EXHIBIT 2002
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`PETITION
`To Institute an Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497
`under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`§ 42.22(a)(1) — A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED .................................................................................................. 1 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`§ 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................. 2 
`
`IV.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3 
`
`V. 
`
`§ 42.104(b) – IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ................................. 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`§ 42.104(b)(1)-(2)—Claims, Statutory Grounds, and Prior Art ......... 4 
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3)—How the Challenged Claims Are To Be
`Construed ............................................................................................ 6 
`
`VI.  SUMMARY OF THE ’497 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The ‘497 Patent ................................................................................... 6 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 9 
`
`VII.  § 42.104(b)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 11 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1 and 3 of the ’497 Patent are Invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 over Boie ................................................................ 11 
`
`Ground #2: Claims 2 and 4 of the ‘497 Patent are Obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Boie and Piguet .......................................... 18 
`
`Ground #3: Claims 1-4 of the ’497 Patent are Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the APA, Hristov, and Piguet ......................... 28 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 2
`
`

`
`D. 
`
`Ground #4: Claims 1-4 of the ‘497 Patent are Obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsushita and Piguet ..................................... 46 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).............................................................................. 6
`Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).............................................................................. 6
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................ 6
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................... 1, 4, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................. 9, 18, 28, 46
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Pre-AIA) ............................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 4
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`v
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 5
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 to XiaoPing (filed on May 18, 2006)
`(issued on Aug. 23, 2011)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie (filed on Jan. 29, 1993) (issued
`on Oct. 31, 1995) (“Boie”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,242,676 to Piguet et al. (filed Dec. 13, 1978)
`(issued on Dec. 30, 1980) (“Piguet”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 to Hristov (filed July 5, 2006) (issued
`Oct. 26, 2010) (“Hristov”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/697,613 (filed on Jul. 8, 2005)
`JPH1064386A to Matsushita (issued on March 6, 1998)
`(“Matsushita”) and Translation
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`Declaration of Dr. Wright
`‘497 Patent File History
`Declaration of Asuka K. Curameng
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 6
`
`

`
`I.
`
`§ 42.22(a)(1) — A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”), respectfully
`
`request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) institute inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`and cancel claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 (“the ’497 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`assigned to Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”), as being invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) to U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie (“Boie”)(Ex. 1002), and as
`
`being invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Pre-AIA), in light of (1) the admitted prior
`
`art (“APA”) in the ’497 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 to Hristov
`
`(“Hristov”)(Ex. 1004), and U.S. Patent No. 4,242,676 to Piguet et al.
`
`(“Piguet”)(Ex. 1003); (2) Japanese Patent No. JPH1064386A to Matsushita
`
`(“Matsushita”)(Ex. 1006) and Piguet.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’497 patent claims a method performed on a capacitance sensing device
`
`that includes well known features that were already disclosed in the prior art: it
`
`uses less sensors than buttons. In fact, the ’497 patent admits that a conventional
`
`sensing device includes all of the claimed features except for using less sensors
`
`than buttons. See Ex. 1001 at 1:30-60. In this regard, Fig. 1B of the ‘497 patent
`
`illustrates a conventional processing device in which a one-to-one configuration
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 7
`
`

`
`between buttons 101-103 and capacitance sensors 104-106. Id. at 17:30-34.
`
`However, the only purported improvement to this conventional processing device
`
`is illustrated in Fig. 6B of the ‘497 patent, which merely illustrates three buttons
`
`(601-603) and two capacitance sensors (201(1)-(2)). Id. at 17:36-59. That is,
`
`according to the ‘497 patent, the only inventive concept is removing a sensor such
`
`that the number sensors is one less than the number of buttons.
`
`
`
`
`
`’497 patent
`
`
`
`However, the mere concept of using fewer sensors than buttons (i.e., a coarser
`
`sensor resolution) was not new, and was well within the skill of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. For example, as explained below, this exact feature is taught in at
`
`least Boie, Piguet, Hristov, and Matsushita.
`
`III. § 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘497 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ‘497
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 8
`
`

