IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`BlackBerry Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-_____
`Patent U.S. 8,004,497
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-4 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,004,497
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`I. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 3 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 3 
`B. 
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘497 PATENT ............................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Background ........................................................................................... 5 
`1. Binstead ................................................................................................. 7
`2. Boie ........................................................................................................ 8
`The ‘497 Patent ................................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`“sensing areas” .................................................................................... 15 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 15 
`VII. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................... 16 
`A. 
`Claims 1-4 of the ‘497 Patent Are Unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Binstead ................................................... 16 
`1. Binstead Anticipates Claim 1 .............................................................. 16
`2. Binstead Anticipates Claim 2 .............................................................. 23
`3. Binstead Anticipates Claim 3 .............................................................. 28
`4. Binstead Anticipates Claim 4 .............................................................. 29
`Claims 1-4 of the ‘497 Patent are rendered Unpatentable
`by Boie under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................... 31 
`1. Boie Anticipates Claim 1 .................................................................... 31
`2. Boie Anticipates Claim 2 .................................................................... 40
`3. Boie Anticipates Claim 3 .................................................................... 46
`4. Boie Anticipates Claim 4 .................................................................... 48
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 to XiaoPing
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,242,676 to Piguet et al.
`
` Excerpts from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497
`
` Declaration of Prof. Daniel J. Wigdor
`
` Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Daniel J. Wigdor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), BlackBerry Corp. (“BlackBerry” or
`
`“Petitioner”) provides the following mandatory disclosures.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest: BlackBerry Corp. and BlackBerry Ltd. are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Petitioner states that U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 (“the ‘497
`
`patent,” attached hereto as Ex. 1001) is asserted in co-pending litigation captioned
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al., No. 5:13-cv-04183-LHK
`
`(N.D. Cal.), complaint filed on September 10, 2013 and served on September 12,
`
`2013. This litigation remains pending. The ‘497 patent is also involved in co-
`
`pending litigation captioned Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`et al., No. 4:13-cv-04034-SBA (N.D. Cal.).
`
`On August 20, 2014, a petition for inter partes review against claims 1-4 of
`
`the ‘497 patent was filed by LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and
`
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc (collectively, “LGE”). (See Case
`
`IPR2014-01342.) U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 (“the ‘973 patent”) claims priority to
`
`the ‘497 patent. A petition for inter partes review against claims 1-8, 11, 12, and
`
`14-20 of the ‘973 patent was also filed by LGE on August 20, 2014. (See Case
`
`IPR2014-01343.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Petitioner is filing a petition for inter partes review of the ‘973 patent
`
`concurrently with this petition.
`
`Counsel: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the
`
`following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Robert C. Mattson (Reg. No. 42,850)
`
`Backup Counsel: John S. Kern (Reg. No. 42,719) Christopher Ricciuti
`
`(Reg. No. 65,549)
`
`Service Information: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning
`
`this matter should be served on the following:
`
`
`
`Address: Oblon Spivak, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Email:
`
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cpdocketkern@oblon.com
`
`cpdocketricciuti@oblon.com
`
`Telephone: 703-412-6466
`
`Facsimile: 703-413-2220
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the above email addresses.
`
`Fees: The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37
`
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account No.
`
`15-0030 and any additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104 (b)(1)-(2), Petitioner
`
`challenges claims 1-4 of the ‘497 patent. The ‘497 patent is subject to pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`Inter partes review of the ‘497 patent is requested in view of the following
`
`references, none of which was considered by the Office during the prosecution of
`
`the ‘497 patent:
`
`Exhibit 1002 – U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead filed Oct. 27, 1998,
`
`issued October 24, 2000, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`(“Binstead”).
`
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie filed Jan. 29, 1993, issued
`
`October 31, 1995, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“Boie”).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancelation of the challenged claims under the following
`
`statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-4 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Binstead.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-4 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Boie.
`
`
`
`Section VII below demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘497 PATENT
`The ‘497 patent was filed May 18, 2006 and issued August 23, 2011. The
`
`alleged invention of the ‘497 patent is a method performed on a capacitance
`
`sensing device, or touch-sensitive display, having a number of buttons equal to at
`
`least a number of sensing areas, plus one. Because each sensing area corresponds
`
`to a pin on the processing device used to detect the presence of a conductive
`
`object, the ‘497 patent purports to provide an advantage over conventional sensing
`
`devices that “require a one-to-one configuration of pins to touch sensor buttons.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 1:53-63, 3:7-23.) Specifically, the ‘497 patent touts the following:
`
`The embodiments … permit … additional buttons (e.g., three or more
`total buttons) … while using only two pins on the processing device.
