Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 27, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, RICHARD E. RICE, and ADAM V. FLOYD,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Wintek Corporation (“Wintek”) filed a petition
`
`(“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-68 (the “challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902, issued July 10, 2012 (Ex. 1001, “the ’902 patent”).
`
`TPK Touch Solutions, Inc. (“TPK”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). TPK contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged
`
`claims. We conclude that Wintek has shown, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`The ’902 patent is involved in an ongoing district court litigation, TPK
`
`Touch Solutions, Inc. v. Wintek Electro-Optics Corp., No.3:13-cv-02218 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2013). Pet. 2. In addition, Wintek filed an ex parte reexamination request
`
`(Control No. 90/012,869) for the ’902 patent which was granted on June 20, 2013,
`
`2013. Id. at 1. Lastly, Wintek filed a second petition to institute an inter partes
`
`review of the challenged claims of the ’902 patent, IPR2013-00567. Id.
`
`
`
`A. The ’902 Patent
`
`The ’902 patent relates to a conductor pattern for a capacitive touch panel.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 6-8. Prior to the ’902 patent, capacitive touch panels were
`
`utilized on personal digital assistants (“PDAs”), electrical appliances, and game
`
`machines. Id. at col. 1, ll. 12-21. Conventional touch panels consisted of an array
`
`of electrodes often arranged in orthogonal rows and columns formed on a substrate
`
`(e.g., glass). Id. at col. 1, ll. 24-31, col. 1, l. 42–col. 3, l. 3. The rows of electrodes
`
`were separated from the columns of electrodes by a sheet of insulating material.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-63. The inventors of the ’902 patent found this mode of
`
`separation undesirable as it resulted in a thick panel (id. at col. 2, ll. 63-64) and
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`required a complicated manufacturing process to provide holes through the
`
`substrate and circuit layering (id. at col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 4).
`
`The ’902 patent discloses a capacitive touch panel wherein the electrode
`
`array is formed on the same surface of the substrate. Id. at col. 3, ll. 20-31.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’902 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’902 patent (colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`More specifically, the ’902 patent discloses in Figure 1 (a colorized version of
`
`which is included above) capacitive touch panel 12. Id. at col. 4, ll. 41-48. Two
`
`orthogonal arrays of conductor assemblies 13, 14, each comprised of a row or
`
`column of cells (i.e., 131, 141), are formed on top surface 11 of substrate 1. Id. at
`
`col. 4, ll. 45-58. Rows of cells 131, depicted in orange, are arranged in parallel to a
`
`first or X-axis, whereas columns of cells 141, depicted in purple, are parallel to a
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`second or Y-axis. Id. at col. 4, ll. 49-58. Within each row of first-axis cells 131,
`
`cells 131 are electrically connected to one another with one first-axis conduction
`
`line 132. Id. at col. 5, ll. 3-13. The rows are further connected to signal
`
`transmission lines 16a. Id. Similarly, within each column of second-axis cells
`
`141, the cells are electrically connected by second-axis conduction line 142, and
`
`each column is further connected to signal transmission line 16b. Id. at col. 5, ll.
`
`24-34. At the intersections of first-axis conduction lines 132 and second-axis
`
`conduction lines 142, lays an insulation layer, not depicted in Figure 1. Id. at
`
`col. 5, ll. 14-23. The portion of substrate surface 11 delimited between adjacent
`
`first-axis assemblies 13 and adjacent first-axis conductor cells 131 is disposition
`
`zone 15. Id. at col. 4, l. 67–col. 5, l. 2. Thus, second-axis assemblies 14 are set in
`
`disposition zone 15. Id. at col. 5, ll. 22-23.
`
`In operation, touch panel 12 functions in the following manner. Assume
`
`something (e.g., a user’s finger) touches panel 12 in contact area A. See id. at
`
`Fig. 5. First-axis conductor cell 131 and Second-axis conductor cell 141, which
`
`are covered by contact area A, induce a capacitor effect there between, and a signal
`
`is transmitted through the signal transmission lines 16a, 16b to a control circuit,
`
`which performs the necessary computation to determine the point of contact A. Id.