`
`patent, see § 42.101; (2) before the date on which this Petition for review was filed,
`
`none of the Petitioners and the Petitioners’ real party-in-interest filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ‘497 patent, see § 42.101(a); (3)
`
`Petitioners requesting this proceeding have not filed this Petition more than one
`
`year after September 3, 2013, the date on which at least one of the Petitioners,
`
`Petitioners’ real party-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners were served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ‘497 patent, see § 42.101(b); and (4)
`
`Petitioners, Petitioners’ real party-in-interest, or a privy of Petitioners are not
`
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, see
`
`§ 42.101(c).
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners are the real party-in-interest
`
`for this Petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the other judicial or
`
`administrative matters that would likely affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding are: Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No.
`
`4:13-cv-04034-SBA (N.D. Cal) (asserting infringement of the ’497 patent); Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. 8,519,973; and Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,059,015.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jason Shapiro (Reg. # 35,354)
`3
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Soumya Panda
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Email:
`Postal:
`
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`spanda@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`Hand
`Delivery:
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be served
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6031
`
`on Jason Shapiro as identified above, and as appropriate to the foregoing
`
`mailing/email addresses.
`
`V.
`
`§ 42.104(b) – IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`A.
`§ 42.104(b)(1)-(2)—Claims, Statutory Grounds, and Prior Art
`Petitioners are requesting inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4
`
`of the ’497 patent as invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). Independent claim 1 of the ‘497 patent recites a method comprising the
`
`following steps:
`
`detecting a presence of a conductive object on a capacitance
`sensing device, the sensing device comprising at least two sensing
`areas each coupled to a capacitance measurement input; and
`recognizing activation of at least three button performed by the
`detected presence of the conductive object, wherein the number of
`buttons is equal to at least the number of sensing areas plus one and
`wherein a combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to
`recognize at least one of the activated buttons.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Ex. 1001 at 23:23-33.
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 4 limit the “recognizing” step with well-known
`
`methods of recognizing activation of first, second, and third buttons, while
`
`dependent claim 3 recites well known methods of measuring capacitances and
`
`recognizing activated buttons based on the measured capacitances.
`
`The following prior art references provide evidence of the unpatentability of
`
`the challenged claims:
`
`Claim No(s).
`
`Ground
`No.
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the Claims
`of the ’497 Patent
`Are invalid under § 102(b) over Boie
`Are obvious under § 103(a) over Boie and
`Piguet
`Are obvious under § 103(a) over the APA,
`Hristov, and Piguet
`Are obvious under § 103(a) over Matsushita
`and Piguet
`Boie (issued Oct. 31, 1995), Piguet (issued Dec. 30, 1980), Matsushita
`
`1 and 3
`2 and 4
`
`1-4
`
`1-4
`
`(issued March 6, 1998), qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Hristov
`
`(filed on July 5, 2006), claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/697,613
`
`(filed on Jul. 8, 2005) (Ex. 1005). The subject matter of Hristov is supported by
`
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/697,613 is the same as the subject matter of Hristov.
`
`Ex. 1010 at ¶ 111. Accordingly, Hristov qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Furthermore, the copy of Matsushita submitted herewith (Ex. 1006)
`
`includes an accurate translation of the reference. Ex. 1012.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 11
`
`

`
`§ 42.104(b)(3)—How the Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed
`
`B.
`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.
`
`§ 42.100(b).1 Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor, as a
`
`lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. Multiform Dessicants,
`
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus,
`
`solely for this proceeding, the terms of claims 1-4, should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’497 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A. The ‘497 Patent
`The alleged invention of the ‘497 patent is a method performed on a
`
`capacitance sensing device having a number of buttons equal to at least a number
`
`of sensing areas plus one. For reasons set forth herein, there is nothing novel or
`
`1 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 litigations. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
`
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 12
`
`

`
`non-obvious about this feature. It was well-known that a capacitance sensing
`
`device may use fewer sensors than buttons to detect activation of the buttons. Ex.
`
`1010 at ¶¶ 113, 114.
`
`Fig. 6B of the ‘497 patent (reproduced below) illustrates a configuration of a
`
`sensing device having one more button than a number of sensors as described and
`
`claimed in the ‘497 patent:
`
`
`
`According to the ‘497 patent, a processing device 210 detects whether a
`
`conductive object is present on one of the touch-sensor buttons 601-603. The
`
`processing device 210 includes capacitance sensors 201(1) and 201(2) coupled to
`
`buttons 601-603. In this regard, button 601 is coupled to capacitance sensor
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 13
`
`

