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 CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`Patent 8,059,015
`
`PATENT OWNER CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`RESPONSE
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,059,015 ............................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of the Dispute....................................................................2
`
`Capacitive Touch Technology ..............................................................3
`
`Prosecution History...............................................................................9
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................12
`
`A.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art...................................................12
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, AND 22 OF THE `015 PATENT
`ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER BOIE AND ANDRE ....................................13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Boie ................................................................................13
`
`Overview of Andre..............................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`Andre’s Virtual Keys Do Not Have A Pre-Defined Area ........24
`
`Independent Claims 1 And 7 Are Not Rendered Obvious By
`The Combination Of Boie And Andre................................................29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Andre And Boie Are Completely Different – “Apples
`And Oranges” According To Petitioner’s Expert.....................30
`
`Andre’s Virtual Keys Are Not “Pre-Defined Areas” As
`Recited In Claims 1 and 7.........................................................35
`
`There Is No Reason To Use Andre’s Virtual Keys With
`Boie ...........................................................................................36
`
`Dr. Wright And Petitioner Fail To Provide A Sufficient
`Motivation To Combine Andre With Boie...............................38
`
`Petitioner And Dr. Wright Assert That A PHOSITA
`Would Have Been Motivated To Combine Boie And
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Andre In A Way That Is Different Than The Manner In
`Which They Actually Combined The References....................41
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Wright’s Inconsistent Obviousness Positions
`Demonstrates That Boie And Andre Cannot Be
`Combined..................................................................................42
`
`Petitioner’s Argument that Boie And Andre
`“Complimentary” To Each Other Fails To Demonstrate
`Obviousness ..............................................................................44
`
`D.
`
`Claims 2, 4–6, 13, 17–19, 21, And 22 Are Patentable Over The
`Combination Of Boie And Andre For the Same Reasons As
`Claims 1 and 7.....................................................................................45
`
`VI. CLAIM 15 OF THE `015 PATENT IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`BOIE, ANDRE AND HRISTOV ..................................................................45
`
`VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................46
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); ...................................................................................................................39
`BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC, Case No.
`IPR2013-00175, (Paper 45, June 19, 2014), 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 4134, at *5,
`*6..........................................................................................................................13
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................... 36, 39
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A., 1959)..............................................................37
`
`Kinetic Tech., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc. IPR2014-00529 (Paper 8, Sept. 23,
`2014).....................................................................................................................39
`
`KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007) .................................................36
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc., Case No. CBM2013-00025, (Paper 30,
`November 10, 2014), 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 7747, at *10.................................13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).........................13
`Plas-Pak Indust., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac, AG, 2015 WL 328222 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27,
`2015) (Unpublished) ............................................................................................37
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .....................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(3).................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ...................................................................................................42
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 .....................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4)..........................................................................................43
`iii
`
`

`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(c).................................................................................................34
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(c) ............................................................................................... ..34
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 to XiaoPing (filed on May 18,
`2006) (issued on Aug. 23, 2011)
`Petition To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,004,497 (Case No. IPR2014-01342)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 to XiaoPing (filed on April 9,
`2012) (issued on Nov. 15, 2011)
`Petition To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,519,973 (Case No. IPR2014-01343)
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Comp. v. Progressive Ins. Comp.,
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, October 25, 2012)
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00075 (Paper
`15, June 13, 2013)
`Scentair Techs. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179 (Paper 18,
`August 23, 2013)
`Larose Indus., LLC v. Capriola Corp., IPR2013-00120,
`(Paper 20, July 22, 2013)
`Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Development Co. of the
`Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00219 (Paper 33,
`November 21, 2013)
`Patent and Trademark Office, Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide (published in Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, August 14,
`2012)
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.,
`IPR2013-00616 (Paper 14, January 13, 2014)
`Congressional Record, 112th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 157,
`No. 34, S1348 (March 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy)
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00133
`(Paper 53, February 26, 2014)
`Figure 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388, as annotated by Dr.
`Wright during his April 30, 2015 deposition
`Figure 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388, as annotated by Dr.
`Wright during his April 30, 2015 deposition
`Figure 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388, as annotated by Dr.
`Wright during his April 30, 2015 deposition
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Exhibit No.