`
`at col. 5, l. 62–col. 6, l. 5.
`
`Insulation layer 17, which is not depicted in Figure 1, may be seen in the
`
`partial cross-section depicted in Figure 3, shown in colorized form below.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’902 patent (colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`Insulation layer 17 (depicted in green) is shown between upper surface 133 of first-
`
`axis conduction line 132 (depicted in orange) and the lower surface of second-axis
`
`conduction line 142 (depicted in purple). Id. at col. 5, ll. 41-47. Thus, unlike the
`
`prior art described in the Background section of the ’902 patent, the rows and
`
`columns of electrodes are not separated by a sheet of insulation; only the
`
`intersections of the rows and columns are separated by insulation.
`
`The ’902 patent also relates to a method for constructing a conductor pattern
`
`of a capacitive touch panel. First-axis conductor cells 131, second-axis conductor
`
`cells 141, first-axis conduction lines 132, and signal transmission lines 16a, 16b are
`
`formed together on surface 11 of substrate 1. Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-23; see Fig. 7.
`
`Next, insulating layer 17 is applied to cover top surfaces 133 of first-axis
`
`conduction lines 132, which intersect with second-axis conduction lines 142. Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 24-27; see Fig. 8. Lastly, second-axis conduction lines 142 are formed.
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 27-33; see Fig. 9. Standard methods (e.g., etching, sputtering,
`
`screen printing) are employed for carrying out the three construction steps. Id. at
`
`col. 6, ll. 34-41.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 32, 35, 42, 44, 46, 53, 58, 66, and 68 are the independent
`
`claims of the ’902 patent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims and recites:
`
`A conductor pattern structure of a capacitive touch panel
`1.
`formed on a surface of a substrate, the conductor pattern structure
`comprising:
`
`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;
`
`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
`connected together;
`
`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;
`
`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;
`
`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,
`
`wherein first-axis conductor cells and the second-axis conductor cells
`consist of a transparent conductive material.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Wintek relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Japanese Patent Application 60-75927, published April 30, 1985
`
`(Ex. 1005)—translation Ex. 1006 (“Fujitsu”);
`
`US 6,137,427, issued October 24, 2000 (Ex. 1007) (“Binstead”);
`
`Japanese Patent Application 61-84729, published April 30, 1986
`
`(Ex. 1008)—translation Ex. 1009 (“Honeywell”);
`
`US 2005/0030048 A1, published February 10, 2005 (Ex. 1010)
`
`(“Bolender”);
`
`US 5,374,787, issued December 20, 1994 (Ex. 1011) (“Miller”); and
`
`US 2007/0229469 A1, published October 4, 2007 (Ex. 1012) (“Seguine”).
`
`
`
`D. Evidence
`
`Additionally, Wintek relies upon the declaration of Mr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`(Ex. 1013) (“Subramanian Decl.”).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Wintek contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 4):
`
`References
`
`Fujitsu
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`§ 102
`
`1-15, 24, 32, 34, 36-40, 42, 43, 46-58,
`and 60-67
`11-15, 17-22, 25-29, 34, 35, 43, 44, 51,
`60, 67, and 68
`17-22, 25-29, 35, 44, and 68
`
`5, 10, 15-23, 25-31, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45,
`50, 57, 64, and 68
`33 and 59
`
`1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-28, 30-32, 34-
`38, 40-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and 65-68
`5, 10-23, 29, 34, 39, 43, 50, 51, 57, 60,
`64, and 67
`5, 10, 15, 17-23, 25-30, 35, 39, 44, 50,
`57, 64, and 68
`33 and 59
`
`Fujitsu and Binstead
`
`§ 103
`
`Fujitsu and Miller
`
`Fujitsu and Seguine
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Fujitsu and Bolender
`
`§ 103
`
`Honeywell
`
`§ 102
`
`Honeywell and Binstead
`
`§ 103
`
`Honeywell and Seguine
`
`§ 103
`
`Honeywell and Bolender
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`F. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of their specification. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a “claim term will not receive its
`
`ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set
`
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`prosecution history.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Here, neither Wintek nor TPK contends that the inventors of the ’902 patent
`
`acted as their own lexicographer for any claim terms. Indeed, both parties urge
`
`that all claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction.
