`
`Paper No.
`Filed: March 26, 2014
`
`
`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 .................................................... 2 
`
`III. 
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 ............................ 4 
`
`IV.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 4 
`
`V. 
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ........................................... 4 
`
`VI.  Overview of the ’902 patent ............................................................................ 5 
`
`VII.  Prosecution and Post-Grant History of the ’902 patent ................................... 8 
`
`VIII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10 
`
`IX.  Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under the
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ................................................................ 13 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Binstead, Miller, and Seguine Make Claims 23 and
`30 Obvious .......................................................................................... 14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Limitations of Independent Claims 17 and 25
`Included in Dependent Claims 23 and 30 ................................. 15 
`
`Limitations of Dependent Claims 23 and 30 ............................ 24 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 2: Binstead, Miller, and Honeywell Make Claims 20,
`23, 28, and 30 Obvious ........................................................................ 27 
`
`Ground 3: Fujitsu, Miller, and Seguine Make Claims 23 and 30
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 31 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Limitations of Independent Claims 17 and 25
`Included in Dependent Claims 23 and 30 ................................. 32 
`
`Limitations of Dependent Claims 23 and 30 ............................ 39 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Fujitsu, Miller, and Honeywell Make Claims 23 and
`30 Obvious .......................................................................................... 41 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 44 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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) .......................................................... 10
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 44
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 44
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 60-75927 to
`
`Fujitsu
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Published
`
`Patent Application No. 60-75927 and Certificate of
`
`Translation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Miller et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0229469
`
`of Seguine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Curriculum Vitae and List of Publications of Dr. Vivek
`
`Subramanian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Introduction
`Wintek Corporation (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 20,
`
`23, 28, and 30 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 claims 20, 23, 28, and 30 of the ’902 patent based on
`
`prior art that the Office did not have before it or did not fully consider during
`
`original prosecution, and that renders obvious claims 20, 23, 28, and 30 of the ’902
`
`patent. Claims 20, 23, 28 and 30 of the ’902 patent should be found unpatentable
`
`and canceled.
`
`This Petition is accompanied by a motion to join inter partes review trials
`
`IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568, which are directed to the ’902 patent, involve
`
`the same prior art references, and have been instituted by the Board. In the
`
`IPR2013-00567 proceeding, the Board found that Petitioner had shown, under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to all
`
`claims (except for dependent claims 20, 23, 28, and 30), and instituted review
`
`based on prior art references identified in this Petition (i.e., Binstead, Miller,
`
`Honeywell, and Bolender). In the IPR2013-00568 proceeding, the Board similarly
`
`instituted review for all claims (except for dependent claims 23 and 30) based on
`
`prior art identified in this Petition (i.e., Fujitsu, Binstead, Miller, Seguine, and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Bolender). This Petition seeks review of the four dependent claims (i.e, 20, 23, 28,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and 30), two of which (23 and 30) are not under review in the two instituted trials.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-In-Interest: Wintek Corporation is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters:
`
`a.
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,869
`
`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 is a copy of the reexamination request. Exhibit 1004 is a copy of the
`
`Office’s order granting reexamination.
`
`b.
`
`Inter Partes Review Trials IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568
`
`Petitioner has filed two other petitions for inter partes review of the ’902
`
`patent. See IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568. In both matters, the Board
`
`instituted inter partes review of the ’902 patent. See IPR2013-00567, Paper No. 10
`
`(“IPR2013-00567 Decision”); IPR2013-00568, Paper No. 10 (“IPR2013-00568
`
`Decision”). In particular, between the two proceedings, the Board instituted review
`
`on all claims of the ’902 patent except dependent claims 23 and 30. See IPR2013-
`
`00567 Decision at 28 (granting inter partes review of all claims except claims 20,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`23, 28, and 30); IPR2013-00568 Decision at 30 (granting inter partes review of all
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`claims except claims 23 and 30).1
`
`c.
`
`Pending Litigation
`
`The Patent Owner has asserted the ’902 patent against the Petitioner in a
`
`patent infringement litigation filed on May 15, 2013 in the Northern District of
`
`California (case no. 3:13-cv-2218). That litigation remains pending.
`
`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, Email: joseph.palys@finnegan.com.
`
`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, Email:
`
`naveen.modi@finnegan.com.
`
`
`1 The Board decisions not to review claims 23 and 30 were based on its
`
`determination that certain prior art references allegedly did not disclose features of
`
`independent claims 17 and 25, and not because the prior art did not disclose the
`
`features of claims 23 and 30.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`additional fees required 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 20, 23, 28, and 30 of the ’902 patent and
`
`requests that these claims be found unpatentable and canceled in view of the
`
`following prior art: U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead (“Binstead”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`issued October 24, 2000; Japanese Published Patent Application No. 60-75927
`
`(Ex. 1006), and certified English translation thereof (including Abstract) (Ex.
`
`1007) (“Fujitsu”)2 published April 30, 1985; U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Miller et
`
`al. (“Miller”) (Ex. 1008) issued December 20, 1994; U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2007/0229469 to Seguine (“Seguine”) (Ex. 1009) published
`
`October 4, 2007; Japanese Published Patent Application No. 61-84729 to
`
`Honeywell (Ex. 1010) and certified English translation thereof (“Honeywell”) (Ex.