`Conversely, since the conventional configuration has implemented a
`one-to-one configuration of sensor elements to pins of the processing
`device, each button added requires an additional pin on the processing
`device. Using only two pins, the scan time does not increase by
`adding additional buttons to implement three or more buttons on the
`sensing device. By maintaining two pins for three or more buttons,
`the scan time to scan the sensor elements is not increased. In other
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`words, more buttons may be implemented without increasing the total
`scan time of the sensing device. Similarly, the memory of the
`processing device is not increased to accommodate additional
`program data and/or temporary data … for the additional buttons.
`
`(Ex. 1001 3:7-23.)
`
`A. Background Art
`The idea of using fewer sensors than the number of active buttons on a
`
`capacitance sensing device predates the alleged invention of the ‘497 patent by
`
`decades and forms a basic and well-understood concept underlying today’s touch
`
`sensitive devices.
`
`1.
`
`Piguet
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,242,676 to Piguet et al. (“Piguet,” attached
`
`hereto as Ex. 1004), issued on December 30, 1980, describes a capacitive sensing
`
`device formed of a plurality of electrodes that form “sensing areas” as described in the
`
`‘497 patent. The activation of Piguet’s sensing areas controls the device display. (Ex.
`
`1004 Abstract, 3:13-21.)
`
`Piguet describes that the “N electrodes 101 of ... a sensor are capable of
`
`defining 2N-1 different positions of ... [a] finger,” with buttons corresponding to
`
`each N positions of N electrodes, plus the additional N-1 positions for buttons
`
`that can be placed between two adjacent electrodes. (Ex. 1004 3:25-31.) As
`
`shown in Fig. 7 of Piguet, 6 electrodes or sensing areas permit the selection of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`12 symbols on control display 125.1 (Ex. 1004 6:10-12.) If the “user activates a
`
`single electrode of the sensor 120, he selects the corresponding symbol” such as
`
`“symbols 2, 4, 6, 8, 0 and C.” (Ex. 1004 6:13-15.) If the user “activates
`
`simultaneously two adjacent electrodes[,] he selects the symbol which is comprised
`
`between these two electrodes” such as the symbols “1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and F.” (Ex. 1004
`
`6:15-20.)
`
`Thus, the above teaching of Piguet represents the precise feature of the claimed
`
`invention that is alleged to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art; namely, the
`
`detection of one or more button operations when the presence of a conductive
`
`object is detected on two different sensing areas. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 Abstract,
`
`2:46-50, 2:64 – 3:23.) More particularly, and as shown in Fig. 7, detection of a
`
`finger pressing the F symbol occurs when the finger is detected on the first and
`
`second sensing areas marked below. (Ex. 1004 6:10-18.)
`
`
`1 Because the sensing device of Fig. 7 is arranged in a circle, rather than linearly,
`
`an additional button area beyond the 2N-1 positions is realized based upon the
`
`combination of the first electrode area and the last electrode area.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
` (Ex. 1004 Fig. 7)
`
`Thus, there is nothing novel or non-obvious about this feature of the ‘497
`
`patent—it was well-known that a capacitance sensing device may use fewer sense
`
`areas than buttons to detect activation of the buttons. While Piguet applies this
`
`concept of using fewer sense areas than buttons to a one-dimensional sensing device,
`
`where adjacent sense areas are arranged along a line or circle, it was also well-
`
`known to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same concept in two-
`
`dimensional sensing devices, where the presence of a conductive object is detected
`
`in an array of sense areas overlapping each other in the x and y directions, as
`
`evidence by the prior art applied herein.
`
`2.
`
`Binstead
`
`
`
`For example, Binstead describes a multiple input touchpad system that can
`
`be used as a touchscreen, for example, where predetermined areas of the touchpad
`
`are interpreted as discrete “keypads, or ‘boxes.’” (Ex. 1002 2:18-22.) An
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`interpolation technique is taught by Binstead such that the number of keys or
`
`“boxes” can be arbitrarily arranged over the surface of the touchpad, and the
`
`number of keys or “boxes” may be greater than the number of sensing areas. (Ex.