`
`1. “substantially equally-spaced manner”
`
`Wintek seeks construction of the phrase “substantially equally-spaced
`
`manner,” in connection with the arrangement of conductor cells along an axis. The
`
`feature is similarly recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 25, 32, 35, 42, 44,
`
`46, 58, 66, and 68. Pet. 9-10. Wintek submits that the term, in conjunction with
`
`conductor cells along an axis, means “the distances between the centers of adjacent
`
`conductor cells or between the edges of adjacent conductor cells are substantially
`
`equal.” Id. at 9. TPK challenges the construction offered by Wintek, but contends
`
`that none of the grounds raised in the Petition turn on the phrase being construed.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11. In other words, TPK is not asserting that the prior art fails to
`
`disclose the “substantially equally-spaced” limitation. Consequently, we do not
`
`need to resolve the dispute between Wintek and TPK with regard to the meaning of
`
`that claim term.
`
`2. “conductor assemblies,” “conductor cells,” and “conduction
`lines”
`
`While neither party proposes that these claim phrases be expressly
`
`construed, construction is necessary in this case because TPK attempts to
`
`distinguish Honeywell on the basis that it fails to disclose these claim limitations,
`
`which are present in each of the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 42-43. The
`
`language of the claims makes clear that the “conductor assemblies” are comprised
`
`of a “plurality of conductor cells” joined together via “conduction lines.” Thus,
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`“conductor cells” and “conduction lines” are two different structures. While some
`
`of the claims require the “conductor cells” be hexagonal in shape, mostly, the
`
`claims are silent on the geometry of the “conductor cells” and “conductor lines.”
`
`Turning to the specification, it contains no definitions for “conductor,”
`
`“assemblies,” “cells,” “conduction,” and “lines,” singularly or in combination. The
`
`embodiments of the ’902 patent all contain hexagonally-shaped conductor cells
`
`131, 141 connected by thin conduction lines 132, 142. See e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 1
`
`and 2. The specification states that the conductor cells “can be of shapes of other
`
`geometry contours to effect an optimum distribution of effective conductor
`
`surface.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 55-57. Moreover, the specification does not suggest that
`
`the “conduction lines” must be narrower than the “conductor cells,” or that the
`
`“conductor cells” must be hexagonal or polygonal in shape.
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of these claim phrases, in view of the specification, but without
`
`importing limitations from the specification, requires that the “conduction line” be
`
`geometrically distinct from the “conduction cells.” However, the “conduction
`
`line” need not be narrower than the “conductor cells,” nor do the structures need to
`
`be formed separately. Hence, an electrode of uniform width may not constitute
`
`both a “conduction line” and “conductor cells.”
`
`3. “wherein a capacitance between a first cell of the plurality of
`first-axis conductor cells and a second cell of the plurality of
`second-axis conductor cells is measured”
`
`TPK proposes that the phrase “wherein a capacitance between a first cell of
`
`the plurality of first-axis conductor cells and a second cell of the plurality of
`
`second-axis conductor cells is measured” appearing in claims 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27,
`
`29, 35, 44, and 68 be construed. Prelim. Resp. 10-11. We agree that the phrase
`
`needs to be expressly construed as TPK relies upon a construction of the phrase to
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`distinguish over certain prior art references.
`
`Although Wintek did not propose a definition of this phrase, in its analysis
`
`of Binstead, Wintek asserts that the claim phrase encompasses measuring
`
`capacitance between a first-axis conduct cell and a user’s finger, and the
`
`capacitance between a second-axis conductor cell and a user’s finger. See e.g., Pet.