`
`2 Exhibits containing Japanese references are accompanied by a certified English
`
`translation. Citations in the Petition refer to the certified English translation.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1011) published April 30, 1986.
`
`Each of Binstead, Fujitsu, Miller, and Honeywell 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(c).
`
`Petitioner requests cancelation of the claims on the following grounds:
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Binstead, Miller, and Seguine
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`20, 23, 28, and 30
`
`Fujitsu, Miller, and Honeywell
`
`Binstead, Miller, and Honeywell
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Fujitsu, Miller, and Seguine
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`VI. Overview of the ’902 patent
`
`The ’902 patent issued from US. 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-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`193, 6:17-33. The ’902 patent purports to simplify and reduce the thickness of the
`
`structure of a capacitive touch panel. Id. at 3:53-54; Ex. 1013, ¶ 18.
`
`In its background description of conventional touch screens known in the
`
`art, the ’902 patent explains that ITO was a well-known transparent conductive
`
`material that could be used to form electrodes in a touch screen (“Admitted Prior
`
`Art” or “APA”). Id. at 1:24-34; Ex. 1013, ¶ 19.
`
`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; Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 20-21. 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; Ex. 1013, ¶ 21. The insulation layers 17 do not cover the first-axis
`
`conductor cells 131. See id., FIG. 8.
`
`
`3 Citations to Ex. 1001 refer to column number: line number(s).
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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
`
`adjacent ones of the second-axis conductor cells 141. See id. at 5:17-29, FIGs. 1, 2.
`
`Each second-axis conduction line 142 “extends over and across a surface of each
`
`insulation layer 17.” Id. Ex. 1013, ¶ 22. 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; Ex. 1013, ¶ 23.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`The ’902 patent also describes a method to manufacture a conductor pattern
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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
`
`between each pair of adjacent second-axis conductor cells 141 of the same second-
`
`axis conductor assembly.” Id. at 6:28-32, FIG. 9. See also Ex. 1013, ¶ 24.
`
`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; Ex. 1013, ¶ 25.
`
`VII. Prosecution and Post-Grant 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`things, that the claimed conductor cells consisted of a transparent conductive
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1012, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`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 allegedly did not disclose the transparent conductive material limitation.
`
`See Ex. 1002 at 340-48. Specifically, in the reasons for allowance, the examiner
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`noted that Bolender discloses every limitation of independent claims 1, 6, 17, 25,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 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 the
`
`’902 patent, the examiner agreed that many references that are also asserted in this
`
`Petition, including Binstead, Fujitsu, Honeywell, and Miller, raise a substantial
`
`new question of patentability as to claims 20, 23, 28, and 30. See Ex. 1004.
`
`Likewise, the Board found that the same prior art at issue in this Petition disclosed
`
`or suggested the limitations of the independent claims (i.e., claims 17 and 25) from
`
`which challenged claims 20, 23, 28, and 30 depend. See IPR2013-00567 Decision
`
`at 22-24, 29; IPR2013-00568 Decision at 22-24, 30.
`
`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.” 37
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as shown below:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claim Term
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`first-axis conductor cells . . . “in a
`
`“the distances between the centers of
`
`substantially equally-spaced manner”
`
`adjacent conductor cells or between the
`
`second-axis conductor cells . . . “in a
`
`edges of adjacent conductor cells are
`
`substantially equally-spaced manner”
`
`substantially equal”
`
`
`
`Claims 17 and 25 each include the term “in a substantially equally-spaced
`
`manner” in a similar context. However, it is not 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 distance 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
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`all the conductor cells have the same size, same shape, and same orientation, but
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 Board has already addressed this term and found that TPK did not
`
`dispute that the same prior art at issue in this Petition disclosed the “substantially
`
`equally spaced manner” limitations. See IPR2013-00567 Decision at 9 and
`
`IPR2013-00568 Decision at 9.
`
`The remaining terms included in claims 20, 23, 28, and 30 should be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard.
`
`The Board addressed other terms in the institution decisions in the IPR2013-
`
`00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings. See IPR2013-00567 Decision at 8-12;
`
`IPR2013-00568 Decision at 8-11. While Petitioner does not acquiesce to the
`
`Board’s preliminary constructions in these decisions, the prior art identified in this
`
`Petition teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 20, 23, 28, and 30, under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms in the challenged claims, including
`
`under the Board’s initial constructions of certain terms. Indeed, the Board has
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`already indicated in the two instituted trials that the prior art at issue in this Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(e.g., Binstead, Fujitsu, and Miller) renders obvious independent claims 17 and 25,
`
`from which challenged claims 20, 23, 28, and 30 depend.
`
`IX. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability Under the
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`Binstead and Fujitsu were 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.
`
`Seguine and Honeywell were not cited during the original prosecution of the ’902
`
`patent. Binstead, Fujitsu, Miller, Honeywell, 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.
