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 IPR2014-01343
`Patent 8,519,973
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT DEZMELYK
`
`62770357_1
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 01 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED........................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS...........................................................................6
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS, PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART .................................................................................................................7
`
`VI.
`
``973 PATENT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND........................................8
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1–8, 11, 12, and 14–20 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER BOIE
`AND BISSET ................................................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Overview of Boie ................................................................................13
`
`Overview of Bisset ..............................................................................17
`
`Claim 1 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................24
`
`Neither Boie Nor Bisset Teach The Subject Matter Of Claim 2 ........28
`
`Claim 3 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................38
`
`Claim 4 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................39
`
`Claim 5 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................39
`
`Claim 6 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................40
`
`Claim 7 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................40
`
`10. Neither Boie Nor Bisset Teach The Limitations Recited In
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................40
`
`62770357_1
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 02 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`11. Claim 11 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................40
`
`12. Claim 12 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................41
`
`13. Claim 14 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................41
`
`14. Claim 15 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................42
`
`15. Claim 16 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................42
`
`16. Claim 17 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................42
`
`17. Neither Boie Nor Bisset Teach The Limitations Recited In
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................42
`
`18. Claim 19 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................43
`
`19. Claim 20 Is Not Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Boie And Bisset...................................................................................43
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................44
`
`62770357_1
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 03 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`I, Robert Dezmelyk, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Kaye Scholer LLP at the rate of $270 per hour
`to provide opinions in connection with the Inter Partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,519,973 (the “`973 patent”). My compensation is not affected by the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have no financial interest in any of the parties, or the `973 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I am currently President of LCS/Telegraphics, a consulting and
`
`technology supply company. In addition to my design and engineering work at
`
`LCS/Telegraphics I personally provide consulting related to areas of technology
`
`that I have expertise in. I have been working with input devices, microcomputers,
`
`and interactive computer systems since 1976. In 1979, I received my degree from
`
`the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”). I studied in a specialized
`
`program on the application of computers to measurement and control that
`
`combined Electrical Engineering and Computer Science courses with courses and
`
`research in control systems, signal processing, and instrumentation.
`
`4.
`
`During my 35 year career, I have concentrated my work on the
`
`interfaces between humans and computers. I have worked on the design and
`
`development of numerous input devices, including mice, keyboards, digitizers,
`
`touch pads and touch screens. As a part of that work I have designed, implemented,
`
`and debugged numerous digital and analog circuits, including circuits used to
`
`62770357_1
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 04 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`determine the location of a user’s touch. I have also developed a large amount of
`
`software that interacts with input device hardware in order to write device driver
`
`programs for input devices. I have developed graphical user interfaces, and
`
`software which uses touch or stylus input as its primary means of user interaction. I
`
`have designed, written, and led the development of software that interprets user
`
`gestures, and I have designed and written controller firmware for keyboards,
`
`joysticks, mice, trackballs, digitizing tablets, touch pads, and resistive and
`
`capacitive touch screens. I have also been involved with a number of industry
`
`standards setting efforts related to input device interfaces. I have been qualified as
`
`an expert regarding user interfaces, input device technology, including capacitive
`
`touch screen technology, gesture based user interfaces, the display of graphic
`
`images, and KVM (keyboard - video - mouse) switch technology. My experience
`
`and education are detailed in my curriculum vitae, which is attached asAppendix
`
`A.
`
`5. While at MIT, in 1976 I began writing software and designing
`
`microcomputer-based devices and had the opportunity to work on some of the first
`
`personal computers, writing software and helping to build an interactive flight
`
`simulator game. At MIT, I took a project oriented class at MIT’s Architecture
`
`Machine Group and had the opportunity to familiarize myself with and work with
`
`an experimental touch screen with 6DOF force sensors, and a projection based
`
`virtual keyboard.
`
`6.