`
`23-24. TPK asserts that the explicit language of the claims requires measuring a
`
`capacitance between two conductor cells. Prelim. Resp. 11.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language requires measuring “a
`
`capacitance between a first cell . . . and second cell.” The specification supports
`
`this understanding. In describing commonly known capacitive panels, the
`
`specification reads, “[t]he capacitive touch panel employs a change in capacitance
`
`caused between a transparent electrode and the electrostatics of human body to
`
`induce [a] current based on which the touch location can be identified.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, ll. 34-38. In contrast, in describing “the present invention,” the specification
`
`reads, “[w]hen the conductor cells of the first-axis conductor assemblies and . . . of
`
`the second-axis conductor assemblies that are adjacent to each other are touched by
`
`a user’s finger, a capacitance variation signal is induced . . . .” Id. at col. 3, ll. 54-
`
`59. Thus, the specification appears to differentiate measuring capacitance between
`
`two conductor cells in response to touch (as claimed), and measuring capacitance
`
`between a conductor cell and a finger touching the screen.
`
`Thus, for the purposes of the Petition, we construe “wherein a capacitance
`
`between a first cell of the plurality of first-axis conductor cells and a second cell of
`
`the plurality of second-axis conductor cells is measured” to require measuring
`
`capacitance between a first-axis conductor cell and a second-axis conductor cell.
`
`We also determine that, while no other terms needs be construed expressly,
`
`all remaining terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We now turn to Wintek’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and TPK’s
`
`arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether Wintek has met the
`
`threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`1. Fujitsu (Ex. 1006)
`
`Fujitsu is a translation of a Japanese patent application published on April
`
`30, 1985. Fujitsu discloses sensor panel 10 comprised of X-conductor lines 101
`
`and Y-conductor lines 102 orthogonal to one another. See e.g., Ex. 1005,1 Fig. 5.
`
`At their intersections, conductor lines 101, 102 are separated by insulation, as
`
`depicted in Figure 5B reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5B of Fujitsu (Ex. 1005, colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`When a finger touches sensor panel 10, its position may be determined by
`
`the change of capacitance in X-conductor lines 101 and Y-conductor lines 102.
`
`Ex. 1006, 2, ll. 6-9. In one embodiment, to reduce crosstalk (i.e., trans-
`
`capacitance)2, the width of conductor electrodes 101, 102 is narrowed at their
`
`
`1 The Figures are not included in the translation of the Fujitsu reference (i.e.,
`Ex. 1006), but may be found in original, un-translated version (i.e., Ex. 1005).
`2 The prior art references use the terms “mutual capacitance” and “trans-
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`intersections as depicted in Figure 7A reproduced below. Id. 7, ll. 24-36.
`
`Figure 7A of Fujitsu (Ex. 1005, colors added).
`
`
`
`2. Binstead (Ex. 1007)
`
`Binstead is a U.S. patent issued on October 24, 2000, relating to a touchpad
`
`using the capacitive effect on multiple conductor elements to determine the
`
`location of a finger touching the pad. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 45-59. More
`
`specifically, as depicted in Figure 1 (a colorized version of which is included
`
`below), Binstead discloses dielectric film 10 with two orthogonal arrays of
`
`conductor elements 12, 14 formed on the top surface of film 10. Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 43-56.
`
`
`
`capacitance” to refer to the capacitance between adjacent conductor cells. For
`clarity, we simply use the term “trans-capacitance.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`Figure 1 of Binstead (colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`At the intersections of conductor elements 12 (depicted in orange) and
`
`conductor elements 14 (depicted in purple), lays an insulating layer 13 (depicted in
`
`green), visible in cross-section in Figure 2c (a colorized version of which is
`
`included below).3
`
`Figure 2c of Binstead (colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Note that the numerals contained in Figure 2c have been rotated 90 degrees for
`convenience.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`The conductor elements 12, 14 may be of a uniform width or may neck
`
`down at the intersections, as depicted in Figure 3a (a colorized version of which is
`
`included below, showing narrower width 24 at an intersection).