`
`201(1), button 603 is coupled to capacitance sensor 201(2), and button 602 is
`
`coupled to both capacitance sensor 201(1) and 201(2). Ex. 1001 at 17:17-26.
`
`The processing device 210 includes two sensing areas 613 and 614, which
`
`are used to make up the three buttons 601-603. Id. at 17:36-43, 46-48.
`
`Particularly, button 601 includes a sensor element having a surface area of one
`
`conductive material (i.e., white surface), and button 603 includes a sensor element
`
`having a surface area of another conductive material. Id. Button 601 is coupled to
`
`a first pin 609, and button 603 is coupled to a second pin 610. Id.
`
`Button 602 includes a sensor element having a surface area of two
`
`conductive materials in which a first portion 604 is coupled to the conductive
`
`material of button 601, and a second portion 605 is coupled to the conductive
`
`material of button 603. Id. at 17:48-55. Furthermore, the first portion 604 is
`
`coupled to the sensor element of button 601 using a conductive line 606, and the
`
`second portion 605 is coupled to the sensor element of button 603 using a
`
`conductive line 607. Id. at 17:56-59. The conductive lines 606 and 607 may be
`
`conductive traces printed on the surface of a printed circuit board (PCB). The
`
`conductive lines may also be conductive paths of conductive material that couple
`
`the conductive material of the sensor elements to the pins. Id. at 17:59-63.
`
`In operation, the processing device 210 scans the touch-sensor buttons 601-
`
`603 using the capacitance sensors 201(1) and 201(2), and measures the capacitance
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 14
`
`

`
`on the two sensing areas of conductive material to recognize activation of one of
`
`the touch-sensor buttons 601-603. Id. at 17:65-18:1. For example, the operation of
`
`recognizing the three or more button operations includes recognizing a first button
`
`operation when the presence of the conductive object is detected on a first sensing
`
`area 613, recognizing a second button operation when the presence of the
`
`conductive object is detected on a second sensing area 614, and recognizing one or
`
`more button operations when the presence of the conductive object is detected on
`
`the first and second sensing areas 613 and 614. Id. at 18:48-57.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that matured into the ‘497 patent (App. No. 11/437,517)
`
`(“’517 App.”) was filed on May 18, 2006, with 20 original claims, 3 of which
`
`were independent. Claims 1-4 of the ’517 App. correspond to claims 1-4 of the
`
`’497 patent. In a first Office Action, the Office rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 18
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Tsujioka et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,518,078)
`
`(“Tsujioka”); rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsujioka and Collins
`
`(U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0239616)(“Collins”); rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsujioka and Gitzinger et al. (U.S. Pub. NO.
`
`2006/0097992)(“Gitzinger”); and allowed claims 5-17. See Office Action of
`
`August 5, 2009 (Ex. 1011 at CY00000783 – 791).
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 15
`
`

`
`The Patent Owner responded by traversing the rejection of the claims,
`
`without amendment, primarily arguing that Tsujioka does not disclose or suggest
`
`“detecting a presence of a conductive object on a sensing device. See Response of
`
`November 5, 2009 (Ex. 1011 at CY00000811 - 822). The Office issued a final
`
`Office Action sustaining the rejection of the claims. See Office Action of January
`
`26, 2010 (Ex. 1011 at CY00000824 – 835). The Patent Owner again responded by
`
`traversing the rejection of the claims, without amendment, primarily arguing that
`
`Tsujioka does not disclose or suggest recognizing “three or more button operations
`
`… using two areas of the sensing device.” See Response of March 26, 2010 (Ex.
`
`1011 at CY00000853 – 858).
`
`The Office issued an Advisory Action sustaining the rejection of claims. See
`
`Advisory Action of May 7, 2010 (Ex. 1011 at CY00000868 – 870). After filing a
`
`Request for Continued Examination, the Patent Owner amended claim 1, and
`
`similarly amended claim 18, to recite, inter alia, “the number of buttons is equal to
`
`at least the number of sensing areas plus one and wherein a combination of the at
`
`least two sensing areas is used to recognize at least one of the activated buttons.”
`
`See Amendment of January 26, 2011 (Ex. 1011 at CY00000923 – 930). After
`
`these claim amendments, the Office issued a Notice of Allowance. See Notice of
`
`Allowance (Ex. 1011 at CY0000932 – 943). The ’497 patent issued on August 23,
`
`2011, with 20 claims, 3 of which were independent (claims 1, 5, and 18).
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 16
`
`