`
`Binstead, Fujitsu, Miller, Seguine, and Honeywell are all drawn to the same
`
`field of the alleged inventions as the ’902 Patent (e.g., structures, methods, and
`
`systems regarding touch sensing patterns of capacitive touch panels). These prior
`
`art references identify and address many of the same technical issues and suggest
`
`similar solutions to those issues. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of one or more of these prior art
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`references with the industry knowledge at the time of the alleged inventions of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’902 Patent to develop improved conductor pattern structures for capacitive touch
`
`panels. See Ex. 1013.
`
`Claims 20 and 23 depend from claim 17 and claims 28 and 30 depend from
`
`claim 25 of the ’902 patent. All of these claims recite many substantially similar
`
`features (e.g., first and second axis conductor cells, first and second axis
`
`conduction lines, etc.). Accordingly, where appropriate, Petitioner addresses the
`
`claims in groups that share similar limitations or refers to the analysis of claim
`
`limitations found in other claims. Ex. 1013, ¶ 26.
`
`A. Ground 1: Binstead, Miller, and Seguine Make Claims 23 and 30
`Obvious
`
`Claims 23 and 30 depend from claims 17 and 25, respectively, and thus
`
`include the limitations of those independent claims. Below, Petitioner demonstrates
`
`how Binstead and Miller disclose all the limitations of independent claims 17 and
`
`25 from which claims 23 and 30, respectively, depend. See Binstead; Miller; Ex.
`
`1013, ¶¶ 29-35. The Board also agreed that Binstead and Miller disclose or suggest
`
`all the elements of independent claims 17 and 25. See IPR2013-00567 Decision at
`
`22-24. Further, Seguine discloses the additional limitations recited in dependent
`
`claims 23 and 30.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`The Limitations of Independent Claims 17 and 25 Included
`in Dependent Claims 23 and 30
`
`The claim chart and descriptions below show how Binstead and Miller
`
`disclose all the limitations of independent claims 17 and 25, which are
`
`incorporated into dependent claims 23 and 30, respectively. Indeed, the Board has
`
`already found that Binstead and Miller disclose or suggest the limitations of claims
`
`17 and 25 in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and in
`
`light of the Board’s preliminary claim constructions set forth in the IPR2013—
`
`00567 and IPR2013-00568 Decisions. See e.g., Ex. 1013, 11 27.
`
`’902 atent Claim 17
`[17.pre]4 A conductor
`pattern structure of a
`capacitive touch panel
`formed on a surface ofa
`substrate, the conductor
`
`pattern structure
`
`Binstead
`x. 1005 and Miller
`x. 1008
`Binstead discloses a pattern of conductor elements
`formed on a surface of a dielectric film of a touchpad.
`See e.g., Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1217—215, 3:21-26,
`3:41-49, Figs. 1-7, 9; Ex. 1013, 1[ 31.
`
`comprising (see Ex. 1001,
`
`4 Certain claim elements identified with a label (e.g., element “[17.pre],” “[17.a],”
`
`etc.), are referred to in this petition by the label.
`
`5 Citations to Ex. 1005 refer to column number:line number(s).
`
`15
`
`

`

`’902 atent Claim 17
`
`Binstead
`
`x. 1005 and Miller
`
`x. 1008
`
`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`[17.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, 9:7-
`13);
`
`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- 1013, 1] 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. 1013, 1] 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, 33; Ex. 1013,
`11 31-
`
`first-axis
`
`conductor cells
`
`disposition zone
`
`Fig. 30
`
`16
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’902 atent Claim 17
`
`
`Binstead (Ex. 1005) and Miller (Ex. 1008)
`
`substantially equally-spaced
`
`
`
`a
`
`\
`
`first-
`
`'
`
`conductor cells
`
`
`
`[17.b] a plurality of first—
`axis conduction lines
`respectively connecting
`between adjacent ones of
`the first—axis conductor
`
`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. 1013, 1] 31.
`i I i
`
`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 (see
`Ex. 1001, 9:14-18);
`
`[17.c] a plurality of
`insulation layers, each
`insulation la er of the
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`’902 atent Claim 17
`
`Binstead
`
`x. 1005 and Miller
`
`x. 1008
`
`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`plurality of insulation
`layers covering a surface
`of each first-axis
`
`conduction line without
`
`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. 1013, 11 31.
`
`encompassing the adjacent
`first-axis conductor cells
`
`(see Ex. 1001, 9:19-22);
`
`[17.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, 9:23-28);
`
`.—
`r.
`
`:-
`
`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. 1013, 11 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. 1013,1131.
`
`second-axis
`conductor cells
`
`substantially equally-spaced
`
`
`
`Fig 1
`
`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. 1013, I31.
`
`18
`
`

`

`’902 atent Claim 17
`
`Binstead
`
`x. 1005 and Miller
`
`x. 1008
`
`US. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`second-axk
`
`conductor cells
`
`disposition zones
`
`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. 1013, 1} 31.
`
`[17.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, 9:29-36 ,
`
`
`
`[17.1] a plurality of signal Binstead discloses conducting elements 32, 34
`transmission lines formed
`deposited