EXHIBIT 2004
`
`EXHIBIT 2004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S PETITION
`To Institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii 
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... v 
`
`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 ’973 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The ‘973 Patent ................................................................................... 7 
`
`Prosecution History ........................................................................... 10 
`
`VII.  § 42.104(b)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 Patent are
`Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Boie and Bisset ........................ 10 
`
`Ground #2: Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 Patent are
`Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the APA, Hristov, and Piguet .. 37 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 2
`
`

`
`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(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 10, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 10, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Pre-AIA) ..................................................................................... 1
`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
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 3
`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
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 3
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 58
`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
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 4
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 to XiaoPing (filed on Apr. 9, 2012)
`(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)
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`U.S. Patent No. 5,543,588 to Bisset et al. (filed on Dec. 3, 1993)
`(issued on Aug. 6, 1996) (“Bisset”)
`Exhibit No. Not Used
`Declaration of Dr. Wright
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 5
`
`

`
`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 1–8, 11 12, and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 (“the ’973
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (“Cypress”), as
`
`being invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(Pre-AIA), in light of (1) U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,463,388 to Boie (“Boie”)(Ex. 1002) and U.S. Patent No. 5,543,588
`
`(“Bisset”)(Ex. 1008); and (2) the admitted prior art (“APA”) in the ’973 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).
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’973 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 ‘973 patent admits that a conventional
`
`sensing device includes all of the claimed features except for using less sensors
`
`than buttons. See Ex. 1001 at 1:39-2:9. With respect to this admitted prior art, Fig.
`
`1B of the ‘973 patent illustrates a conventional processing device in which a one-
`
`to-one configuration between buttons 101-103 and capacitance sensors 104-106.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Id. at 1:39-43. However, the only purported improvement to this conventional
`
`processing device is illustrated in Fig. 6B of the ‘973 patent, which merely
`
`illustrates three buttons (601-603) and two capacitance sensors (201(1)-(2)). Id. at
`
`17:50 – 18:6. That is, as illustrated below, according to the ‘973 patent, the only
`
`inventive concept is removing a sensor such that the number sensors is one less
`
`than the number of buttons.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the ‘973 patent teaches using less sensors than buttons (i.e.,
`
`using a coarser sensor resolution than the number of buttons/ using a lower spatial
`
`density of sensor elements than spatial density of buttons). However, the mere
`
`concept of using fewer sensors than buttons 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, Hristov, and Piguet.
`
`III. § 42.104(a) – GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘973 patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for IPR. Specifically: (1) none of the Petitioners is an owner of the ‘973
`
`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 ‘973 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 ‘973 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 ’973 patent); Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. 8,004,497; and Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,059,015.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`
`
`Email:
`Postal:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jason Shapiro (Reg. # 35,354)
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Soumya Panda (Reg. # 60,447)
`spanda@rothwellfigg.com
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Same as Postal
`
`Hand
`Delivery:
`202-783-6040
`202-783-6040
`Telephone:
`202-783-6031
`202-783-6031
`Facsimile:
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be served
`
`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 1-8,
`
`11, 12, and 14-20 of the ’973 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘973 patent recites a method comprising the
`
`following steps:
`
`determining capacitance variations of a first number of two or
`more sense elements of a touch screen device using a processing
`device to detect a presence of a conductive object on any one of a
`second number of three or more button areas of the touch screen
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 9
`
`

`
`device, wherein the first number of sense elements is less than the
`second number of button areas; and
`recognizing an activation of one of the three or more button
`areas using the determined capacitance variations of the first number
`of two or more sense elements.
`Ex. 1001 at 23:39-49.
`
`Independent claims 7 and 17 are directed to an apparatus and system,
`
`respectively, reciting features analogous to those recited for claim 1. Particularly,
`
`independent claims 7 and 17 add a processing device configured to perform the
`
`method steps of claim 1. Ex. 1001 at 24:22-35, 26:1-12; Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 83, 84.
`
`Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 each recite well-known
`
`features such as detecting a conductive object on first, second, and third button
`
`areas based on a comparison of first and second sense elements with a reference
`
`value (claims 2, 8, 18), determining capacitance variations on pins (claims 4, 14),
`
`and recognizing an activation of a button areas based on a combination of
`
`determined capacitance variations (claims 5, 6, 15, and 16).
`
`The following prior art references provide evidence of the unpatentability of
`
`the challenged claims:
`
`Ground
`No.
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim No(s).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the
`Claims of the ’343 Patent
`1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 Are obvious under § 103(a) over Boie and
`Bisset
`1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 Are obvious under § 103(a) over the APA,
`Hristov, and Piguet
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Boie issued on Oct. 31, 1995, Piguet issued on Dec. 30, 1980, and Bisset
`
`issued on Aug. 6, 1996. Each of these references qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Hristov was filed on July 5, 2005 and 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 ¶ 60. Accordingly, Hristov
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`§ 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,
`
`
`1 Because the claim construction standard in an IPR is different than that used in
`
`litigation, Petitioners expressly reserves 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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 11
`
`

