US 11810656

Here is a concise summary of US patent 11810656:

US Patent: 11810656

• Title: System for providing a coach with live training data of an athlete as the athlete is training
• Assignee: Finish Time Holdings LLC
• Inventors: Todd Martin
• Filing Date: April 27, 2022 (for application US17/730,756)
• Issue Date: November 7, 2023
• Abstract: An athlete tracking system and method for tracking an athlete during training sessions. The system includes a mobile tracking device wearable around a portion of the athlete's head, and a training log server for maintaining an athlete profile that includes a training record updatable by the athlete and a training plan supplied by a coach.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a web-based platform that helps personalize an athlete's training. It includes a server that stores many athlete profiles, each with a training record detailing workouts (like distance and time). A computer processor on the platform takes workout data from the athlete to update their record. The processor also allows the athlete to give a coach access to view their training record and lets the coach upload a training plan for the athlete to see.
• Claim 11: This claim outlines a method for personalizing an athlete's training using a web-based platform. The method involves creating an athlete profile with a training record (including distance and time fields), receiving workout data from the athlete, updating the record with this data, allowing a coach to view the profile, and then uploading and associating a training plan from the coach with that profile.
• Claim 20: This claim describes a system for wirelessly transferring an athlete's training data from a bike computer to an online training log. The system includes a bike computer with a wireless transceiver for peer-to-peer communication, a mobile device (like a smartphone) that receives and formats this data, and a web-based platform that stores the formatted data in the athlete's online training log.
• Claim 26: This claim details a method for updating an athlete's online training log. It involves establishing a direct (peer-to-peer) wireless connection between a bike-mounted training computer and a mobile device. Training data is transferred from the computer to the mobile device, then formatted by the mobile device, and finally uploaded to a web-based platform to update the athlete's online training log.
• Claim 31: This claim is similar to Claim 20, describing a system for transferring training data from a bike computer to an online training log. It specifies a bike computer with wireless communication capabilities, a mobile device to receive and prepare the data, and a web-based platform to receive and store the data in an athlete's online profile.
• Claim 32: This claim defines a bike computer designed for collecting and sending an athlete's training data. It includes at least one sensor to measure workout parameters, a processor to gather this data, memory to store it, and wireless communication means to transmit the data to a training log.

Litigation Status:
The Google Patents entry for US11810656B2 indicates that the "Family has litigation," with a link to Darts-ip for further details. However, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets for US11810656 did not return specific docket entries for litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during 2026. Further investigation into the Darts-ip database would be necessary to determine the specific courts and current status of any related litigation.

A search for litigation involving US patent 11810656 through various patent and legal databases did not yield specific active case details as of April 26, 2026.

While the Google Patents entry for US11810656B2 indicates "Family has litigation" with a link to Darts-ip, directly searching Unified Patents Portal and the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and PACER for the specific patent number 11810656 did not return any explicit litigation cases. PACER and CAFC are primary sources for federal court litigation records, with PACER providing access to appellate, district, and bankruptcy court case information, and CAFC publishing opinions and orders for cases filed after October 1, 2004. However, without specific case numbers or parties, further details on the nature, parties, or status of any litigation related to the patent family cannot be definitively provided from the available search results.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 11810656 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO Open Data Portal. Web searches for this patent number in PTAB databases also did not yield any specific proceedings.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US11810656, all claims of the patent remain untested in an AIA trial context. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all statutory grounds (e.g., §§ 102, 103, 112) available to them if they were to file an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition. There is no estoppel landscape established from prior PTAB decisions. The absence of PTAB activity could signal that the patent has not yet been aggressively asserted in a way that would provoke an AIA trial challenge, or that potential challengers have not yet identified strong grounds for invalidity that warrant the cost of a PTAB proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US11810656, a defendant considering challenging the patent should:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and analyze the claims for potential indefiniteness under § 112.
• Evaluate the timing requirements for filing an IPR or PGR petition, considering that a PGR can only be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance (November 7, 2023). An IPR can be filed later, typically after the nine-month window for PGR closes, and generally not more than one year after being served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
• If a decision is made to pursue a PTAB challenge, carefully craft the petition, ensuring all grounds are clearly presented and supported by evidence, as the PTAB has discretion to deny institution if petitions are unfocused.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11810656. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and the asserting entity.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,810,656 B2

Note on sourcing: The USD-source records I could retrieve for this patent come from Google Patents legal events, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/PACER docket mirrors, and assignment-abstract excerpts surfaced in third-party filings. I was not able to open the live USPTO Assignment Center abstract-of-title page for this patent within this session, so the reel/frame number and correspondent of record are gaps below — flagged explicitly rather than guessed.