`
`VII. § 42.104(b)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground #1: Claims 1 and 3 of the ’497 Patent are Invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 over Boie
`
`There is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-4 are anticipated and rendered
`
`invalid by Boie under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for at least the reasons set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Turning to the claim language of independent claim 1, the claim recites a
`
`method comprising a first step of “detecting a presence of a conductive object on a
`
`capacitance sensing device, the sensing device comprising at least two sensing
`
`areas each coupled to a capacitance measurement input.” This step is expressly
`
`taught by Boie.
`
`Fig. 1 of Boie (reproduced below) illustrates a capacitive position sensor:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 17
`
`

`
`As illustrated in Fig. 1, an “[e]lectrode array 100 is a square or rectangular array of
`
`electrodes 101 arranged in a grid pattern of rows and columns, as in an array of
`
`tiles.” Ex. 1002 at 2:50-52. The “[h]istogram 110 shows the capacitances for
`
`electrodes 101 in array 100 with respect to finger 102.” Id. at 2:61-62. A centroid
`
`111 corresponds to the position of finger 102. Id. at 2:64-66. Based on the
`
`position of finger 102, 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.” Id. at 3:5-8.
`
`Boie illustrates that the electrode array 100 is connected to a capacitive
`
`sensor 400.
`
`
`
`Boie teaches that to “measure such capacitances separately, a circuit 401 is
`
`provided for each electrode,” where a multiplexer accommodates the outputs from
`
`all circuits 402. Id. at 4:18-20. In this regard, “[e]ach of the outputs from circuits
`
`401 can be selected by multiplexer 402 under control of microcontroller 406.” Id.
`12
`
`
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 18
`
`

`
`at 3:60-61. A “selected output is then forwarded to [a] summing circuit 403, where
`
`such output is combined with a signal from trimmer resistor 409.” Id. at 3:62-64.
`
`The “[s]ynchronous detector and filter 404 … [converts] the output from summing
`
`circuit 403 to a signal related to the capacitance of the row or column selected by
`
`multiplexer 402.” Id. at 3:64-67. Furthermore, the “output of synchronous
`
`detector and filter 404 is converted to digital form by analog-to-digital converter
`
`405,” where the microcontroller 406 obtains “a digital value representing the
`
`capacitance seen by any row or column … selected by multiplexer 402.” Id. at
`
`4:22-28.
`
`The capacitance electrode array 100 is a capacitance sensing device in
`
`which the method of detecting a presence of a conductive object is performed.
`
`Ex. 1010 at ¶ 77. The capacitance electrode array 100 includes an array of
`
`electrodes 110 coupled to circuits 401 of a capacitance sensor 400, which teaches
`
`the claimed feature of at least two sensing areas each coupled to a capacitance
`
`measurement input. Id. As such, Boie disclose the first step of claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 further recites the step of “recognizing activation of at least three
`
`button [sic] performed by the detected presence of the conductive object, wherein
`
`the number of buttons is equal to at least the number of sensing areas plus one and
`
`wherein a combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to recognize at least
`
`one of the activated buttons.” This step is also expressly taught by Boie.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 19
`
`

`
`Fig. 7 of Boie, which is reproduced below, is a diagram illustrating how the
`
`array 100 is used as a keyboard.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 7, “array 100 is shown as a 4x4 matrix of electrodes,
`
`but with a keyboard pattern overlay superimposed on the matrix.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`6:62-64. Boie teaches 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 activation of any of the buttons included in the keyboard is “determined
`
`from the x and y values computed for the centroid of capacitance resulting from
`
`the touch.” Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 79.
`
`Recognizing activation of any three buttons illustrated in Fig. 7 of Boie (e.g.,
`
`buttons “2”, “5”, and “8”) discloses the claimed feature of “recognizing activation
`
`of at least three button performed by the detected presence of the conductive
`
`object.” Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 79. The capacitance electrode array 100 is a 4x4 grid that
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 20
`
`