`
`solely for this proceeding, the terms of claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20, should be
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’973 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A. The ‘973 Patent
`The alleged invention of the ‘973 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
`
`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 ¶ 50.
`
`Fig. 6B of the ‘973 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 ‘973 patent:
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`According to the ‘973 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
`
`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 17:30-40.
`
`The processing device 210 includes two sensing areas 613 and 614, which
`
`are used to make up the three buttons 601-603. Id. at 17:50-57, 61-62.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 13
`
`

`
`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 17:58-65. 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 18:3-6. 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 18:6-11.
`
`Furthermore, the ’973 patent describes measuring capacitance variations.
`
`For example, the ’973 patent describes that capacitance variation δ1and δ2 are
`
`measured on pins 609 and 610, respectively. Id. at 18:38-48. If the capacitance
`
`variation δ1, measured on the first pin 609, is greater than zero, and the
`
`capacitance variation δ2, measured on the second pin 610 is equal to
`
`approximately zero, then it is determined that the first button 601 has been pressed.
`
`Id. Similarly, if the capacitance variation δ1, measured on the first pin 609, is
`
`equal to the capacitance variation δ2 measured on the second pin 610, then it is
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 14
`
`

`
`determined that the second button 602 has been pressed. Id. If the capacitance
`
`variation δ1, measured on the first pin 609 is equal to approximately zero, and the
`
`capacitance variation δ2, measured on the second pin 610 is greater than zero, then
`
`it is determined that the third button 603 has been pressed. Id.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that matured into the ’973 patent (App. No. 13/442,716)
`
`(“’716 App.) was filed on April 9, 2012 with 20 original claims, 3 of which were
`
`independent. A preliminary amendment was filed on May 31, 2012 cancelling
`
`claims 1-20 and adding claims 21-40. Ex. 1011 at CY00002065 – 2072. Claims
`
`21-28, 31, 32, and 34-40 of the ‘716 App. correspond to claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-
`
`20 of the ‘973 patent, respectively. In a first Office Action, claims 21-25 and 27-
`
`39 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,004,497. Id. at CY00002087 – 2094. The Patent Owner filed a response on
`
`November 16, 2012 filing a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497.
`
`Id. at CY00002102-21111. The Office subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance
`
`on December 21, 2012. Id. at CY00002125 - 2129.
`
`VII. § 42.104(b)(4) – HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground #1: Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 Patent are
`Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Boie and Bisset
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 15
`
`

`
`There is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 are
`
`rendered invalid by Boie in view of Bisset under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for at least the
`
`reasons set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites “a first number of two or more sense elements of a touch
`
`screen device.” This is disclosed, for instance, in Fig. 1 of Boie (reproduced
`
`below), which illustrates an electrode array 100:
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 16
`
`

`
`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.
`
`The capacitance electrode array 100 is a touch screen device, in which the
`
`method of claim 1 is performed. Ex. 1010 at ¶ 97. In this regard, the teachings of
`
`a touch screen device are consistent with the ‘973 patent written description. Id.
`
`Furthermore, touch screen devices were well known to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and it would have been obvious to use the electrode array 100 in numerous
`
`types of touch screen devices. Id. at ¶¶ 97, 116.2 As such, Boie’s discussion of the
`
`electrode array 100 discloses a first number of two or more sense elements of a
`
`touch screen device. Id.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a second number of three or more button areas of the touch
`
`screen device, wherein the first number of sense elements is less than the second
`
`number of button areas,” which is also disclosed in Boie. Fig. 7 of Boie, which is
`
`reproduced below, is a diagram illustrating how the array 100 is used as a
`
`keyboard.
`
`
`2 Bisset also teaches that touch screen devices were well known. Ex. 1010 at ¶
`
`116.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`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 that 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. Thus, at least the keyboard of Fig. 7 teaches the claimed feature of a second
`
`number of three or more button areas of the touch screen device. Ex. 1010 at ¶
`
`99. Additionally, the capacitance electrode array 100 is a 4x4 grid that includes 16
`
`sensing areas. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 7; 6:62-64. The keyboard of Fig. 7 further includes
`
`17 buttons. Ex 1010 at ¶ 103. Thus, Boie teaches the claimed feature of wherein
`
`the first number of sense elements is less than the second number of button
`
`areas. Id.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “using a processing device to detect a presence of a
`
`conductive object,” which is disclosed in Boie. See, e.g., Figs. 4, 6, and 8. In this
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 18
`
`