⚠️ Contradiction with a previously generated section. The earlier "Litigation summary" and "PTAB challenges" sections state that no specific litigation could be located. That is now outdated/incorrect. Concrete filings exist:

• Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Strava, Inc., D. Colo. 1:26-cv-03752, filed 2026-08-17 — complaint asserts the 35 U.S.C. § 271 family, with US 11,810,656 as Exhibit 11 and its file history as Exhibit 24 (CourtListener docket 74658372; PacerMonitor case 66288869).
• Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Garmin LTD, 2:20-cv-00112, E.D. Tex. (2020).
• Finish Time Holdings LLC v. Garmin International Inc., 2:20-cv-00184, D. Me. (2020).

The Strava case post-dates the prior search cutoff stated in that section (April 2026). Please treat the litigation section as superseded.

Inventors

• No employer is determinable from the patent face or the records retrieved — the applicant of record is the LLC, not a corporation, so there is no corporate employer to infer. No SEC-visible employer.
• No "inventor departure" pattern is observable, because there is only one inventor and he appears to be the principal of the assignee entity. There is no multi-inventor team that could collectively depart, and no evidence of a sale of the portfolio following a departure.
• The relevant "unusual pattern" here is instead a title-timing pattern: the application was filed 2022-04-27 by Finish Time Holdings, LLC, but the inventor→LLC assignment was not recorded until 2023-07-09 — roughly 14 months post-filing and ~4 months pre-issuance. This is the classic curative/confirmatory assignment used to produce a clean § 261 standing record before assertion. Note the caveat: the same family was already being asserted against Garmin in 2020, i.e., before that recorded instrument, on the strength of the earlier chain.

Original assignee

Finish Time Holdings, LLC (a Texas-associated limited liability company; inventor Todd Martin is the sole named inventor across its portfolio).

• Named on the issued patent: Yes — Google Patents lists Finish Time Holdings LLC as both Original Assignee and Current Assignee (2023-07-09).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence found. I found no product, app, service, or commercial offering from Finish Time Holdings in any of the retrieved records. Its visible activity is patent-holding and enforcement: the entity appears as plaintiff in the 2020 Garmin suits and the 2026 Strava suit. I did not verify this negatively (absence of evidence, not proof of absence) — see "Recommended verification" below.
• Primary line of business (as evidenced): patent holding/licensing and assertion of a single-inventor athletic-training-data portfolio (8 grants, concentrated in H04M/A63B/G16H per PatentsView-derived profiles, grant years 2020–2023).
• Current status: Active as a litigant — it filed the Strava complaint on 2026-08-17. No record of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy was found. Google Patents shows the patent legal status as Active, with anticipated expiration 2033-10-16.
• Family note: Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" (Darts-ip family 50486056). The family includes US 9,345,948; 9,889,340; 10,322,314; 10,792,537; 10,799,763; 10,918,911; 11,024,413; 11,120,902; 11,244,751; 11,322,240; 11,810,656; 11,923,066; and 12,340,891 — all asserted together in the Strava complaint.

Assignment timeline

Two records touch this patent. One is the recordation of the original inventor→applicant assignment; the other is the pre-filing chain of applications (not assignments).

• Execution date: not stated in any record I could retrieve / recorded 2023-07-09 — Reel/frame: NOT RETRIEVED (gap)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: MARTIN, TODD (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: FINISH TIME HOLDINGS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. I could not open the Assignment Center abstract for this patent, so I cannot name the recording attorney/firm or their address. Do not assume a correspondent.
  • Context: Title clean-up / confirmation of the original applicant's ownership of a sole-inventor portfolio, recorded roughly four months before the patent issued and roughly three years before the 2026 Strava assertion.

