`
`Paper No.
`Filed: September 4, 2013
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Wintek Corporation
`By:
`Joseph E. Palys
`
`Naveen Modi
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
` naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,902
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II.  Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................... 1 
`
`III. 
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 ............................ 2 
`
`IV.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2 
`
`V. 
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ........................................... 2 
`
`VI.  Overview of the ’902 patent ............................................................................ 4 
`
`VII.  Prosecution History of the ’902 patent ............................................................ 7 
`
`VIII.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9 
`
`IX.  Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under the
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ................................................................ 11 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Binstead Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-
`19, 21, 22, 24-27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55,
`57, 58, 60-62, and 64-68 ..................................................................... 12 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 46, and 53............................. 12 
`
`Independent Claims 32, 35, 42, 44, 58, 66, and 68 .................. 20 
`
`Dependent Claims ..................................................................... 27 
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 28 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Binstead and Honeywell Make Claims 4, 9, 14, 16-
`23, 25-31, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 49, 56, 63, and 68 Obvious .................. 28 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Claims 4, 9, 14, 20, 28, 38, 49, 56, 63 ...................................... 28 
`
`Claims 16, 23, 30, 31, 41, and 45 ............................................. 30 
`
`Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 35, 44, and 68 ....................... 31 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Binstead and Bolender Make Claims 33 and 59
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 32 
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.  Ground 4: Binstead and Miller Make Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 25-
`27, 29, 35, 44, and 68 Obvious............................................................ 34 
`
`E. 
`
`Ground 5: Binstead and Seguine Make Claims 5, 10, 15, 17-19,
`21, 22, 25-27, 29, 35, 39, 44, 50, 57, 64, and 68 Obvious .................. 36 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 35, 44, and 68 ....................... 36 
`
`Claims 5, 10, 15, 21, 29, 39, 50, 57, and 64 ............................. 38 
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 6: Lambert Anticipates Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20,
`22, 24-28, 32, 34-38, 40, 42-44, 46-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and
`65-68 .................................................................................................... 39 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 46, and 53............................. 40 
`
`Independent Claims 32, 35, 42, 44, 58, 66, and 68 .................. 45 
`
`Dependent Claims ..................................................................... 50 
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 51 
`
`G.  Ground 7: Lambert and Miller Make Claims 17-20, 22, 25-28,
`35, 44, and 68 Obvious ........................................................................ 51 
`
`H.  Ground 8: Lambert and Seguine Make Claims 5, 10, 15-23,
`25-31, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45, 50, 57, 64, and 68 Obvious ........................ 53 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Claims 5, 10, 15, 21, 29, 39, 50, 57, and 64 ............................. 53 
`
`Claims 17-22, 25-29, 35, 44, and 68 ......................................... 55 
`
`Claims 16, 23, 30, 31, 41, 45 .................................................... 57 
`
`I. 
`
`Ground 9: Lambert and Bolender Make Claims 33 and 59
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 58 
`
`X. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................ 9
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 (“’902 patent”)
`
`1001
`
`
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`File History of the ’902 patent
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’902 patent
`
`Order Granting Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’902
`patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead
`
`Published UK Patent Application GB 2 168 816 A of
`Lambert
`
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 61-84729 to
`Honeywell
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Published
`Patent Application No. 61-84729 and Certificate of
`Translation
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0030048
`of Bolender et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Miller et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0229469
`of Seguine
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Curriculum Vitae and List of Publications of Dr. Vivek
`Subramanian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Introduction
`Wintek Corporation (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of all claims
`
`1-68 of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 (“the ’902 patent”) (Ex. 1001) assigned on its
`
`face to TPK Touch Solutions Inc. (“Patent Owner”). This Petition shows by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on all claims of the ’902 patent based on prior art that the Office did
`
`not have before it or did not fully consider during prosecution, and that anticipates
`
`or renders obvious the claims of the ’902 patent. Claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent
`
`should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-In-Interest: Wintek Corporation is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: An ex parte reexamination request (Control No.