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`2020
`
`Reference Name
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Phillip Wright, taken April
`30, 2015
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0008299
`Not used
`Declaration of Robert Dezmelyk
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, the patent owner, Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corp. (“Cypress” or “Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following response to
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm
`
`U.S.A., Inc.’s (“LG” or “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015 (“the `015 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board instituted trial based on Petitioner’s allegations that claims 1, 2,
`
`4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, and 22 of the `015 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as obvious over Boie (Ex 1002) and Andre (Ex. 1012) and that claim 15 of
`
`the `015 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Boie,
`
`Andre and Hristov (Ex. 1004). The Board should deny Petitioner’s challenge
`
`because it is supported in large part by nothing more than conclusory statements by
`
`its expert, Dr. Wright, who failed to provide any analysis to support critical aspects
`
`of his testimony. Dr. Wright’s failure to support his conclusions with analysis
`
`dooms the petition. Likewise, during cross-examination, Dr. Wright admitted that
`
`Boie and Andre were completely different from one another, testifying that the two
`
`references were “apples and oranges.” Petitioner alleges that “virtual keys” of
`
`Andre are “pre-defined areas,” however, Petitioner’s allegations are also
`
`undermined the Petitioner’s misunderstanding of Andre’s teachings because
`
`Andre’s “virtual keys” are not “pre-defined areas,” as required by every challenged
`
`claim.
`
`. Finally, Petitioner’s challenges fail because it proposes combining
`
`Andre’s virtual keys with Boie’s keyboard, but when explaining why a PHOSITA
`
`62683446_2
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`would be motivated to make the combination, Petitioner only provided a
`
`motivation to substitute Andre’s keyboard for Boie’s keyboard. Since Petitioner
`
`does not provide any motivation to combine Andre’s virtual keys with Boie’s
`
`keyboard, Petitioner fails to provide “evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(3). Because of each of
`
`these defects, the Board must find that the instituted grounds were not correct, and
`
`that each of these claims is patentable.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,059,015
`A.
`Background of the Dispute
`The Petition was filed by LG as a result of a suit lodged by Cypress against
`
`LG in the Northern District of California to address LG’ infringement of Cypress’s
`
`patents after protracted licensing negotiations failed.
`
`Cypress, based in San Jose, California, has been a pioneer and market
`
`innovator in semiconductor technology for over thirty years. Cypress is the world
`
`leader in capacitive user interfaces. These interfaces are used in millions of
`
`devices around the world in everything from smart phones to microwave oven
`
`panels to allow a user to intelligently communicate with the device through touch
`
`gestures. Cypress’ capacitive user interfaces solutions include CapSense® touch
`
`sensing, TrueTouch® touch screens, and trackpad solutions for notebook PCs and
`
`peripheral devices. Cypress has made extensive and continuous investments in
`
`research and development to create its industry-leading products, efforts that have
`
`been essential to its success, and in turn, Cypress’s customers’ success.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Capacitive Touch Technology
`B.
`The `015 patent is directed to touch technology. Touch sensor technology
`
`based on capacitive sensing is increasingly becoming the preferred user interaction
`
`method for many consumer devices, especially mobile smart phones and tablets.
`
`The technology allows a user to interact with a device using many different kinds
`
`of touch gestures such as simple touch/select and more complex interactions such
`
`as long touch, swipe, drag, double touch and pinch. See Ex. 2020, ¶21.
`
`Capacitive touch controls rely on the human body’s conductivity and its
`
`ability to store electrical charge, in order to determine where and how a finger is
`
`interacting with the touch device. The human body, except for the outer layer of
`
`skin is fairly conductive due to the presence of water and ions within the body.
`
`When a finger or other conductive or dielectric object is placed into an electric
`
`field, it disturbs the electric field as the charge rearranges on the surface of the
`
`object to minimize the electric field within the dielectric object. The disturbance to
`
`the local electric field changes the electrical properties of electrodes located near
`
`the finger in a way that can be measured. In other words, because the presence of
`
`fingers on, or in the proximity to, a touch device changes the electrical
`
`characteristics of the touch sensors in a known way, a determination can be made
`
`as to the presence of the user’s finger based on those changed electrical
`characteristics. See Ex. 2020, ¶22.