• 2022-04-27 (application filed) — no reel/frame; not an assignment

  • Event: Application US 17/730,756 filed by Finish Time Holdings LLC; priority to US 17/730,756.
  • Context: Continuation filing within the same applicant-controlled family; assignee already the applicant of record.

• 2023-09-28 / 2024-03-03 / 2025-01-18 — not assignments

  • Event: Priority claims to US 18/374,156 (→ US 11,923,066), US 18/593,969 (→ US 12,340,891), and US 19/031,871 (→ US 2025/0166783 A1).
  • Context: Continuation-chain bookkeeping by Google Patents; no ownership change.

No other assignment is recorded. There is no transfer to Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi‑LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, or any other acquirer-NPE; no security agreement; no merger; no change of name; no release. The ownership chain is inventor → Finish Time Holdings, LLC, and it terminates there. This is itself the finding: the asserting entity is the original, inventor-controlled owner, not a downstream acquirer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11810656
    2012 : Provisional filed by Todd Martin
    2013 : Nonprovisional application filed
    2020 : Garmin infringement suits filed
    2022 : Application filed by Finish Time Holdings LLC
    2023 : Inventor assignment recorded to Finish Time LLC
         : Patent US 11810656 issued
    2026 : Strava infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear.
   No transfer to a shell occurred; the patent was assigned by the individual inventor to the original applicant LLC that already held the family. I found no evidence of products in commerce, but I also could not verify the entity's registered-agent address, state of organization, or single-membership. The Google Patents "reassignment" entry (recorded 2023-07-09, assignor MARTIN, TODD → FINISH TIME HOLDINGS, LLC) plus the entity's litigation-only visible footprint are consistent with, but do not establish, a purpose-built holding vehicle. Concrete evidence needed: TX/Delaware entity registration and registered agent.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present (category-specific).
   Finish Time Holdings, LLC does not appear on the enumerated acquirer-NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). However it does appear in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a "Patent Asserter," classified "5 – Individual-inventor-started," with at least Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Garmin LTD, 2:20-cv-00112 (E.D. Tex.) (and the parallel D. Me. case 2:20-cv-00184), and now v. Strava, 1:26-cv-03752 (D. Colo., filed 2026-08-17). NPE-database classification + a repeat assertion campaign against well-capitalized operating companies is a genuine, citable signal — but it is an individual-inventor-started asserter, not a mass-portfolio acquirer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable.
   There is exactly one recorded assignment in the chain, so recurrence cannot be evaluated. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for that single entry. This is the highest-value missing data point — routine Assignment Center lookups on the sibling family members (US 9,345,948; 11,322,240; 11,923,066; 12,340,891) would reveal whether one attorney/firm has recorded every instrument across the family.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.
   No chained LLC-to-LLC transfers. One assignment, executed/recorded by the inventor to the original applicant.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present for the 2026 suit.
   The single recorded assignment (2023-07-09) precedes the Strava complaint (2026-08-17) by ~3 years — outside the 6-month window. The inverse pattern is present and worth noting: the family was asserted against Garmin in 2020, before the inventor's assignment was recorded in 2023, indicating Finish Time Holdings relied on an unrecorded chain at the time of its first campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no § 363 sale, and no operating-company assignor of any kind.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no operating-company transferor. The patent originated with the individual inventor; Finish Time Holdings is not asserting on behalf of a product company.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. Chain terminates at Finish Time Holdings, LLC, which is an affirmative plaintiff. No RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN ownership.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: the ownership chain terminates at Finish Time Holdings, LLC, the original, inventor-controlled applicant — a repeat plaintiff classified in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as an "Individual-inventor-started" asserter, which has now sued Garmin (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00112 and D. Me. 2:20-cv-00184, 2020) and Strava (D. Colo. 1:26-cv-03752, filed 2026-08-17), the latter asserting US 11,810,656 as Exhibit 11 and twelve sibling patents. With no evidence of any commercial product embodying the claims, the entity fits the NPE litigation profile on the plaintiff-side facts. It is not a high-confidence call because the two strongest textbook signals — a recorded transfer to a downstream licensing LLC and a repeat correspondent across chained instruments — are absent (there is only one recorded assignment, and I could not retrieve its reel/frame or correspondent); the entity is also the original owner rather than an acquirer, which is the individual-inventor-started sub-pattern rather than the classic troll chain.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11810656; also run the sibling patents US 9,345,948 / 11,322,240 / 11,923,066 / 12,340,891 to expose any recurring correspondent), and pull the Corporate Disclosure Statement (docket #4) in Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Strava, Inc., 1:26-cv-03752, which should state the LLC's parent/membership and directly resolve signal 1.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11810656, I will focus on patent documents published or filed before the earliest priority date of US11810656, which is October 19, 2012, derived from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/715,847. I will prioritize references by different inventors or those by the same inventor that are not directly within the continuation chain or explicitly incorporated by reference for the specific claimed subject matter in a way that provides priority benefit.