`
`After receiving my degree from MIT, I formed Robert Dezmelyk
`
`62770357_1
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 05 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`Associates, a consulting and design company. Projects I personally completed
`
`included a control and data acquisition system for pulsed dye lasers used in
`
`research, a dynamic RAM board for IBM, and a number of microcomputer systems
`
`for data acquisition and analysis. Several of those systems used digitizing tablets,
`
`input devices which sense the location of a stylus held by a user to input X,Y
`
`coordinate data from images.
`
`7.
`
`In 1980, I incorporated my business as Laboratory Computer Systems,
`
`Inc. (“LCS”) and we launched its first product, a microcomputer based image
`
`analysis system called the Image-80 which incorporated a digitizing tablet. Data
`
`was entered by tracing features in images with a stylus. In 1981 we introduced a
`
`smaller image analyzer built into a digitizing tablet, the Microplan II. The
`
`Microplan II was marketed under a private label agreement with Nikon, Inc. and
`
`sold by Nikon for a number of years as a part of its scientific instrument product
`
`line. For Microplan II, I re-wrote the firmware for the digitizing tablet and licensed
`
`that firmware back to the tablet manufacturer, starting a long relationship with
`
`manufacturers of digitizing tablets. The Microplan II firmware computed
`
`morphometric parameters from the user’s input strokes in real time. The Microplan
`
`II firmware performed the same type of computations used in real time gesture
`
`recognition software.
`
`8.
`
`In 1984, I developed a concept for an interactive communications
`
`program for the newly introduced IBM Personal Computers that allowed users to
`
`browse remote time sharing systems with a graphical interface, similar in
`
`62770357_1
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 06 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`appearance in many ways to a modern web browser, and to share typed and drawn
`
`communications, in real time, with remote sites using modems and the telephone
`
`network. This product was named TeleVision . We also introduced one of the first
`
`PC compatible paint programs named TelePaint. Both TelePaint and TeleVision
`
`used a fully mouse driven icon and window based user interface, and were some of
`
`the earliest PC applications that required a mouse. I designed a major portion of the
`
`user interface and led the team of engineers who implemented the products.
`
`9.
`
`As a result of our development and marketing efforts for TelePaint,
`
`we established relationships with a number of the early manufacturers of mice
`
`including Microsoft, Logitech, Mouse Systems, and Torrington. Torrington needed
`
`a mouse driver in order to sell its hardware product, and we developed an
`
`emulation of Microsoft’s mouse driver for Torrington. Our engineering group,
`
`which I led, became the foremost experts in emulating the functionality of
`
`Microsoft’s mouse driver, and our licensees distributed millions of copies of the
`
`drivers with mice, trackballs, digitizing tablets, touch screens, touch pads, and
`
`computers.
`
`10.
`
`At LCS we introduced input device drivers for every version of
`
`Windows beginning with Windows 3.0 and extending up through Windows XP, as
`
`well as a number of more specialized operating systems such as OS/2 and the
`
`various pen computer operating environments. We had a particular focus on
`
`drivers for early pen computers and developed drivers for and tested many pen-
`
`based systems. In many cases we helped debug hardware related issues with the
`
`62770357_1
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 07 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`sensors used in the pen computers. During the 1990s LCS developed and provided
`
`drivers for touchpads used on notebook computers, most of which were based on
`
`capacitive sensing. Our customers included Alps, Cirque, Interlink, Hagiwara-
`
`Syscom, Synaptics, and others. Either I personally, or the engineers I supervised,
`
`frequently developed code that interpreted the user’s touch input gestures into
`
`output commands. This included time based gestures such as tapping and dragging
`
`as well as scroll gestures.
`
`11.
`
`At LCS in the late 1990s I led a research effort that developed a
`
`gesture recognizer that could interpret short, fast strokes on a touchpad in real time
`
`as commands instead of ordinary pointing input. The recognizer used a variety of
`
`parameters measured from the input point stream, including relative angle of stroke
`
`components.
`
`12.