`
`Capacitance is a physical property that represents the ability of physical
`
`objects to store an electrical charge. Capacitance is a function of the relative shape
`
`and placement of conductors, and a physical property, the dielectric constant, of
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`the material or materials between the conductors. For simple geometries, such as a
`
`pair of conductive plates separated by a fixed distance, the capacitance can be
`
`readily calculated. A “capacitor” is a device capable of
`
`storing electrical charge. A capacitor has two “plates”
`
`separated by a dielectric material. As an approximation, the
`
`capacitance between objects can be represented as a circuit
`
`formed from discrete capacitors. Ex. 1001, 9:15-19. As
`
`illustrated in Figure 3A of the `015 patent, when a finger, or other conductive
`
`object is in the vicinity of electrodes that form the two plates (301 and 302) of a
`
`capacitor, it effectively becomes part of the capacitor and thus the ability of the
`
`capacitor to store charge will increase due to the conductivity of the finger. For the
`
`electrode designs shown in the ‘015 patent the capacitance will increase as the
`finger moves over the pair of plates. Id., 9:19-27. See Ex. 2020, ¶23.
`
`To receive and process user inputs, the invention in the `015 patent generally
`
`utilizes a multiplicity of capacitors that act as sensing areas to measure the
`
`electrical effect of the finger’s location. The capacitors (sensing areas) are created
`
`by a matrix of rows and columns of electrically conductive material layered on a
`
`surface. These rows and columns of elements, shown as diamonds in Fig. 5A of
`
`the `015 patent, (invisible to the user) can dynamically form respective plate pairs
`
`of capacitors (sensing areas):
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Fig. 5A of the `015 patent illustrates rows (black) and columns (white) of
`diamond-shaped conductors found in a touch device1. See Ex. 2020, ¶24.
`As shown in Figure 5A, the electrically conductive rows and columns are
`
`connected to the pins (connections) of processing device (210). Processing device
`
`(210) is responsible for electrically charging and discharging the various rows and
`
`columns of the elements via the pins to dynamically create the two plates of a
`
`capacitor, measure the capacitance variation of the plates of the capacitor, compare
`
`it to the expected value of capacitance and then, based on the variation, determine
`
`if and where a finger might be located relative to the capacitor. Ex. 1001, 10:65-
`
`11:3, 16:48-55. This process is repeated across the entire pattern so that many
`
`capacitors (sensing areas) are created and measured across the capacitance matrix
`
`and the location of the finger can be fixed relative to all of the measurements of all
`
`1 Other shapes such as vertical and horizontal bars may be utilized instead of
`diamond-shaped elements. Ex. 1001, 17:27-33.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`of the capacitors (sensing areas). Id., 11:19-42. The process is then repeated over
`
`and over in a continuous fashion to allow for the constant monitoring of a finger’s
`position and actions across time. Id. See Ex. 2020, ¶25.
`
`The `015 patent further describes a touch device that can be used as a
`
`keyboard, and which allows selection of a particular keyboard key based on its
`
`position on the keyboard, and which allows for a lower pin count between the
`
`sensing device implementing the keyboard, and a processing device. Ex. 1001,
`
`3:34-57. In the embodiments described in the `015 patent, each key of the
`
`keyboard is assigned a different predetermined area on a matrix of capacitive
`
`sensors. Ex. 1001, 3:58-63. Because each keyboard key is assigned to a different
`
`predetermined area on the sensor matrix, each key will provide a different
`
`capacitance variation to the processor when the finger is detected. Ex. 1001, 3:64-
`
`67. The capacitance variation measured on sensing pins that couple the sensor
`
`device to the processor, can be used to determine the X and Y coordinates of the
`conductive object (e.g., finger). Ex. 1001, 3:67-4:6. See Ex. 2020, ¶26.
`
`The relationship between the sensor elements, the predetermined areas, and
`
`the pins can be seen in Figs. 6A-6C. Fig. 6A is annotated below to show the
`
`relationship between a single sensor element and several predefined areas:
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`As can be seen, three keyboard keys 603(1)-603(3) are outlined in blue while a
`
`single sensor element is outlined in red. Each key 601(1)-601(3) is assigned to and
`
`corresponds to a predefined area. Ex. 1001, 18:29-33 (“Keyboard keys, A-C
`
`603(1)-603(3), are assigned pre-defined areas of the sensing device. In this
`
`embodiment, the keyboard keys 603(1)-603(3) correspond to pre-defined areas that
`
`are disposed in a horizontal line along a center line of the diamond-shaped sensor
`
`element, sensor element 601.”). See Ex. 2020, ¶27.