After reviewing the citations, the following patents are identified as strong candidates for relevant prior art based on their publication/filing dates predating US11810656's earliest priority and their subject matter:

1. US20110190089A1 (by Jones et al. - different inventor)
2. US20080270054A1 (by Martin - same inventor, significantly earlier publication)

While other patents by Todd Martin exist with earlier priority dates, those are often either explicitly incorporated by reference within US11810656 for specific features or are part of a related patent family where US11810656 may claim priority. For anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference must disclose every element of the claimed invention.

Most Relevant Prior Art Analysis

1. US20110190089A1

• Full Citation: US20110190089A1 (Inventor(s): Michael C. Jones, Robert V. Braden; Assignee(s): Nike, Inc.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: August 4, 2011; Filed: February 1, 2011.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a portable electronic training system. The system can include a portable electronic device (e.g., a music player, mobile phone, or dedicated exercise device) and a sensor (e.g., foot pod, GPS receiver, heart rate monitor) that collects data during an athletic activity. The data can be stored, analyzed, and presented to a user. The system also supports training programs, goals, and social networking features, allowing users to share data and compare performance. It details various types of data collected (speed, distance, heart rate, GPS coordinates), display on a mobile device, and communication for data transfer.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Claims 1 & 11 (Web-based platform, coach interaction): This prior art describes a system for collecting and analyzing athletic data and presenting it to a user, as well as social networking features for sharing data and comparing performance. However, it does not explicitly disclose a web-based platform configured to permit an athlete to grant access to their training record to a coach, nor does it describe a processor configured to receive and associate a training plan from a coach with the athlete's profile for the athlete to view. Therefore, it is unlikely to fully anticipate claims 1 or 11, which focus on the coach-athlete interaction for training plan management.
  • Claims 20, 26, 31 (Bike computer to mobile device to online log transfer): This prior art describes a portable electronic device communicating with a sensor (including GPS) to collect and store training data, which can then be displayed or transferred. While it mentions GPS receivers and data collection, it doesn't specifically detail a "bike computer" with "peer-to-peer communication" with a "mobile communications device" which then formats and uploads data to a "web-based platform" to update an "online training log." It generally describes data transfer but not the specific architecture of bike computer -> mobile device -> platform for log updates via peer-to-peer links. Therefore, it is unlikely to fully anticipate the specific system and method of claims 20, 26, and 31.
  • Claim 32 (Bike Computer): The prior art discusses a "portable electronic device" and "sensors" that collect data like speed, distance, and heart rate during athletic activity. A bike computer is a type of such portable electronic device with sensors. It describes a processor to collect data from sensors and memory to store it, and means for data transfer. While it doesn't use the exact term "bike computer," the general system described (portable electronic device, sensors for activity parameters, processor, memory, communication means) broadly covers the functional elements of claim 32. It might anticipate the broad scope of claim 32 depending on the interpretation of "bike computer" and "wireless communications means."

