Paper 7
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: February 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: February 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`No. 8,059,015 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’015 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`
`319. Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corporation, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
`
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Section 314 provides that an inter
`
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.”
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 of the ’015 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’015 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuit: Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-
`
`04034-SBA (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 3.
`
`B. The ’015 Patent
`
`The ’015 patent relates to a sensing device that has a capacitance
`
`sensor matrix including sensor elements configured in rows and columns.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:58–60, Fig. 6C. Multiple keyboard keys can be assigned to pre-
`
`determined areas on a single sensor element. Id. at 3:64–65, 4:15–16.
`
`Figure 6C is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6C depicts a plurality of keyboard keys on a matrix of sensing
`
`
`
`electrodes.
`
`Processing device 210 is coupled to a sensing device that has
`
`capacitance sensor matrix 650 and keyboard keys 606 assigned to pre-
`
`defined areas of the sensing device. Id. at 19:63–66. Sensor matrix 650
`
`includes eight rows 504 and eight columns 505 and includes sensor elements
`
`501 and 503. Columns 505 are coupled to processing device 210 using
`
`capacitance sensing pins, conductive traces 502. Id. at 20:1–6.
`
`The sensor matrix detects the presence of a conductive object, such as
`
`a finger or a stylus through the capacitance sensing pins used to couple the
`
`sensing device to the processing device. Id. at 3:62–4:2. The capacitance
`
`variation measured on the capacitance sensing pins is used to determine
`
`which keyboard key has been pressed. Id. 4:16–18.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claims 2, 4–6, 21, and 22
`
`depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 13, 15, and 17–19
`
`depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 7. Claim 1 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`assigning a plurality of keyboard keys to correspond to
`pre-defined areas of a sensing surface of a sensing device
`having a plurality of sensor elements and a plurality of
`capacitance sensing pins to couple the plurality of sensor
`elements to a processing device, wherein the pre-defined areas
`are disposed adjacent to one another and wherein at least one of
`the plurality of sensor elements corresponds to multiple pre-
`defined areas;
`determining a position of a presence of the conductive
`object on the sensing device by measuring capacitance on the
`plurality of capacitance sensing pins; and
`selecting a keyboard key of the plurality of keyboard
`keys when the position of the presence of the conductive object
`is determined to be within the pre-defined area of the sensing
`device corresponding to the keyboard key.
`
`Id. at 24:5–20.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21 and 22 are
`
`unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Hristov1
`
`Hristov
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 4, and 6
`5, 7, 13, 15, 17–19,
`21, and 22
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502, issued Oct. 26, 2010 (Ex. 1004) (“Hristov”).
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Boie2 and Andre3
`
`Boie, Andre, and Hristov
`
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19,
`21, and 22
`15
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 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 in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner does not contend any specific claim terms need
`
`construction, and submits that the challenged claims should be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 6. Patent Owner also does not contend
`
`that any terms need construction. For purposes of this decision, we need not
`
`construe any limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`B. Obviousness over Boie and Andre
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Boie and Andre. To support
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388, issued Oct. 31, 1995 (Ex. 1002) (“Boie”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,844,914, issued Nov. 30, 2010 (Ex. 1012) (“Andre”).
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`its contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping limitations of
`
`
`
`claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 to structures described by Boie and
`
`Andre. Pet. 30–53. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Phillip
`
`Wright for support. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 155–214.
`
`Boie describes a keyboard input device with an insulating surface
`
`covering an array of electrodes. Ex. 1002, Abstract. Figure 7 of Boie is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a plurality of keyboard keys on a matrix of sensing
`
`electrodes.
`
`Array 100 is a 4x4 matrix of electrodes, with a keyboard pattern
`
`overlay superimposed on the matrix. Id. at 6:61–64. The electrodes are
`
`covered with a thin layer of insulating material. Id. at 2:56–57. The identity
`
`of a key touched is determined from the x and y values computed for the
`
`centroid of capacitance resulting from the touch. Id. at 7:6–8.