`
`1002 6:66 – 7:6, Fig. 7.)
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`As shown in Fig. 7 of Binstead, it was well-known in the art to arrange sensing
`
`areas in a two-dimensional array of rows and columns, where each conductive
`
`element 12-2 through 12-4 and conductive element 14-1 through 14-5 represents a
`
`separate sensing areas of the described device.
`
`3.
`
`Boie
`
`Boie describes a capacitive position sensor comprised of an electrode array
`
`100 of electrodes 101 arranged in a grid pattern of rows and columns. (Ex. 1003
`
`2:50-52.) The x and y location of a finger or other conductive object can be
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`determined based upon the centroid of capacitances measured from the electrodes.
`
`(Ex. 1003 3:5-15.) As shown in Fig. 7 of Boie, annotated below, the capacitance
`
`electrode array 100 is a 4x4 grid that includes 8 sensing areas defined by the
`
`horizontal rows 1-4 and the vertical columns 1-4. Each element within a row is
`
`electrically connected with the other elements within the same row, and each
`
`element within a column is electrically connected to the other elements in the
`
`same column. (Ex. 1003 3:16-36, 3:52-56, Fig. 2.) Thus, just as in Binstead,
`
`Boie teaches that each row and column of a sensor array may constitute a
`
`separate sensing area.
`
` (Ex. 1003 Fig. 7)
`
`Alternatively, Boie also teaches that each square of the sensor array 100, such as
`
`the area defined by the space x=2 and y=3 on the 4x4 grid of Fig. 7, may be
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`electrically isolated and connected to an individual pin of the processing device,
`
`thereby creating 16 sensing areas. (Ex. 1003 4:13-20, 6:62-64.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, well before the priority date of the ‘497 patent, it was
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art that a capacitance sensing device may
`
`use fewer sensing areas than buttons and, as a result, fewer pins than buttons, to
`
`detect the presence of a conductive object in both one-dimensional and two-
`
`dimensional sensor arrays. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 28-37.)
`
`The ‘497 Patent
`
`B.
`Figure 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:
`
` (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 17:17-26.)
`
`The processing device 210 includes two sensing areas 613 and 614, which
`
`are used to make up the three buttons and sensor elements 601-603. (Ex.
`
`1001 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.
`
`(Ex. 1001 17:36-43, 46-48.) Button 601 is coupled to a first pin 609, and button
`
`603 is coupled to a second pin 610. (Ex. 1001 17:36-43, 46-48.)
`
`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. (Ex. 1001 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. (Ex. 1001 17:56-59.) The conductive lines 606 and 607 may
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. (Ex. 1001 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
`
`on the two sensing areas of conductive material (613 and 614) to recognize
`
`activation of one of the touch-sensor buttons 601-603. (Ex. 1001 17:65 - 18:1.)
`
`For example, a first button operation is recognized when the presence of the
`
`conductive object is detected on a first sensing area 613; a second button
`
`operation is recognized when the presence of the conductive object is detected
`
`on a second sensing area 614; and a third button operation is recognized when the
`
`presence of the conductive object is detected on the first and second sensing areas
`
`613 and 614. (Ex. 1001 18:48-57.)
`
`During prosecution of the ‘497 patent, among other amendments, claim 1 of
`
`the ‘497 patent was amended 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.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 pp. 10, 19.) After these claim amendments, the Office issued a Notice
`
`of Allowance. (Ex. 1005 pp. 27-38.) The Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for
`
`Allowance indicated that the applied prior art and, in particular, U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`5,518,078 to Tsujioka et al. failed to disclose “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.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 pp., 36, 47, and 58, emphasis in original.)
`
`The challenged claims, claims 1-4, read as follows:
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`[a] 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
`[b] 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
`[c] wherein a combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to
`recognize at least one of the activated buttons.
`
`2. The method of claim 1, wherein recognizing the plurality of button
`activations comprises:
`[a] recognizing a first activated button when the presence of the
`conductive object is detected on a first sensing area of the at least
`two sensing areas of the sensing device;
`[b] recognizing a second activated button when the presence of the
`conductive object is detected on a second sensing area of the at
`least two sensing areas of the sensing device; and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`[c] recognizing a third activated button when the presence of the
`conductive object is detected on the first and second sensing
`areas.
`
`3. The method of claim 1, further comprising 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.