`
`The `015 patent teaches that while Fig. 6A shows gaps between the
`
`predefined areas, keys can also be adjacent to each other, which the `015 patent
`
`teaches means there is no space between the keyboard keys. Ex. 1001, 18:36-41
`
`(“It should be noted that the gaps between the pre-defined areas (represented as
`
`square buttons) are merely for illustration and description purposes, and
`
`accordingly, the keyboard keys may be assigned adjacent to one another without
`any space between the keyboard keys.”). See Ex. 2020, ¶28.
`
`Figs. 6B and 6C show how the sensor and the predefined area/keys of Fig.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`6C can implement a keyboard. In particular, Fig. 6C shows how a keyboard
`
`having the keys “A” through “Z” 606(0)-606(25) can be implemented using the
`
`concepts of the `015 patent. In the embodiment of Fig. 6C, each key “A” through
`
`“Z” 606(0)-606(25) is assigned to a single predefined area. In this embodiment,
`
`there are eight rows of sensors 504(1)-504(8) (shown in black) and eight columns
`
`of sensors 505(1)-505(8) (shown in white). Each row and column has eight sensor
`elements each. Ex. 1001, 19:63-20:3. See Ex. 2020, ¶29.
`
`Each sensor in a row of sensors is electrically coupled to each other, and the
`
`same is true for columns of sensors. Each row of sensors and each column of
`
`sensors is coupled to the processing device using capacitive sensing pins 502.
`
`Thus, in this embodiment, there are sixteen total capacitive sensing pins. Ex. 1001,
`
`20:3-9. The annotated drawing below shows the relationship between the keys,
`
`each of which is assigned to a predefined area (three of which are outlined in blue)
`
`and the sensor elements (one of which is outlined in red):
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Because each of the keyboard keys is assigned to a predefined area, once a
`
`conductive object such as a finger has been detected and its location determined,
`
`the system can determine which key was pressed simply by comparing the position
`
`with the pre-defined areas. Ex. 1001, 20:26-47. The determination that a particular
`
`key has been selected by the user only requires the comparison of the location of
`
`the user’s touch with the pre-defined boundaries of the area for that particular key.
`
`See Ex. 2020, ¶30.
`
`Prosecution History
`C.
`The application that would eventually issue as the `015 patent was filed on
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`May 25, 2006. Ex. 1011. On March 10, 2009, a non-final office action was issued
`
`that rejected most claims as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,947,031
`(“Sandbach 1”). Id. at 244-60. Patent Owner responded to the March 10, 2009
`office action on June 10, 2009. Id. at 266-79. In that response, Patent Owner
`
`amended the independent claims (application claims 1, 6 and 22). Claims 1 and 6,
`
`which are the independent claims relevant to this IPR proceeding, were each
`
`amended to, among other things, require that the plurality of recited keyboard keys
`
`“correspond to” predefined areas of the sensing surface of the sensing device.
`
`Claims 1 and 6 were also amended that require the recited predefined areas be
`“disposed adjacent to one another.” Id. at 269, 271.
`
`In the remarks filed in the June 10, 2009 response, Patent Owner pointed out
`
`that Sandbach 1 had keys with “gaps” between them, and that those gaps were
`
`purposely present to prevent accidental compression of the keyboard between the
`
`keys from affecting operation of the keyboards. Id. at 278. Thus, Patent Owner
`
`distinguished its amended claims by arguing that “[b]ecause there are gaps
`
`between the keys of [Sandbach 1], [Sandbach 1] fails to disclose at least that the
`
`claimed feature of ‘wherein the pre-defined areas are disposed [adjacent] to one
`another,” as required by the claims. Id. As discussed above, the specification of
`
`the `015 discloses an embodiment where there are no gaps between the pre-defined
`
`areas. See Ex. 1001, 18:36-41.
`
`In response to this June 10, 2009 amendment, a Notice of Allowance was
`
`issued on September 23, 2009. Ex. 1011, p. 282-88. Attached to this Notice of
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Allowance was a list of references cited by the examiner. One of the references
`
`listed as being considered by the Examiner was Boie (Ex. 1002). Id. at 285. Rather
`
`than pay the issue fee, on December 18, 2009, Patent Owner filed an RCE as well
`an Information Disclosure Statement. Id. at 289-301. With the RCE, Patent
`
`Owner made an amendment to claim 1 to fix a typographical error and added three
`claims. Id. at 302-13.