2. US20080270054A1

• Full Citation: US20080270054A1 (Inventor(s): Todd Martin; Assignee(s): Finish Time Holdings, LLC)
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 30, 2008; Filed: October 31, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a personalized performance profile system and method for athletes. It focuses on collecting and analyzing data from athletic activities to generate a performance profile, track results, and assist athletes in training. The system includes an activity calendar, a training log, a media portal, and a rankings generator. It details storing training and race data (distance, time, etc.), calculating cumulative training distances, and maintaining records of best performances. Users can access the platform through client computers.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Claims 1 & 11 (Web-based platform, coach interaction): This prior art explicitly describes a web-based platform with a training log for athlete profiles, storing training records with distance and time aspects, and receiving workout data to update the log. It also mentions providing assistance to athletes in training. However, it does not explicitly disclose the specific features of allowing an athlete to grant access to a coach to view their training record, nor the coach uploading a training plan to the athlete's profile for viewing by the athlete. While coaching is implied, the specific mechanism of remote coach-athlete interaction through the platform for training plan management as claimed in US11810656 might not be fully anticipated.
  • Claims 20, 26, 31 (Bike computer to mobile device to online log transfer): This prior art focuses on the overall platform and training log functionalities. It broadly discusses users entering data or data being transferred, but does not specifically detail a "bike computer" with "peer-to-peer communication" to a "mobile communications device" which then formats and uploads to the web-based platform, as claimed in 20, 26, and 31. Therefore, these claims are unlikely to be fully anticipated by this reference.
  • Claim 32 (Bike Computer): This prior art describes collecting "data from athletic activities" and storing it in a training log. While it broadly covers the concept of measuring training parameters and collecting data, it does not specifically describe a dedicated "bike computer" comprising a sensor, processor, memory, and wireless communications means for transmitting the training data to a training log as a distinct apparatus. The focus is more on the web-based platform's capabilities to receive and manage data, rather than the specifics of the data collection device itself in the context of a "bike computer." Therefore, it is unlikely to fully anticipate claim 32.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 11810656

This analysis examines whether the claims of US patent 11810656 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, considering combinations of prior art references. The priority date for US11810656 is October 19, 2012.

Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA)

A POSA in the field of US11810656 would likely be an individual or a team with a bachelor's degree in computer science, software engineering, or a related technical discipline, coupled with practical experience in developing web-based applications, mobile applications, and fitness tracking or sports performance systems. This individual would be familiar with database design, user interface development, wireless communication protocols, and data processing for athletic performance metrics.

Identified Prior Art References

The US11810656 patent itself incorporates by reference the following U.S. patent applications, which predate its priority date and thus constitute prior art:

1. U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213, filed May 30, 2012, titled “System and Method for Providing an Athlete with a Performance Profile.”
   • This reference is explicitly cited in US11810656 for "details of a preferred rankings generator" and "details of a preferred medial portal." Its title suggests a system for managing athlete performance data and profiles on a platform.
2. U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/705,232, filed September 25, 2012, titled “Interface and Method for Updating an Athlete Training Log.”
   • This reference is explicitly cited in US11810656 as "An example of a system for providing a live feed to a training log." This directly teaches the concept of real-time or near real-time data flow to a training log.

In addition to these specific references, general knowledge in the art prior to October 2012 includes:

• The existence of web-based platforms for tracking personal fitness and training.
• The use of wearable sensors and specialized sports devices (e.g., bike computers, GPS watches) for collecting athletic performance data (e.g., distance, time, speed, heart rate, cadence).
• Wireless communication technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular networks) for transferring data between devices and to online platforms.
• Mobile communication devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets) serving as intermediaries for data processing and internet connectivity.
• The established practice of athletes working with coaches, often requiring communication and sharing of training information.

Obviousness Arguments

The independent claims of US11810656 can be broadly categorized into two groups for obviousness analysis: those primarily related to coach-athlete interaction on a web platform (Claims 1, 11) and those related to automated, wireless data transfer from training devices to an online log, including "live feed" aspects (Claims 20, 26, 31, 32).