`
`4. The method of claim 1, further comprising
`[a] scanning the at least two sensing areas of the sensing device, and
`wherein recognizing the plurality of activated buttons comprises:
`[b] recognizing a first activated button when a first sensing area of the
`at least two sensing areas detects the presence of the conductive
`object during the scanning of the at least two sensing areas;
`[c] recognizing a second activated button when a second sensing area
`of the two sensing areas detects the presence of the conductive
`object during the scanning of the at least two sensing areas; and
`[d] recognizing a third activated button when the first and second
`sensing areas detect the presence of the conductive object
`during the scanning of the at least two sensing areas.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. This Petition shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable when
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`“sensing areas”
`
`A.
`Claims 1-4 of the ‘497 patent use the term “sensing areas.” The term
`
`“sensing area” should be defined as “an electrically isolated element connected to a
`
`single pin on which capacitance changes are observed.” The specification
`
`describes that sensing areas are made of conductive material and are electrically
`
`isolated from one another. (E.g., Ex. 1001 3:24-34. 17:36-46.) Each sensing area
`
`connects to a respective pin of a processing device to measure capacitance changes
`
`for detecting the presence of a conductive object, such as a finger. (E.g., Ex. 1001
`
`3:39 – 4:6, 17:65 – 18:14, 20:4-6, Figs. 5-7; Ex. 1006 ¶ 26.)
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. See
`
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board
`
`did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best
`
`determined by the references of record). The prior art references relied upon show
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art was sufficiently skilled in the design and
`
`manufacture of touch sensor devices for use in computing device user-interfaces
`
`(e.g., notebook computer displays, PDA and other mobile handset displays,
`
`consumer electronics, appliances, embedded systems, and the like) in which the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`number of buttons of the touch sensor device is greater than the number of sensing
`
`areas of the touch sensor device. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6, Fig. 7; Ex. 1003
`
`Fig. 8; Ex. 1004 3:25-31, 4:16-55, Fig. 7; Ex. 1006 ¶ 16.) Moreover, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art was aware that the location of a conductive object of a
`
`touch sensor could be interpolated between sensing areas. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 6:66
`
`– 7:6, Fig. 7; Ex. 1003 Fig. 8; Ex. 1004 3:25-31, 4:16-55, Fig. 7; Ex. 1006 ¶ 16.)
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), this section demonstrates that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Claims 1-4 of the ‘497 Patent Are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) in view of Binstead
`
`The following subsections explain, on an element-by-element basis, how
`
`Binstead renders claims 1-4 unpatentable.
`
`1.
`
`Binstead Anticipates Claim 1
`
`Claim 1[a]. Claim 1 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 taught by Binstead.
`
`With respect to the claim phrase “detecting a presence of a conductive
`
`object on a capacitance sensing device,” Binstead describes a multiple input
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`touchpad system that can be used as a touchscreen, for example, where
`
`predetermined areas of the touchpad are interpreted as discrete “keypads, or
`
`‘boxes.’” (Ex. 1002 2:18-22.) An interpolation technique is taught by Binstead
`
`such that the number of keys or “boxes” can be arbitrarily arranged over the
`
`surface of the touchpad, and the number of keys or “boxes” may be greater than
`
`the number of sensing areas. (Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6, Fig. 7.)
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`More particularly, Binstead provides “a multiple input proximity detector in
`
`which the juxtaposition of two or more independent sensor inputs are used to
`
`determine the proximity of a finger.” (Ex. 1002 2:63-66.) The touchpad
`
`comprises “an electrically insulating membrane with a first series of spaced apart
`
`conductors [elements 12] on a first face of the membrane and a second series of
`
`spaced apart conductors [elements 14] on or proximal thereto, in which there is no
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`electrical contact between the first and second series of conductors, each conductor
`
`being sensitive to the proximity of a finger to modify the capacitance of said
`
`conductor to detect the presence of said finger positioned close to that conductor.”
`
`(Ex. 1002 3:7-14, interpolation added; see also Ex. 1002 3:47-55.)
`
`“Detected changes in capacitance on more than one conductor element in
`
`any one scanning sequence enables interpolation of a keystroke between those
`
`conductor elements.” (Ex. 1002 6:49-51, emphasis added.) Thus, the first series
`
`of conductor elements 12 and the second series of conductor elements 14 teaches
`
`“detecting a presence of a conductive object on a capacitance sensing device,” as
`
`claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 43-45.)