`
`regard, Boie discloses that the electrode array 100 is connected to a capacitive
`
`sensor 400. Although Fig. 4 does not include the label “400,” it is understood that
`
`at least the elements 401-410 are part of the capacitance sensor 400. Ex. 1010 at ¶
`
`55.
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 of Boie illustrates that the electrode array 100 is connected to a
`
`capacitive sensor 400 where “each row and column of electrodes from array 100 is
`
`connected to an integrating amplifier and bootstrap circuit 401.” Ex. 1002 at 3:56-
`
`57. Boie teaches that each “of the outputs from circuits 401 can be selected by
`
`multiplexer 402 under control of microcontroller 406.” Id. at 3:60-61. At least the
`
`capacitive sensor 400 and microcomputer 406 teach the claimed feature of the
`
`processing device. Ex. 1010 at ¶ 99, 100.
`
`Figs. 6 and 8 of Boie also illustrate processes performed by the
`
`microcontroller 406. Id at 5:8-10 and 7:15-16. Boie teaches that the
`
`“microcomputer 406 reads the initial capacitance values for all the elements in
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 19
`
`

`
`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).” Ex. 1002 at 5:17-24. Fig. 8 of Boie illustrates a process of the
`
`microcomputer 406 when the capacitance position sensor is used as a keyboard.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 7:15-17. This process includes steps 801, 802, 803, and 805 that are
`
`similar to steps 601-604, respectively. Ex. 1002 at 7:17-25.
`
`The capacitive sensor 400 using microprocessor 406 to measure capacitance
`
`values of the electrode array 100 used as a keyboard teaches the claimed feature of
`
`determining capacitance of a first number of two or more sense elements of a
`
`touch screen device using a processing device to detect a presence of a
`
`conductive object on any one of a second number of three or more button areas
`
`of the touch screen device. Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 99-102.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “recognizing an activation of one of the three or more
`
`button areas using determined capacitance … of the first number of two or more
`
`sense elements,” which is also disclosed in Fig. 7 of Boie. In this regard,
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 20
`
`

`
`determining an identity of a key as described in Fig. 7 of Boie is further described
`
`as follows:
`
`The identity of a key touched is determined from the x and y
`values computed for the centroid of capacitance resulting from
`the touch. 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]. 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.
`
`Id. at 7:6-14.
`Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 7, the following buttons require the
`
`combination of at least two sensing areas: “0”, “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “7”, 8,
`
`9, “+”, “Enter”. Ex. 1010 at ¶ 104. For example, Fig. 7 (as annotated below)
`
`illustrates the sensing elements required to recognize activation of the “5” button.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 21
`
`

`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 7; 6:61-7:14. The area marked with the diagonal crosshatch
`
`represents the first sense element, and the area marked with the diamond
`
`crosshatch represents the second sense element. The activation of at least the “5”
`
`button teaches the claimed feature of recognizing an activation of one of the three
`
`or more button areas using the determined capacitance of the first number of
`
`two or more sense elements. Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 104-106.
`
`Bisset further teaches “determining capacitance variations” and “using the
`
`determined capacitance variations,” as recited in claim 1. Bisset is directed to
`
`capacitive sensing electronics that “respond to the proximity of a finger to translate
`
`the capacitance changes of the conductors caused by finger proximity into position
`
`and touch pressure information,” where its “output is a simple X, Y and pressure
`
`value of the one object on its surface.” Ex. 1008 at 5:20-24. Bisset teaches that
`
`there “are two different capacitive effects taking place when a finger approaches
`
`the sensor array 10,” in which a “first capacitive effect is trans-capacitance, or
`
`coupling between sense pads 22, and the second capacitive effect is self-
`
`capacitance, or coupling to virtual ground.” Id. at 10:1-6. Bisset further teaches
`
`that “[s]ensing circuitry is coupled to the sensor array 10 of the present invention
`
`and responds to changes in either or both of these capacitances.” Id. at 10:6-8
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Fig. 2 of Bisset illustrates sensing circuitry 30 that performs a drive/sense
`
`method where “the capacitance measurements are performed simultaneously
`
`across all inputs in one dimension.” Id. at 11:25-29. In this regard, Bisset teaches
`
`that “X and Y matrix nodes are driven and sensed in parallel, with the capacitive
`
`information from each line indicating how close a finger is to that node,” and
`
`“scanned information …[providing] a profile of the finger proximity in each
`
`dimension.” Id. at 10:44-48. Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 108-110.
`
`Fig. 6C illustrates a finger profile produced from the drive sense method.
`
`Ex. 1010 at ¶ 111. Thus, the position sensor system, which uses the sensor
`
`circuitry 30 to determine a finger profile based on capacitance changes, teaches
`
`“determining capacitance variations” and “using the determined capacitance
`
`variations.” Id. at ¶ 113.
`
`Bisset teaches that the position sensor system detects a position of a finger
`
`on sensor array 10 and measures a change in capacitance using sensor circuitry 30
`
`to determine the finger profile as illustrated in Fig. 6C. Id. at 113. Based on this
`
`finger profile, the “position sensor system … [reports] the X, Y position of a finger
`
`placed near the sensor array 10 to much finer resolution than the spacing
`
`between the sets of first and second conductive traces.” Ex. 1008. at 10:18-21
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1010 at ¶ 113.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2004
`Petition for IPR Review of Patent No. 8,059,015
`Page 23
`
`

`
`It would have been obvious to include the position sensor system and sensor
`
`circuitry30 of Bisset with the electrode array 100 and capacitive sensor 400 of Boie
`
`to teach at le