`
`includes 16 sensing areas. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 7; 6:62-64. The keyboard of Fig. 7,
`
`which is overlaid on array 100, includes 17 buttons. Thus, Boie teaches the
`
`claimed feature of wherein the number of buttons is equal to at least the number
`
`of sensing areas plus one. Ex. 1010 at ¶ 80. As is clear from Boie, using less
`
`sensors than buttons was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the
`
`implementation of such a design choice was routine. Id. at ¶80.
`
`Additionally, as illustrated in Fig. 7, at least the following buttons require
`
`the combination of at least two sensing areas: “0”, “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “7”,
`
`8, 9, “+”, “Enter”. For example, Fig. 7 (as annotated below) illustrates sensing
`
`areas required to recognize activation of the “5” button.
`
`
`
`The activation of at least the “5” button teaches the claimed feature of wherein a
`
`combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to recognize at least one of
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 21
`
`

`
`the activated buttons. Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 81-82. Thus, based on at least the above
`
`discussed portions of Boie, claim 1 is anticipated.
`
`2.
`
` Dependent Claim 3
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “measuring a capacitance of the
`
`conductive object on the sensing device over time, wherein measuring the
`
`capacitance further comprises measuring a capacitance of the at least two sensing
`
`areas of the sensing device, and wherein recognizing the activated buttons is based
`
`on the measured capacitance of the at least two sensing areas.” Boie expressly
`
`teaches this feature.
`
`Boie teaches that a “microcomputer 406 reads the initial capacitance values
`
`for all the elements in array 100 and stores such values (step 601),” where it is
`
`“desirable to repeat step 601 a number of times and then to select the minimum
`
`capacitance values read as the initial values.” Ex. 1002 at 5:10-17. After this
`
`initialization, “all capacitance values are periodically read and the initial values
`
`subtracted to yield a remainder value for each element (step 602),” where if “one
`
`or more of the remainders exceeds a preset threshold (step 603),” then “the x and y
`
`coordinates of the centroid of capacitance for such object can be calculated from
`
`such remainders (step 604).” Id. at 5:17-24.
`
`Reading the initial capacitances and periodically reading the capacitance
`
`values, as described in steps 601 and 602, respectively, teaches the claimed feature
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 22
`
`

`
`of measuring a capacitance of the conductive object on the sensing device over
`
`time. Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 84, 85. Furthermore, since steps 601-603 are performed on
`
`the capacitance electrode array 100, these steps teach the claimed feature of
`
`wherein measuring the capacitance further comprises measuring a capacitance
`
`of the at least two sensing areas of the sensing device. Id. Furthermore, as
`
`discussed above, Boie teaches recognizing buttons on the keyboard of Fig. 7 based
`
`on measured capacitances. See Ex. 1002 at Fig. 7; 6:6 – 7:14. Accordingly, Boie
`
`teaches the claimed feature of wherein recognizing the activated buttons is based
`
`on the measured capacitance of the at least two sensing areas. Id. at ¶ 84-86.
`
`Thus, based on at least the above discussed portions of Boie, claim 3 is anticipated.
`
`The following claim charts specify where each limitation of the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘497 patent is found in the prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`1.0 A method comprising
`detecting a presence of a
`conductive object on a
`capacitance sensing device,
`1.1 the sensing device
`comprising at least two
`sensing areas each coupled to
`a capacitance measurement
`input; and
`
`1.2 recognizing activation of at
`least three button performed
`by the detected presence of the
`conductive object, wherein the
`number of buttons is equal to
`
`Boie (U.S. Pat. No. 5,463,388)
`Ex. 1002 at Abstract.
`Ex. 1002.1:66-2:3.
`See also Ex. 1002 at 1:13-23; 1:61-2:11; FIG. 1;2:
`42 –3:15.
`Ex. 1002 at 2:50-52.
`Ex. 1002 at 2:61-67.
`Ex. 1002 at 3:5-13.
`Ex. 1002 at 4:18-27.
`See also Ex. 1002 at Abstract; 3:51 –4: 66; FIGS.
`2-4
`Ex. 1002 at 6:62-64.
`Ex. 1002 at 7:6-14.
`See also Ex. 1002 at FIGs. 1 and 7; 2:42 –3:15, 6:
`61 –7:14
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petition Owner Exhibit 2002
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 23
`
`

`
`Ex. 1002 at FIGs. 7 and 8; 6:61 –7:14; 3:5-9
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 6; 5:10-24.
`See also Ex. 1002 at Abstract; 1:61-2:11; FIGs. 1-
`8; 2:42 –3:15; 3:51 –4:66; 6:11-28; 6:61 –7:14;
`7:15-25.
`
`at least the number of sensing
`areas plus one and
`1.3 wherein a combination of
`the at least two sen