`
`90/012,869) for the ’902 patent was filed on May 17, 2013, which the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“Office”) granted on June 20, 2013. That reexamination
`
`request involved some of the same prior art at issue in this Petition and remains
`
`pending before the Office. Exhibit 1003 includes a copy of the reexamination
`
`request. Exhibit 1004 includes a copy of the Office’s order granting reexamination.
`
`Petitioner has filed concurrently with this petition another petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ’902 patent.
`
`Additionally, the Patent Owner has asserted the ’902 patent against the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner in a patent infringement litigation filed on May 15, 2013 in the Northern
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`District of California (case no. 3:13-cv-2218). That litigation remains pending. To
`
`the Petitioner’s knowledge, the ’902 patent has not been subject to any post grant
`
`review or any prior inter partes review.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: 571.203.2700
`Fax: 202.408.4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The Office is authorized to charge
`
`Backup Counsel
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`Telephone: 202.408.4000
`Fax: 202.408.4400
`E-mail: naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`any additional fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`06-0916.
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’902 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’902 patent on the grounds identified.
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent and requests that these
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`claims be found unpatentable and canceled in view of the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 10081
`
`Publication/
`Description
`Exhibit
`Issue Date
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead (“Binstead”) Oct. 24, 2000
`Ex. 1006 Published UK Patent Application GB 2 168 816 A to
`June 25, 1986
`Lambert (“Lambert”)
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 61-84729
`and corresponding English translation of the JP
`84729 application (including Abstract)
`(“Honeywell”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2005/0030048 to Bolender et al. (“Bolender”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Miller et al. (“Miller”) Dec. 20, 1994
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`Oct. 4, 2007
`2007/0229469 to Seguine (“Seguine”)
`
`Apr. 30, 1986
`
`Feb. 10, 2005
`
`
`Each of Binstead, Lambert, Honeywell, Bolender, and Miller published or
`
`issued more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing date, April
`
`27, 2007, of the ’902 patent and is prior art to the ’902 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 (b). Seguine was published on October 4, 2007 but was filed on November 27,
`
`2006. Thus, Seguine is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to Honeywell in the Petition refer to the certified English translation.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner requests cancelation of the claims on the following grounds:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19,
`21, 22, 24-27, 29, 32, 34-37,
`39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55,
`57, 58, 60-62, and 64-68
`4, 9, 14, 16-23, 25-31, 35,
`38, 41, 44, 45, 49, 56, 63,
`and 68
`33 and 59
`
`17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 35,
`44, and 68
`5, 10, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 25-
`27, 29, 35, 39, 44, 50, 57, 64,
`and 68
`1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22,
`24-28, 32, 34-38, 40, 42-44,
`46-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and
`65-68
`17-20, 22, 25-28, 35, 44, and
`68
`5, 10, 15-23, 25-31, 35, 39,
`41, 44, 45, 50, 57, 64, and 68
`33 and 59
`
`Description
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Binstead
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Binstead and Honeywell
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Binstead and Bolender
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Binstead and Miller
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Binstead and Seguine
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) by
`Lambert
`
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Lambert and Miller
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Lambert and Seguine
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Lambert and Bolender
`
`
`VI. Overview of the ’902 patent
`The ’902 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/842,747 (“the ’747
`
`application”) and is directed to a “conductor pattern structure of a capacitive touch
`
`panel,” and a method of constructing such touch panel. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:12-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`192, 6:17-33. The ’902 patent purports to simplify and reduce the thickness of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`structure of a capacitive touch panel. Id. at 3:53-54.
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’902 patent discloses a conductor pattern structure, which
`
`includes a plurality of first-axis (X axis) conductor assemblies 13, each including a
`
`plurality of first-axis conductor cells 131 and a plurality of first-axis conduction
`
`lines 132, respectively, connecting between adjacent ones of the first-axis
`
`conductor cells 131. See e.g., id., FIG. 1. The structure also includes a plurality of
`
`insulation layers 17, made of transparent insulation material such as silicon oxide,
`
`covering respective first-axis conduction lines 132. See id. at 5:14-17, FIG. 2. The
`
`insulation layers 17 do not cover the first-axis conductor cells 131. See id., FIG. 8.