`
`Figure 3a of Binstead (colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Honeywell (Ex. 1009)
`
`Honeywell is a translation of a Japanese patent application published on
`
`April 30, 1986. Honeywell discloses a transparent, touch-sensitive screen for use
`
`with a cathode ray tube (“CRT”) computer display. Ex. 1009, 1; Abstr. The
`
`screen is comprised with orthogonally-arranged, conductive electrodes X, Y, the
`
`intersections of which are separated by conductive material 2. Id. at Abstr., Fig. 1.
`
`Honeywell discloses that conductive electrodes X, Y may be formed from indium
`
`tin oxide (“ITO”).
`
`4. Bolender (Ex. 1010)
`
`Bolender is a U.S. patent application published on February 10, 2005.
`
`Bolender discloses capacitive sensing device 300A usable in a mobile phone
`
`keypad assembly. Ex. 1010, Abstr. Bolender discloses that in manufacturing the
`
`device, diamond-shaped, capacitive sensors 302, 304 and the horizontal sensor
`
`traces, connecting the horizontal array of capacitive sensors 304, are formed
`
`simultaneously, whereas the vertical sensor traces, connecting the vertical array of
`
`capacitive sensors 302, are formed subsequently. Id. at ¶¶ 0029, 0032, 0036;
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`Figs. 3A, 3B.
`
`5. Miller (Ex. 1011)
`
`Miller is a U.S. patent issued on December 20, 1994, relating to position-
`
`sensing technology useful for identifying the position of a finger. Ex. 1011, col. 4,
`
`ll. 46-54. Miller discloses a touch-sensitive surface disposed on substrate 12,
`
`comprised of a matrix of conductive traces 14, 18, having sense pads 22, arranged
`
`orthogonal to one another, and covered by insulating layer 24. Id. at col. 4, ll. 55-
`
`68; see Fig. 1C. In one embodiment, the rows and columns of sense pads 22, along
`
`with their respective conductive traces 14, 18, are formed on the same side of the
`
`substrate. Id. at col. 8, ll. 52-57.
`
`The position of a finger on the touchpad may be determined from measuring
`
`trans-capacitance and/or self-capacitance of all the rows or columns in parallel.
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 37-40, col. 9, ll. 3-11. Miller explains that trans-capacitance is
`
`coupling between sense pads 22, and self-capacitance is coupling to a virtual
`
`ground. Id. at col. 9, l. 1-3. According to Miller, the advantage of being able to
`
`detect both trans-capacitance and self-capacitance is versatility, as the relative size
`
`of the two capacitances changes greatly, depending upon the user environment. Id.
`
`at col. 9, ll. 1-11. Miller states that measuring capacitance in parallel is
`
`advantageous because input samples are taken simultaneously and, therefore, all
`
`channels are affected similarly by interference, thus, simplifying noise filtering.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 7-12. Miller distinguishes this parallel approach from prior art
`
`approaches that scan individual inputs. Id. at col. 10, ll. 28-45. The prior art
`
`approaches, Miller states, are susceptible to noise distortion because of noise
`
`appearing in a later scan cycle but not an earlier one, due to change in noise level.
`
`Id. Miller’s invention purportedly “overcomes this problem by taking a snapshot
`
`of all inputs simultaneously.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 39-41.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`6. Seguine (Ex. 1012)
`
`Seguine is a U.S. patent application published on October 4, 2007, relating
`
`to a capacitive touch sense device. Ex. 1012 ¶ 0003. More particularly, Seguine
`
`discloses conductor cells of various shapes for use with a touch pad. Seguine
`
`teaches that a polygonally-shaped conductor cell having five or more sides yields
`
`greater packing efficiency and greater proportional capacitance, and specifically
`
`discloses hexagonally-shaped cells. Id. ¶ 0022; Fig. 4A.
`
`
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based on Fujitsu
`
`1. Asserted anticipation—Claims 1-15, 24, 32, 34, 36-40, 42, 43, 46-
`58, and 60-67
`
`Wintek contends that all limitations of claims 1-15, 24, 32, 34, 36-40, 42,
`
`43, 46-58, and 60-67 are disclosed by Fujitsu, and specifically relies upon an
`
`embodiment depicted in Figure 7A (which was included above with colors added).