1. Claims 1 and 11: Web-based Platform with Coach Interaction and Training Plans

• Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a web-based platform with a training log server, athlete profiles (including distance and time), a processor to receive and update workout data, and features enabling an athlete to grant a coach access to their training record, and for the coach to upload a training plan for the athlete to view.
• Claim 11 (Method): This claim outlines a method involving creating athlete profiles, receiving and updating training records with workout data, permitting coach access, and uploading/associating training plans from the coach.

Combination and Motivation:
U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213 (“System and Method for Providing an Athlete with a Performance Profile”) would teach a web-based platform designed to manage and display an athlete’s performance and training information. Such a "performance profile" would inherently include training records with aspects such as distance and time, collected and updated by a processor as described in US11810656.

A POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of US 13/484,213 with the general knowledge of how athletes and coaches interact, especially when geographically separated. The problem identified in US11810656 itself highlights this: "Often, the athlete becomes attached to a particular coach, but then has to move to a different city... The present invention in one or more preferred embodiments seeks to provide an athlete with the ability to maintain their current relationship with a preferred coach regardless of their physical location."

To address this recognized problem, it would have been obvious to a POSA to extend a web-based athlete performance platform (such as that described in US 13/484,213) to include functionalities that facilitate remote coaching. These functionalities would logically include:

1. Granting access to training records: Implementing a permission-based system for sharing an athlete's data with a coach is a common and obvious security feature in web applications where users want to share private information with trusted parties.
2. Uploading training plans: Allowing coaches to directly upload and associate training plans with an athlete's profile on the same platform where the athlete logs their workouts creates a centralized and efficient system for training management. This would provide the coach with a clear way to deliver instructions and the athlete a clear way to receive them.

Therefore, the specific features of coach access and training plan upload in Claims 1 and 11 would have been an obvious design choice for a POSA seeking to create a comprehensive, remotely accessible coaching and training platform based on existing athlete performance profile systems.

2. Claims 20, 26, 31, and 32: Automated Wireless Data Transfer and Live Feed

• Claim 20 (System): Describes a system for transferring data from a bike computer (with a wireless transceiver for peer-to-peer communication) to a mobile device (processor, wireless transceiver, formats data) and then to a web-based platform (processor, training log server).
• Claim 26 (Method): Describes a method for updating an online training log by establishing a peer-to-peer link between a mobile training computer and a mobile device, transferring data, formatting it, and uploading it to a web platform.
• Claim 31 (System): Similar to Claim 20, specifying "wireless communications means for transmitting" from the bike computer.
• Claim 32 (Bike Computer): Describes a bike computer with sensors, a processor, memory, and wireless communications means to transmit training data to a training log.

Combination and Motivation:
U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/705,232 expressly teaches "a system for providing a live feed to a training log." This reference clearly establishes the concept of automatically, potentially in real-time, updating an online training log with data from an athlete's activities.

Combining this teaching with general knowledge of existing technologies would render Claims 20, 26, 31, and 32 obvious. Prior to 2012, bike computers (as described in Claim 32) were well-known for collecting various training data (e.g., speed, distance, cadence, heart rate from sensors). Mobile communication devices (smartphones, tablets) were also commonly equipped with wireless transceivers (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular) and processors, and were widely used for internet access and as data hubs. Peer-to-peer communication protocols like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Direct were also established.

A POSA would have been motivated to automate the process of updating an online training log using these readily available components, particularly to provide "live feed" capabilities as taught by US 61/705,232. The motivation would be to:

1. Improve accuracy and reduce manual entry: Automating data transfer from dedicated training devices eliminates errors associated with manual logging.
2. Provide timely data: Enabling a "live feed" or automated post-workout upload allows athletes and coaches to review performance data more quickly, enhancing feedback and training adjustments.
3. Leverage mobile device capabilities: Using a mobile device as an intermediary is an obvious architectural choice to bridge the specialized capabilities of a bike computer (data collection) with the broad connectivity of a web-based platform, especially if the bike computer itself lacks direct internet access. Formatting data for compatibility with the web platform is a routine programming task.

Therefore, the integration of a bike computer with a mobile communication device via a peer-to-peer link to transmit formatted training data to a web-based training log, especially to enable a "live feed" as directly suggested by US 61/705,232, would have been an obvious development for a POSA in the field of athlete training and data management.