`On January 20, 2010, a new office action was issued. Id. at 316-30. In this
`
`January 20, 2010 office action, most claims, including application claims 1 and 6,
`were rejected as anticipated by Sandbach I. Id. at 319-20. On April 20, 2010,
`
`Patent Owner responded to the January 20, 2010 office action, presented
`
`arguments, but made no claim amendments. Id. at 331-43. On July 9, 2010, a
`
`Notice of Allowance was issued, which noted that all rejections were withdrawn.
`Id. at 347-49.
`
`On October 12, 2010, Patent Owner filed a new RCE request, which
`included a new Information Disclosure Statement. Id. at 350-70. On June 10,
`
`2011, a new office action was issued, in which several claims, including
`
`application claims 1 and 6 were rejected as being anticipated by Published U.S.
`Patent Application 2007/0008299 (“Hristov application”). Id. at 622-29. The
`
`Hristov application (Ex. 2018) is the published application that would eventually
`
`issue as Hristov (Ex. 1004). On June 24, 2011, Patent Owner responded to the June
`10, 2011 office action. Id. at 642-57. In the June 24, 2011 response, Patent Owner
`
`amended both application claims 1 and 6 to further require that “at least one of the
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`plurality of sensor elements corresponds to multiple pre-defined areas.” Id. at 645,
`
`647. This limitation was found in dependent claims that depended from claims 1
`
`and 6, and which the June 10, 2011 office action indicated were allowable over the
`Hristov application. See id. at 628, 648-49.
`
`On September 1, 2011, a Notice of Allowance was issued. Id. at 658-64.
`
`The `015 patent issued on November 15, 2011. Ex. 1001. The `015 patent has a
`priority date of May 25, 2006. Id. Application claims 1 and 6 issued as claims 1
`
`and 7, respectively.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board confirm the patentability
`
`of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, and 22 of the `015 patent.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the `015 patent would
`
`have had a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent
`
`technical degree, and two years of experience in the field of touch input devices, or
`
`a Masters or other advanced degree in Electrical Engineering, and one year of
`
`experience or research in the field of touch input devices.. See Ex. 2020, ¶20.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in an unexpired patent is to be given its “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`§ 42.100(b).2 Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and
`in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this
`
`general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term
`either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). LinkedIn Corp. v.
`AvMarkets Inc., Case No. CBM2013-00025, (Paper 30, November 10, 2014), 2014
`Pat. App. LEXIS 7747, at *10; BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v.
`
`Cheetah Omni, LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00175, (Paper 45, June 19, 2014), 2014
`
`Pat. App. LEXIS 4134, at *5, *6.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 17–19, 21, AND 22 OF THE `015 PATENT ARE
`NOT OBVIOUS OVER BOIE AND ANDRE
`A.
`Overview of Boie
`Boie (Ex. 1002) discloses a method for calculating the location of a finger
`
`touch on either a cursor control touchpad or a keypad. The location of the finger
`
`touch is calculated using the “centroid” of the measured capacitance values on a
`
`2
`
`Because the claim construction standard in an IPR is different than that used
`
`in litigation, Petitioners expressly reserve the right
`to present different
`constructions of terms in the related litigation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
`
`Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`capacitive touch sensor which has a rectangular array of sensing electrodes. A
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would know that a centroid is the “center of
`gravity or first moment” of the capacitance distribution. See Ex. 1002, 2:64-3:2.
`
`Fig. 1 of Boie shows a histogram of the capacitance measurements taken at each
`
`sensor in four-by-four array of sensors. Ex. 1002, 2:61-64 (“Histogram 110 shows
`
`the capacitances for electrodes 101 in array 100 with respect to finger 102. Such
`
`capacitances are a two- dimensional sampling of the distribution of capacitance
`
`between array 100 and finger 102.”). The location labeled as point 111 in Fig. 1 is
`
`finger contact location, and is calculated from capacitance measurements of the
`
`individual sensors:
`
`See Ex. 2020, ¶31.
`
`The point marked 111 is the centroid, and is the location of the finger on the
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`sensor array. Ex. 1002, 2:64-3:2 (“The centroid (center of gravity or first moment)
`
`111 of such distribution will correspond to the position of finger 102, or some
`
`other object touching array 100, if suitable sampling criteria are met; that is, by
`
`choosing electrodes of sufficiently small size when compared to the extent of the
`
`distribution. Such criteria are discussed in the Blonder et al. patent referred to
`
`above.”). The centroid based position calculation disclosed by Boie requires that
`
`the electrodes be arranged in a rectangular array, or a one dimensional linear array.