`
`During the first decade of this century, I concentrated more of my
`
`design efforts on hardware, firmware, and mechanical aspects of input devices and
`
`USB interfaces. Projects included the design and sale of USB interface chips for
`
`input devices, the re-design of a line of mice and other input devices to reduce cost
`
`and improve their performance, the design of several novel input devices, and
`
`extensive work on a capacitive touch screen controller. In addition, I designed and
`
`developed the USB interface portion of a line of radio frequency test equipment,
`
`which has grown to include synthesizers, attenuators, phase shifters, and switches,
`
`designed a USB hub intended for laboratory use, and debugged a number of
`
`complex issues related to USB signal integrity.
`
`62770357_1
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 08 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`13.
`
`Recently, along with research and study related to providing
`
`consulting related to litigation matters, I have developed an input device for a
`
`medical system, a specialized analog to digital conversion module, and continued
`
`development of software and firmware related to the radio frequency test
`
`equipment.
`
`14.
`
`I was Founder and served from 1991 to 2000 as Chairman of the
`
`Committee for Advanced Pointing Standards, the group which created the
`
`Wintab™ standard Applications Programming Interface for digitizing tablets and
`
`other pointing devices. From 1996 to 1998 I served as Chairman of the Universal
`
`Serial Bus Human Interface Working Group, the group which created the USB
`
`HID standard. From 1993 to 1995, I chaired the Access.bus Software Working
`
`Group, part of the Access.bus industry standards group which developed a
`
`predecessor to Universal Serial Bus.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`As a part of the process of forming my opinions, I have reviewed the
`
``973 patent and its file history (Exs. 1001 & 1011), LG’s Petition, the declaration
`
`of Dr. Wright regarding the `973 patent (Ex. 1010), U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to
`
`Boie et al. (“Boie”) (Ex. 1002), U.S. Patent No. 5,543,588 to Bisset et al.
`
`(“Bisset”) (Ex. 1008), and U.S Patent No. 4,806,709 to Evans (Ex. 2019). I have
`
`also relied on my own knowledge, expertise, and experience.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`16.
`I disagree with Dr. Wright’s conclusions regarding claims 1-8, 11,
`
`62770357_1
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 09 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`12, and 14-20 of the `973 patent. Dr. Wright’s conclusions are not supported by the
`
`elements of the prior art references he identified in his declaration, and as I have
`
`set forth below, do not render the claims obvious in view of the references.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS, PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART
`17.
`
`I have been instructed concerning and/or reviewed 35 U.S.C. 102 and
`
`103; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007); and section 2141 of the Manual of Patent Examining
`
`Procedure entitled “Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under
`
`35 U.S.C. 103.”
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that a prior art reference must be considered in
`
`its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the
`
`claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
`
`1550 & 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, if a reference, as a whole, criticizes,
`
`discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution that is the claimed invention, the
`
`reference is deemed to teach away from the claimed invention and cannot be
`properly used to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that claims should be given their “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which it appears” and that
`
`claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention (“PHOSITA”)
`
`in the context of the entire patent disclosure except in instances where the patentee
`
`either sets out his or her own definition, acting as his or her own lexicographer, or
`
`62770357_1
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 10 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution. I further understand that the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” standard is different than the standard used in litigation
`
`in courts.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion, based on my experience both working as a design
`
`engineer and managing engineers, that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`field of the `973 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.
`
`VI.
`
``973 PATENT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`21.
`The `973 patent is directed to capacitance touch sensor technology,
`
`and in particular how to implement button areas on a touch sensing device where
`
`the number of sensing elements is less than the number of button areas. 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.
`
`22. 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
`
`62770357_1
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 11 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`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.
`
`23. 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 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, 8:34-38. As illustrated in Figure 3A of the `973 patent, when a finger, or
`
`62770357_1
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 12 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`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 `973 patent, the capacitance will
`
`increase as the finger moves over the pair of plates. Id., 8:38-46. Position and
`
`action of the finger is determined by measuring over time the capacitance variation
`
`relative to the electrodes or plates. Activation of the capacitive switch is
`
`determined by measuring the change in the finger capacitance, Cf as the finger
`approaches the sensor. Id., 8:50-55.
`
`24.