`
`
`
`The structure also includes a plurality of second-axis (Y axis) conductor
`
`assemblies 14, each including a plurality of second-axis conductor cells 141 and a
`
`plurality of second-axis conduction lines 142, respectively, connecting between
`
`
`2 Citations to Ex. 1001 refer to column number: line number(s).
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`adjacent ones of the second-axis conductor cells 141. See id. at 5:17-29, FIGs. 1, 2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Each second-axis conduction line 142 “extends over and across a surface of each
`
`insulation layer 17.” Id. The first-axis and second-axis conductor assemblies 13, 14
`
`and the first-axis and second-axis conduction lines 132, 142 are made of
`
`“transparent conductive film, such as ITO conductive film.” Id. at 5:48-52.
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’902 patent also describes a method to manufacture a conductor pattern
`
`structure of a capacitive touch panel. See id. at 6:20-67, FIGs. 7-9. Specifically, the
`
`’902 patent discloses “a substrate on which a plurality of first-axis conductor cells
`
`131, first-axis conduction lines 132, signal transmission lines 16a, 16b, and
`
`second-axis conductor cells 141 are just formed.” Id. at 6:20-22, FIG. 7. The ’902
`
`patent further discloses that after this step, “an insulation covering layer 17 is
`
`formed to cover the surface of each first-axis conduction line 132.” Id. at 6:25-26,
`
`FIG. 8. The ’902 patent also discloses that to complete manufacture of the
`
`conductor patter structure, “a second-axis conduction line 142 is formed to connect
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`between each pair of adjacent second-axis conductor cells 141 of the same second-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`axis conductor assembly.” Id. at 6:28-32, FIG. 9.
`
`With respect to sensing a touch, the ’902 patent discloses that when a user’s
`
`finger touches the touch panel, “the first-axis conductor cell 131 of the first-axis
`
`conductor assembly 13 and the second-axis conductor cell 141 of the second-axis
`
`conductor assembly 14 . . . induce a capacitor effect therebetween and a signal
`
`caused thereby is transmitted through the signal transmission lines 16a, 16b to the
`
`control circuit” to calculate the position of touch. Id. at 5:64-6:5.
`
`VII. Prosecution History of the ’902 patent
`During prosecution of the ’747 application, Applicants amended the claims
`
`to distinguish them over the prior art cited by the Office stating, among other
`
`things, that the claimed conductor cells consisted of a transparent conductive
`
`material. Applicants also argued that the asserted reference, Bolender, disclosed
`
`capacitive sensors consisting of transparent conductive material overlaid by
`
`capacitive sensors consisting of opaque conductive material. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at
`
`247-49. Despite admitting that Bolender disclosed structures, of transparent
`
`conductive material, corresponding to the claimed conductor cells, Applicants
`
`nonetheless argued that Bolender cannot anticipate the claims because Bolender’s
`
`transparent conductor cells are partially overlaid by opaque conductor cells. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1009, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Applicants’ representative also discussed proposed amendments to
`
`overcome the prior art of record in an interview with the examiner. Ex. 1002 at
`
`339. Although Applicants did not amend the claims as discussed during the
`
`interview, the examiner allowed the ’747 application purportedly because the cited
`
`prior art did not allegedly disclose the transparent conductive material limitation.