`
`Pet. 10-22. TPK asserts that Fujitsu fails to disclose “conductor cells” and
`
`“conductor lines.” Prelim. Resp. 14-15. Specifically, TPK asserts that the
`
`continuous electrodes 101, 102, while narrowing at their intersections, do not have
`
`“distinct” conductor cells and conductor lines. Id. at 14. Similarly, TPK asserts
`
`that Fujitsu does not disclose that “each second-axis conduction line terminates on
`
`the edge of each second-axis conductor cell” (id. at 17), and does not disclose
`
`conductor cells hexagonal in shape (id. at 16-17). The three arguments all seem to
`
`stem from TPK’s implicit assertion that the claims require the conductor cells be
`
`“distinct” from the conductor lines. As the conductor cells of Fujitsu are
`
`geometrically “distinct” from its conductor lines, TPK’s assertion is somewhat
`
`unclear.
`
`What is clear, however, is that nothing in the claims requires the conductor
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`cells and conductor lines be more than geometrically distinct. Indeed, the method
`
`for manufacturing the conductor pattern of the ’902 patent involves simultaneously
`
`forming first-axis conductor cells 131 with first-axis conduction lines 132.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 20-23; Fig. 7. Likewise, conductor cells 131, 141 and
`
`conductor lines 132, 142 of the ’902 appear to be continuous elements quite similar
`
`to those of Fujitsu. Compare Ex. 1001, Figs. 1 and 3 with Ex. 1006, Figs. 5B and
`
`7A. Thus, TPK arguments are not persuasive. That is to say, we agree with
`
`Wintek that Fujitsu discloses “conductor lines” of width W2 that “terminate on the
`
`edge of” hexagonal “conductor cells” of width W1.
`
`With respect to claims 11, 34, 43, 51, 60, and 67, Wintek asserts that Fujitsu
`
`discloses “a plurality of signal transmission lines” formed “on the surface of the
`
`substrate.” Pet. 21-22, 23 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstr.; 4, ll. 5-18; 5, ll. 2-33; Fig. 2;
`
`and Ex. 1013 ¶ 41). TPK asserts that the evidentiary citations do not, in fact,
`
`support Wintek’s assertion, as they do not indicate that Fujitsu discloses “signal
`
`transmission lines” or that such transmission lines are formed on the surface of the
`
`substrate. Prelim. Resp. 15-16. Fujitsu indicates that the conductor lines 101, 102
`
`are driven by drive circuits 12, 14, the outputs of which are delivered to position
`
`detecting circuit 17. Ex. 1006, Abstr.; 4, ll. 5-18. More specifically, with respect
`
`to Figure 2 (reproduced below), scanning circuits 11 and 13, consisting of shift
`
`registers and drive circuits 12 and 14, are provided at one side of lines 101 and
`
`102.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`Figure 2 of Fujitsu (Ex. 1005, colors added).
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 indicates that a portion of the lines (colored red) connecting driving
`
`circuits 12, 14 to conductive lines 101, 102, lie on the sensor panel 10 (colored
`
`light turquoise). As these lines transmit signals, TPK’s assertion that they are not
`
`“signal transmission lines” formed on the surface of the substrate is unavailing.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 15-16.