`
`Ex. 1002, 2:50-60. See Ex. 2020, ¶32.
`
`Boie discloses two applications for its sensor. The first is a cursor controller
`
`that can replace devices such computer mice. Ex. 1002, 1:43-50 (“Input devices
`
`such as mice, joysticks and trackballs can be cumbersome because of their size and
`
`shape and, particularly with mice, the room needed for use. These drawbacks are
`
`more apparent with respect to portable computers, such as the so-called ‘notebook’
`
`computers. It is deskable [sic: desirable], therefore, to furnish such control
`
`capabilities in an input device that can be incorporated in a small space, but
`
`without sacrificing ease of use.”). The second application for the sensor described
`
`in Boie is a keyboard. In the keyboard embodiment, keys, e.g., “1,” “Enter,” etc.,
`
`are overlaid on the capacitive sensor array. Ex. 1002, 6:61:-64 (“FIG. 7 is a
`
`diagram showing how an array 100 can be used as a keyboard in accordance with
`
`the invention. Again, array 100 is shown as a 4x4 matrix of electrodes, but with a
`keyboard pattern overlay superimposed on the matrix.”). See Ex. 2020, ¶33.
`
`In either the cursor controller or keyboard embodiments, the location of a
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`finger is calculated by computing the centroid from the capacitance values at each
`
`electrode in its sensing array. See Boie at 3:5-15 and 5:25-56. By calculating a
`
`centroid, Boie is determining the X and Y positions of the finger on the sensor
`array. Ex. 1002, 3:5-8 (“The x and y coordinates of the centroid can be
`
`determined by directly measuring the capacitance at each electrode 101 and
`calculating such x and y coordinates from such measured capacitances. Thus,
`for the 4x4 array 100, sixteen capacitance measurements would be needed.”).3
`Indeed, regardless of the application, Boie’s sensor always calculates the x and y
`
`location of the centroid, which is seen in Figs. 6 and 8. Fig. 6 is a flowchart
`
`showing how Boie operates as a touchpad, while Fig. 8 shows how Boie operates
`
`as a keyboard:
`
`See Ex. 2020, ¶34.
`
`3 Unless indicated, any bolding, underlining, etc. of text is added by Patent Owner.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`Boie’s keyboard embodiment is shown in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7, the
`
`keyboard is made up of keys, e.g., “0,” “2,” “enter,” “-,” etc. As discussed above,
`
`Boie teaches that the identity of a touched key is determined by the X and Y
`
`positions determined by the centroid calculation. Once the X and Y position of the
`
`centroid is determined, Boie determines whether that location falls within ranges of
`
`X and Y coordinates corresponding to a key. Boie provides several examples of
`
`ranges of X and Y coordinates in Fig. 7 that correspond to the identity of a specific
`
`key. Ex. 1002, 7:8-12 (“For example, using the x and y coordinates shown in FIG.
`
`7, a ‘5’ can be defined as a touch with [1.7≤x≤2.3, 2.3≤y≤2.7]; a ‘0’ can be defined
`
`as a touch with [1≤x≤2.3, 1≤y≤1.3]; and a ‘+’ can be defined as a touch with
`
`[3.7≤x≤4, 2.4≤y≤3.5].”). See Ex. 2020, ¶35.
`
`Boie teaches that these coordinates are selected to leave “guard bands”
`
`between keys Ex. 1002, 7:12-14 (“These ranges are chosen to leave guard bands
`
`between adjacent keys. Such a range for each key on the keyboard is stored in
`
`microprocessor 406.”). The resulting guard bands in Boie can be seen in the
`
`annotated drawing below:
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`See Ex. 2020, ¶36.
`
`The X-Y coordinate system in Boie’s keyboard embodiment is illustrated in
`
`the annotated drawing in red. The range of X and Y coordinates Boie discloses for
`
`the “5” key are shown in blue. The range of X and Y coordinates Boie discloses
`
`for the “0” key are shown in green. Finally, the range of X and Y coordinates Boie
`
`discloses for the “+” key are shown in orange. As is seen, Boie intentionally
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`places large gaps between keys. Moreover, for both the “0” and “+” keys, the X
`
`and Y coordinates do not even align with the respective keys printed on the sensor
`
`array 100. Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`Boie explicitly teaches that its centroid calculation methodology cannot report
`
`positions outside the centers of each electrode at the edge of the keyboard. The
`
`algorithm Boie teaches for its centro