`
`See Ex. 1002 at 340-48. Specifically, in the reasons for allowance, the examiner
`
`noted that Bolender discloses every limitation of independent claims 1, 6, 17, 25,
`
`32, 35, 42, 44, 46, 53, 58 and 66 except “first-axis conductor cells and the second-
`
`axis conductor cells consist[ing] of a transparent conductive material.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`346-47.3 As demonstrated in this Petition, however, that claimed feature was
`
`neither novel nor nonobvious in conductor pattern structures of capacitive touch
`
`panels disclosed in the prior art. Notably, in the pending ex parte reexamination of
`
`
`3 The examiner also acknowledged that U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2004/0119701 to Mulligan discloses first and second-axis conductor cells having a
`
`contour of hexagonal shape. Ex. 1002 at 347 (citing to Mulligan, ¶ 38).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`the ’902 patent, the examiner agreed that many references that are also asserted in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`this Petition, including Binstead, Lambert, Honeywell, Bolender, and Miller, raise
`
`a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-68. See Ex. 1004 at 2.
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`The claim term “in a substantially equally-spaced manner” should be
`
`construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as shown below:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in
`View of the Specification
`“the distances between the centers of
`adjacent conductor cells or between the
`edges of adjacent conductor cells are
`substantially equal”
`
`first-axis conductor cells . . . “in a
`substantially equally-spaced manner”
`
`second-axis conductor cells . . . “in a
`substantially equally-spaced manner”
`
`Claims 1, 17, 25, 32, 35, 42, 44, 46, 58, 66, and 68 each include the term “in
`
`a substantially equally-spaced manner” in a similar context. For example, claim 1
`
`recites “a plurality of first-axis conductor cells arranged on the surface of the
`
`substrate along a first axis in a substantially equally-spaced manner” and similarly
`
`“a plurality of second-axis conductor cells arranged on the surface of the substrate
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`along a second axis in a substantially equally-spaced manner.” However, it is not
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`clear from the claim language alone whether (1) the distances between the centers
`
`of the adjacent conductor cells are substantially equal or (2) the distances between
`
`the edges of the adjacent conductor cells are substantially equal. The examples of
`
`first-axis and second-axis conductor cells disclosed in the specification all have the
`
`same size, shape, and orientation, and are arranged such that both the distances
`
`between the centers of adjacent conductor cells and the distances between the
`
`edges of the adjacent conductor cells are substantially equal. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`FIGs. 1-2, 5-10.) As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim term
`
`must include both that the distances between the centers of the adjacent conductor
`
`cells are substantially equal or that the distances between the edges of the adjacent
`
`conductor cells are substantially equal. Of course, both conditions would be true if
`
`all the conductor cells have the same size, same shape, and same orientation, but
`
`the claims do not explicitly recite such requirements. Therefore, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim term “in a substantially equally-spaced
`
`manner” in light of the specification is that “the distances between the centers of
`
`adjacent conductor cells or between the edges of adjacent conductor cells are
`
`substantially equal.”
`
`The remaining terms in claims 1-68 should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`IX. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under the
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead was cited during the original prosecution of the ’902 patent, but not
`
`applied or discussed in any prior art rejection. Although the ’902 patent
`
`specification identified Miller (see Ex. 1001, 2:24-28), the examiner never applied
`
`Miller in any prior art rejection during the prosecution of the ’902 patent. Lambert,
`
`Honeywell, and Seguine were not cited during the original prosecution of the ’902
`
`patent. Binstead, Lambert, Honeywell, Miller, and Seguine, however, provide
`
`technical disclosures that the Office believed to be absent in the prior art and are
`
`therefore not cumulative of the art that was considered by the Office during
`
`original prosecution.
`
`The examiner cited and applied Bolender as prior art during the prosecution
`
`of the ’902 patent, but never presented Bolender in combination with the prior art
`
`cited in this Request. Therefore, Bolender is presented in a new light in this
`
`Petition because its materiality, in combination with the prior art cited in this
`
`Petition, was never fully addressed during the prosecution of the ’902 patent.
`
`Claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent include method claims (claims 32-45, 58-68)
`
`and conductor pattern structure claims (claims 1-31, 46-57). Many of these claims
`
`recite substantially the same features (e.g., first and second axis conductor cells,
`
`first and second axis conduction lines, etc.). Accordingly, where appropriate,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner addresses the claims in groups that share similar limitations or refers to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the analysis of claim limitations found in other claims. Ex. 1012, ¶ 25.