`
`To receive and process user inputs, the invention in the `973 patent
`
`uses capacitive sensing elements made from electrodes. The `973 patent discloses a
`
`number of arrangements of the electrodes, but focuses on ways in which a smaller
`
`number of electrodes, and their corresponding capacitance sensors, can be used to
`
`recognize the activation of a larger number of button areas.
`
`25. As shown in Figure 6A and 6B, 3 button areas are defined, (601),
`
`(602), and (603) but only two capacitance sensors
`
`are used, (201(1)) and (201(2)). The electrodes are
`
`designed and placed relative to the button areas so
`
`that a user’s finger placed on the outer button areas
`
`(601) and (602) is closely coupled to only one of the
`
`capacitance sensors. When the user’s finger is
`
`placed on button (602) it is coupled to portions of
`
`62770357_1
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 13 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`the electrodes connected to both capacitance sensors. In the example shown in
`
`Figure 6B the buttons are evenly spaced and aligned in a row, with each of the
`
`outer electrodes at the outer ends of the row. However the `973 patent discloses
`
`that the sensor element or elements which have the shared portions, such as (602)
`
`can be located in other positions with respect to the other two sensor elements,
`
`(601) and (602) in this example. Ex. 1001, 22:43-48.
`
`26.
`
`There are various ways in which a variation in the capacitance of a
`
`capacitor (i.e., the ability of the capacitor to store electrical charge) can be
`
`measured. One way is described by Figure 3B
`
`of the `973 patent and is known as a capacitive
`
`switch relaxation oscillator. The change in
`
`voltage across a capacitor over a fixed interval
`
`of time is equal to the current flowing into the
`
`capacitor divided by the capacitance. A relaxation oscillator measures capacitance
`
`indirectly by feeding a fixed electrical charge per unit time (current) into the
`
`capacitor and measuring how long it takes for the capacitor to charge to a reference
`
`voltage. The time required to charge the capacitor to the reference voltage
`
`increases if the capacitance increases because, due to increased capacitance, the
`
`capacitor is able to store more of the charge (current) before it reaches the
`
`reference voltage. The relaxation oscillator removes the charge from the capacitor
`
`once the reference voltage is reached and repeats the measurement cycle. Ex.
`
`1001, 9:11-26. The amount that the oscillator’s frequency decreases can be used to
`
`62770357_1
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 14 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`determine the presence of a finger in close proximity to the electrodes of the
`
`sensing capacitor. Id., 8:52-54, 12:12-16.
`
`27.
`
`The ability to more accurately and precisely identify a particular
`
`button selected by a user with a finger, i.e., a conductive object, using smaller
`
`number of capacitors or sensor areas allows for the more flexible and efficient
`
`placement of buttons on the user’s touch screen, and reduces the number of
`
`interconnect traces required. Rather than requiring a one-to-one ratio of sensor
`
`areas to buttons, more buttons than sensor areas can be utilized since the relative
`
`location of a finger can be determined using measurements from multiple different
`
`sensing areas.
`
`28.
`
`Figure 6B of the `973 patent illustrates this concept. Fig. 6B shows a
`
`user interface with three touch sensor buttons (601,
`
`602 and 603) that uses only two capacitors or sensor
`
`areas (613 and 614). When a user’s finger is placed
`
`on button (601), the relaxation oscillator in the
`
`processing device (210) will generate a different
`
`count or frequency, with that change representing the
`
`change in capacitance. The processing device (210) will detect a large increase in
`
`capacitance on sensing area (613) relative to the essentially unchanged capacitance
`
`of sensing area (614) and therefore determine that the finger is placed on button
`
`(601). When a user’s finger is placed on button (603), the relaxation oscillator in
`
`the processing device (210) will generate a different count or frequency, and the
`
`62770357_1
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 15 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`processing device will detect a large increase in capacitance on sensing area (614)
`
`relative to the essentially unchanged capacitance of sensing area (613) and
`
`therefore determine that the finger is placed on button (603). When a user’s finger
`
`is placed on button (602), which is rendered on both sensing area (613) and (614)
`
`the relaxation oscillator in the processing device (210) will read a relatively equal
`
`capacitance change on both sensing area (613) and sensing area (614) and
`
`therefore determine that the finger is placed on button (602). Ex. 1001, 18:33-48.