`
`We have considered the Petition with respect to Wintek’s asserted ground of
`
`anticipation by Fujitsu and are persuaded that Wintek has demonstrated that it has
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to the patentability of claims
`
`1-15, 24, 32, 34, 36-40, 42, 43, 46-58, and 60-67.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`2. Asserted obviousness based on Fujitsu and Binstead—Claims 11-
`15, 17-22, 25-29, 34, 35, 43, 44, 51, 60, 67, and 68
`
`a. Claims 17-22, 25-29, 35, 44, and 68
`
`With respect to independent claims 17, 25, 35, 44, and 68, TPK asserts that
`
`Binstead fails to disclose measuring “capacitance between a . . . first-axis
`
`conductor cell[] . . . and a . . . second-axis conductor cell[] . . . to detect a position
`
`of touch.” Prelim. Resp. 19-21. Both parties, as well as Wintek’s expert,
`
`Mr. Subramanian, appear to agree that Binstead discloses measuring capacitances
`
`between single conductor elements and the object touching the screen, and
`
`utilizing those measurements to ascertain the position of touch. See, e.g., Pet. 23-
`
`24; (“Binstead discloses measurement of the capacitance induced between the
`
`conductor element being sampled and the object touching the conductor pattern
`
`structure and the capacitance induced between the object and a conductor element
`
`not being sampled.”); Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 86-88; Prelim. Resp. 19-21; see also Ex. 1007,
`
`col. 1, ll. 48-55. Where the parties do disagree is on the construction of the claim
`
`phrase, “a capacitance between a first cell of the plurality of first-axis conductor
`
`cells and a second cell of the plurality of second-axis conductor cells is measured
`
`to detect a position of touch.” For the reasons discussed above, we construe this
`
`phrase to require measuring the capacitance between a first-axis conductor cell and
`
`a second-axis conductor cell. In Binstead, the measurement of capacitance does
`
`not occur between any first-axis and second-axis conductor cells, but rather, as
`
`noted above, occurs between single conductor elements and the object touching the
`
`screen. Therefore, we agree with TPK that Binstead fails to disclose this
`
`limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`Therefore, Wintek has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to the patentability of claims 17-22, 25-29,
`
`35, 44, and 68 over Fujitsu and Binstead.
`
`b. Claims 11-15, 34, 43, 51, 60, and 67
`
`Wintek asserts that, in the event “the Board determines that Fujitsu does not
`
`disclose signal transmission lines formed on the surface of the substrate, each
`
`signal transmission line respectively connecting each first-axis conductor assembly
`
`and each second-axis conductor assembly,” Binstead discloses signal transmission
`
`lines formed on the surface of the substrate. Wintek further asserts that it would
`
`have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Binstead’s
`
`transmission lines with Fujitsu to ensure continuity of signals to the various
`
`conductor assemblies and cells of Fujitsu’s touch panel. Pet. 28-29 (citing
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 84). TPK asserts that Wintek has no evidence to support its contention
`
`that combining Binstead’s transmission lines with Fujitsu would “ensure continuity
`
`of signals,” as Mr. Subramanian’s declaration is conclusory in that respect. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 28. While we agree that Mr. Subramanian fails to explain how the asserted
`
`combination would result in “continuity of signals,” he does provide persuasive
`
`reasons for the combination. Namely, he states that forming the transmission lines
`
`on the surface of the substrate, as disclosed in Binstead, would enable Fujitsu’s
`
`device to maintain a low profile, and allow for efficient manufacturing by
`
`providing components on the same surface. Ex. 1013 ¶ 84.
`
`TPK also asserts that Wintek fails to explain how one of ordinary skill
`
`would combine conducting elements 32, 34 of Binstead with the X and Y
`
`electrodes of Fujitsu. Prelim. Resp. 27. TPK’s argument is directed to bodily
`
`incorporating a portion of Binstead’s circuit into Fujitsu’s touch panel. Wintek’s
`
`proposed combination merely places signal transmission lines 101a, 102a, depicted
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`above in Figure 2 in red, on substrate 10, depicted in light turquoise. As a portion
`
`of the transmission lines are already on the substrate, we see no hurdle to placing a
`
`larger portion or all of the transmission lines on the substrate.
`
`Thus, with respect to claims 11-15, 34, 43, 51, 60, and 67, we are persuaded
`
`by the Petition that Wintek has demonstrated that it has a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its challenge to the patentability of those claims over Fujitsu and
`
`Binstead.
`
`3. Asserted obviousness based on Fujitsu and Miller—Claims 17-22,
`25-29, 35, 44, and 68
`
`Wintek asserts tha