`
`A. Ground 1: Binstead Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19,
`21, 22, 24-27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55, 57, 58, 60-
`62, and 64-68
`Binstead discloses all the elements in claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21,
`
`22, 24-27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55, 57, 58, 60-62, and 64-68. See
`
`Binstead; Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 30-81.
`
`1.
`Independent Claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 46, and 53
`The claim charts and descriptions below show how Binstead discloses all the
`
`limitations of claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 46, and 53.
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`Binstead discloses a pattern of conductor elements
`formed on a surface of a dielectric film of a touchpad.
`See e.g., Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:17-215, 3:21-26,
`3:41-49, Figs. 1-7, 9; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`’902 patent Claim 1
`[1.pre]4 A conductor
`pattern structure of a
`capacitive touch panel
`formed on a surface of a
`substrate, the conductor
`pattern structure
`comprising (see Ex. 1001,
`7:43-45):
`
`
`4 Certain claim elements identified with a label (e.g., element “[1.pre],” “[1.a],”
`
`etc.), are referred to in this petition by the label.
`
`5 Citations to Ex. 1005 refer to column number:line number(s).
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`’902 patent Claim 1
`[1.a] a plurality of first-
`axis conductor assemblies,
`each first-axis conductor
`assembly comprising a
`plurality of first-axis
`conductor cells arranged
`on the surface of the
`substrate along a first axis
`in a substantially equally-
`spaced manner, a
`disposition zone being
`delimited between
`adjacent ones of the first-
`axis conductor assemblies
`and between adjacent ones
`of the first-axis conductor
`cells (see Ex. 1001, 7:46-
`52);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`Binstead discloses a first series of conductor elements
`12, which include conductor cells (12, wide portions
`having width 22), arranged on the surface of a
`dielectric film 10 along a first axis with substantially
`identical inter-element spacing 18. Ex. 1005,
`Abstract, 3:21-56, 3:43-59, 4:5-7, 4:28-35, 4:63-65,
`Figs. 1 (annotated below), 2c, 3a; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31. For
`example, Figs. 1 and 3a (annotated below) of
`Binstead illustrate that the distances between the
`centers of adjacent conductor cells or between the
`edges of adjacent conductor cells are substantially
`equal. Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 3a; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31. In
`addition, Figs. 1 and 3a illustrate a disposition zone
`delimited between adjacent conductor elements 12
`and adjacent conductor cells (12, wide portions
`having width 22). Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 3a; Ex. 1012,
`¶ 31.
`
`[1.b] a plurality of first-
`axis conduction lines
`respectively connecting
`between adjacent ones of
`the first-axis conductor
`cells of each first-axis
`conductor assembly so that
`the first-axis conductor
`cells of each respective
`first-axis conductor
`assembly are electrically
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Binstead discloses that the first series of conductor
`elements 12 include narrower width 24 parts, which
`connect adjacent ones of the wider width 22 parts of
`the first series of conductor elements 12, which
`constitute conduction lines at the intersections 20. Ex.
`1005, 4:63-65, Fig. 3a; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`Binstead discloses that insulating material 13’ is
`deposited over the narrower width 24 parts of the first
`series of conductor elements 12 at the intersections 20
`without encompassing the adjacent wider width 22
`parts of the first series of conductor elements 12. Ex.
`1005, 4:4-21, 7:54-56, Fig. 2c (reproduced below);
`Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`
`Binstead discloses second series of conductor
`elements 14, which include conductor cells, arranged
`on the surface of the dielectric film 10 along a second
`axis with substantially identical inter-element spacing
`18 between adjacent pairs of the second series of
`conductor elements 14. Ex. 1005, 3:51-55, 4:4-18,
`4:28-35, 4:63-65; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31. For example, Figs.