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1–8, 11, 12, and 14–20 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER BOIE
`AND BISSET
`
`Overview of Boie
`1.
`29. 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 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:
`
`62770357_1
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 16 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`30.
`
`The point marked 111 is the centroid, and is the location of the finger
`
`on the 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.
`
`31. 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
`
`62770357_1
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 17 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`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.”).
`
`32.
`
`In either the cursor controller or keyboard embodiments, the location
`
`of a 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.”).1
`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
`
`1 Unless indicated, I have added the bolding, underlining, etc. of text in my
`declaration.
`
`62770357_1
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 18 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`showing how Boie operates as a touchpad, while Fig. 8 shows how Boie operates
`
`as a keyboard:
`
`33. Boie’s method of determining the location of the user’s touch cannot
`
`determine a position accurately unless the user’s finger has capacitive coupling to
`
`multiple sensing electrodes in the array. Boie notes that “[t]o avoid spurious
`
`operation, it may be desirable to require that two or more measurements exceed the
`
`preset threshold.” Ex. 1002, 5:43-45. When only a single electrode is active,
`
`Boie’s position determination algorithm can only determine the predetermined
`
`coordinates of the electrode itself, regardless of the changing position of the user’s
`
`finger relative to the electrode. Thus, the position and/or size of the electrodes in
`
`Boie’s design cannot be altered to match other design constraints, such as the
`
`desired location of buttons.
`
`34. Boie does not disclose selecting which key is activated by comparing
`
`whether capacitance variations caused by the user’s finger are greater than a
`
`62770357_1
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 19 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`reference value for some electrodes, and less than the reference value for others.
`
`35.
`
`Physically, Boie’s device is formed from a multi-layer printed circuit
`
`board, and would not be usable as a touch screen sensor. Ex. 1002, 3:30-36.
`
`Overview of Bisset
`2.
`36. Bisset discloses a handheld computing device which has a display on
`
`the front surface of the device, and a touch pad on the back surface of the device.
`
`One side of the device has a display screen 306 while the opposing side of the
`
`device has a touch pad 312. Ex. 1008, Abstract (“A handheld computing device
`
`comprises a thin enclosure having two opposing major faces. A display screen is
`
`disposed on a first one of the major opposing faces of the enclosure and a touch-
`
`sensitive object position detector input device is disposed on a second one of the
`
`major opposing faces of the enclosure.”). This arrangement can be seen in, for
`
`example, Bisset’s Fig. 17, which shows a user viewing the display 306 while using
`
`the touch pad found on the opposing side of the device:
`
`See also Ex. 1008, 24:4-14 (“FIG. 17 shows the usage ergonomics of the handheld
`
`62770357_1
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2020 - Page 20 of 55
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01343
`U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973
`
`computing device 300. In this example the user is shown holding the handheld
`
`computing device 300 in his/her left hand. The user may employ the index finger
`
`of the left hand to operate the ‘mouse click’ button 308 while grasping the rest of
`
`the handheld computing device 300 between the other fingers and the thumb of the
`
`left hand. The right hand and its index finger is then used on the back side as a
`
`pointer to a position on the LCD display 306. In the preferred embodiment, the
`
`position of the finger is indicated on LCD display 306 by a cursor icon 324.”).
`
`37. Bisset’s device uses a physical button (308) to select items displayed
`
`on the LCD display. Bisset also discloses that “the mouse click switch 308 may be
`
`optional, since its “click” function may be emulated by a gesture, such as a finger
`
`tap on touch pad surface 312” Ex. 1008, 22:49-51. Bisset mentions using his touch
`
`pad along with a keypad, (Ex. 1008, 22:1-6), but does not disclose its use as a
`
`keypad. Since Bisset’s touch pad is intended for use on the back side of a device,
`
`where the user cannot see the location they are touching, it would not function as a
`
`keypad. Moreover, as a pointing device it has the same limitation, since the
`
`pointing is indirect the user needs to use a sep