing Richardson’s “monitor sensors process 154” and “track user status process 156.”

Though the Board agreed that the processes disclosed 

in Richardson meet the interpreting movement data limitation, the Board found that there was no explicit disclosure from Richardson that microprocessor 123 executed 

these processes. Id. The disclosures from Richardson to 

which Garmin now points are not dispositive on this issue. 

See, e.g., Richardson at col. 16 ll. 12–20 (referencing a processor subsystem including a microprocessor and various 

parroted attorney argument without any supporting evidence or reasoning. ’564 Decision, 2019 WL 4072984, at *9. 

We see no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that the 

expert’s conclusory opinion was less than persuasive. 

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 09/11/2020
8 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP

memory components). These disclosures merely discuss a 

subset of the architecture of the system—they do not, as 

Garmin suggests, expressly disclose that the processor subsystem holds and executes the software instructions, see 

Appellant’s Br. at 20. Additionally, Garmin did not “assert 

that Richardson inherently discloses that microprocessor 

123 executes monitor sensors process 154 or track user status process 156, or that this operation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” ’564 Decision, 2019 

WL 4072984, at *11. Both Garmin’s petition and expert 

declaration instead assumed, without explanation or evidence, that microprocessor 123 is the component in Richardson that performs these processes. See, e.g., J.A. 153, 

157. Therefore, in the absence of an explicit disclosure, expert testimony on this point, and anything more than assumptive attorney argument, the Board’s findings on this 

issue are supported by substantial evidence. Put simply, a 

petitioner in an inter partes review has the burden of 

demonstrating unpatentability by a preponderance of the 

evidence; bare assertion through implication that a reference discloses a claim limitation, without more, is not 

enough to meet this burden.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Garmin’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the Board’s decision holding that Garmin did not 

prove that the challenged claims of the ’576 patent are unpatentable.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1108 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 09/11/2020