`
`The present record supports the contention that Boie discloses
`
`assigning keys to pre-defined areas of the sensing surface (thin layer of
`
`insulating material). Pet. 33; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 160–161. The present record also
`
`supports the contention that, because there are 16 electrodes (sensor
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`elements) and 17 keys (pre-defined areas), Boie teaches the claim 1 term of
`
`
`
`“wherein at least one of the plurality of sensor elements corresponds to
`
`multiple pre-defined areas.” Pet. 33; Ex. 1010 ¶ 162. Petitioner also has
`
`shown sufficiently that Boie describes a plurality of capacitance sensing pins
`
`to couple the plurality of sensor elements to a processing device. Pet. 34–
`
`36; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 164–167. Lastly, the Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`
`Boie describes determining a position of a presence of a conductive object
`
`and selecting a keyboard key as claimed in claim 1. Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1010
`
`¶¶ 168–169.
`
`Petitioner relies on Andre for its teachings with respect to a keyboard
`
`having keys of hexagonal shapes that are “pre-defined areas disposed
`
`adjacent to one another” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner
`
`contends that Andre teaches a configuration of a keyboard that enables a
`
`thumb easily to activate virtual keys while a user is holding the device. Pet.
`
`38; Ex. 1012, 7:9–15. Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have found it obvious to combine the keyboard of Andre with the
`
`electrode array 100 of Boie because the combination enhances the user’s
`
`ability to activate keys while holding a handheld device. Pet. 38; Ex. 1010
`
`¶ 172.
`
`Independent claim 7, although an apparatus claim, is similar to
`
`method claim 1. Petitioner accounts for the minor differences between
`
`independent claim 7 and claim 1, and, otherwise, submits a similar analysis
`
`for claim 7 as claim 1. Pet. 47. Petitioner also accounts for all of the
`
`challenged dependent claims. Pet. 39–53. Patent Owner does not make
`
`arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability
`
`against the challenged claims.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Boie and
`
`
`
`Andre against claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 and we are persuaded
`
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 on this
`
`ground. See Pet. 30–53.
`
`C. Obviousness over Boie, Andre, and Hristov
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 15, which depends on independent
`
`claim 7, is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Boie, Andre, and
`
`Hristov. To support its contention, Petitioner provides a detailed showing
`
`mapping limitations of claim 15 to structures described by Boie, Andre, and
`
`Hristov. Pet. 54. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Phillip Wright
`
`for support. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 217.
`
`Claim 15 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 7, wherein the sensing
`
`device is mounted on a mobile handset.” Petitioner relies on Hristov for its
`
`teachings with respect to a mobile handset. Pet. 54. Petitioner contends that
`
`it would have been obvious to combine Hristov with Andre and Boie
`
`because mobile handsets were well known to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`use Andre’s keyboard design with Hristov’s mobile handset and Boie’s
`
`electrode array. Id. Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this time,
`
`regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability against the challenged
`
`claim.
`
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over Boie,
`
`Andre, and Hristov against claim 15, and we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`challenge to claim 15 on this ground. See Pet. 54.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`
`D. Anticipation and Obviousness based on Hristov
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108(b).
`
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that, to the extent we
`
`institute review, we should institute review based on Hristov, as opposed to
`
`Boie, because doing so would result in efficiencies. Prelim. Resp. 12–19.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that proceeding on a narrower set of grounds
`
`will result in efficiencies, but we disagree that proceeding only on the
`
`Hristov-based grounds would be the best way to accomplish those
`
`efficiencies. Based on the record before us, we exercise our discretion and
`
`decline to institute review based on the asserted ground that claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Hristov or on the
`
`asserted ground that claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hristov. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`
`showing that claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 of the ’015 patent
`
`
`
`are unpatentable. At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a
`
`final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1, 2,
`
`4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 of the ’015 patent on the obviousness ground
`
`based on Boie and Andre and claim 15 of the ’015 patent on the obviousness
`
`ground based on Boie, Andre, and Hristov;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’015 patent is instituted with trial commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is given of the institution of the trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Douglas A. Miro
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`
`Peter Kang
`pkang@sidley.com
`
`Theodore Chandler
`tchandler@sidley.com
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`
`Keith Barkaus
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Eric Maiers
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`
`Michael Nicodema
`nicodemam@gtlaw.com
`
`James Lukas
`lukasj@gtlaw.com
`
`Robbie Harmer
`harmer@gtlaw.com
`
`
`11
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