`1 and 3a (annotated) below of Binstead illustrate that
`the distances between the centers of adjacent
`conductor elements or between the edges of adjacent
`conductor elements are substantially equal. Ex. 1005,
`Figs. 1, 3a; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`
`
`’902 patent Claim 1
`connected together (see
`Ex. 1001, 7:53-57);
`
`[1.c] a plurality of
`insulation layers, each
`insulation layer of the
`plurality of insulation
`layers covering a surface
`of each first-axis
`conduction line without
`encompassing the adjacent
`first-axis conductor cells
`(see Ex. 1001, 7:58-61);
`[1.d] a plurality of second-
`axis conductor assemblies,
`each second-axis
`conductor assembly
`comprising a plurality of
`second-axis conductor
`cells arranged on the
`surface of the substrate
`along a second axis in a
`substantially equally-
`spaced manner, each
`second-axis conductor cell
`being set in each
`disposition zone (see Ex.
`1001, 7:62-67);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`’902 patent Claim 1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`Conductor elements 14 are set in dispositions zones
`delimited by the inter-element spacing 18 between
`adjacent ones of the first series of conductor elements
`12. See id.; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`[1.e] a plurality of second-
`axis conduction lines
`respectively connecting
`between adjacent ones of
`the second-axis conductor
`cells of each second-axis
`conductor assembly so that
`the second-axis conductor
`cells of each respective
`second-axis conductor
`assembly are electrically
`connected together, the
`second-axis conduction
`line being extended across
`a surface of the insulation
`layer of the respective
`first-axis conduction line
`(see Ex. 1001, 8:1-8),
`[1.f] wherein first-axis
`conductor cells and the
`second-axis conductor
`cells consist of a
`transparent conductive
`material. See Ex. 1001,
`8:9-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Binstead discloses that the second series of conductor
`elements 14 include wider width 22 parts, which
`constitute conductor cells, as well as narrower width
`24 parts, which constitute conductor lines, at the
`intersections 20. Ex. 1005, 4:63-65, Fig. 3a. The
`second series of conductor elements 14 are extended
`across the surface of the insulating material 13’ on the
`first series of conductor elements 12. Ex. 1005,
`3:55-56, 4:4-21, Figs. 2c, 3a; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`Binstead discloses that, where the touchpad is placed
`in front of a display as a touch screen, the first series
`of conductor elements 12 and the second series of
`conductor elements 14, which include conductor cells,
`consist of indium oxide, which is a transparent
`conductive material. Ex. 1005, 2:38-43, 3:56-61,
`7:58-60; Ex. 1012, ¶ 31.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`’902 patent Claim 6
`[6.pre] A conductor
`pattern structure of a
`capacitive touch panel
`formed on a surface of a
`substrate, the conductor
`pattern structure
`comprising (see Ex. 1001,
`8:23-25):
`[6.a] at least two adjacent
`first-axis conductor cells
`(see Ex. 1001, 8:26); and
`[6.b] at least two adjacent
`second-axis conductor
`cells (see Ex. 1001, 8:27),
`[6.c] wherein the adjacent
`first-axis conductor cells
`are connected by a first-
`axis conduction line
`provided therebetween
`(see Ex. 1001, 8:28-30),
`[6.d] wherein an insulation
`layer is formed on a
`surface of the first-axis
`conduction line without
`encompassing the two
`adjacent first-axis
`conductor cells, and a
`second-axis conduction
`line extends across a
`surface of the insulation
`layer to connect between
`the adjacent second-axis
`conductor cells (see Ex.
`1001, 8:31-36), and
`[6.e] wherein first-axis
`conductor cells and the
`second-axis conductor
`cells consist of a
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim element [1.pre].
`
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim element [1.a].
`
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim element [1.d].
`
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim element [1.b].
`
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim elements [1.c] and [1.e].
`
`Binstead discloses these claim limitations. See e.g.,
`analysis for claim element [1.f].
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`’902 patent Claim 6
`