`
`With respect to the claim phrase “at least two sensing areas each coupled to
`
`a capacitance measurement input,” Binstead Fig. 6 shows that conductor
`
`elements 12-1 through 12-n and conductor elements 14-1 through 14-n form an x
`
`and y matrix. (Ex. 1002 6:52-54).
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 6)
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“A finger or other object at position 40 can be determined in the X-direction by the
`
`relative effect on the capacitance of element 14-3 compared with element 14-4, and
`
`in the Y-direction by the relative effect on the capacitance of element 12-1
`
`compared with element 12-2.” (Ex. 1002 6:54-58.)
`
`As shown in Fig. 8, each conductor element is connected at one end to
`
`resistor 71 and at the other end to multiplexer 75 to output line 72. (Ex. 1002 6:2-
`
`12.) In this way, conductor elements 12 and 14 are electrically isolated elements—
`
`each respectively connected to a single pin—on which capacitance changes are
`
`observed and, thus, comprise the “sensing areas” of the claimed invention. (Ex.
`
`1006 ¶¶ 46-49.)
`
`“Output line 72 is connected to the input of a capacitance controlled
`
`oscillator 85, the output of which is connected to a divide-by-n circuit 90, which
`
`provides the data output on line 92…. A processing means, not shown, is
`
`operative to receive the data from divide-by-n counter on line 92, and store it in a
`
`plurality of locations, each allocated to a particular one of the conductor elements
`
`12 and 14.” (Ex. 1002 6:21-30.)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 8)
`
`Conductor elements 12-1 through 12-n and conductor elements 14-1 through
`
`14-n arranged in columns and rows, coupled to multiplexer 75 and ultimately data
`
`output line 92, comprise “at least two sensing areas each coupled to a capacitance
`
`measurement input,” as claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 48-50.)
`
`Claim 1[b]. The second step of claim 1 further recites “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.” This is taught by Binstead.
`
`Referring to Fig. 7, below, Binstead teaches that “the interpolation
`
`technique enables not only an analogue representation of finger position on the
`
`touchpad to be created, but also allows the use of an increased number of
`
`‘boxes’ or predetermined key areas 60, 61 over the number of element
`
`intersections …. Such ‘boxes’ or keypad areas could be arranged in any number
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of configurations capable of being resolved by the system.” (Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6,
`
`emphasis added.)
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`Conductive elements 14-1 through 14-5 and conductive elements 12-2
`
`through 12-4 define eight sensing areas. In contrast, through the described
`
`interpolation technique, the device of Binstead achieves increased resolution of
`
`keypad areas to sensing areas well beyond a one-to-one correspondence, as shown
`
`by the dozens of “boxes” in Fig. 7 as compared to the eight sensing areas. (Ex.
`
`1006 ¶ 52.) Moreover, Binstead teaches that at least 256 keypad areas can be
`
`resolved using only sixteen electrically isolated conductive elements and, thus, 16
`
`pins. (Ex. 1002 8:22-25.) Accordingly, Binstead teaches “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,” as claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 51-53.)
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Claim 1[c]. Lastly, claim 1 recites “wherein a combination of the at least
`
`two sensing areas is used to recognize at least one of the activated buttons.” This
`
`is taught by Binstead.
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 7, annotated below, the combination of conductive
`
`elements (i.e., sensing areas) 14-2 and 12-3 is used to recognize keypad or box 60-
`
`2. Binstead shows and describes this as based on interpolation techniques, wherein
`
`“detected changes in capacitance on more than one conductor element in any one
`
`scanning sequence enables interpolation of a keystroke between those
`
`conductor elements” (Ex. 1002 6:49-51, emphasis added) and, thus, “a
`
`combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to recognize at least one of the
`
`activated buttons,” as claimed. (See also Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6; Ex. 1006 ¶ 54.)
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,004,497
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Specifically, when a conductive object, such as a finger, is placed on box 60-1,
`
`recognition of this button press is detected, at least, on the first sensing area 12-3.
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55-56.) When a conductive object, is placed on box 60-4, recognition
`
`of this button press is detected, at least, on the second sensing area 14-2. (Ex. 1006
`
`¶¶ 57-58.) Lastly, when a conductive object is placed on box 60-2, recognition of
`
`this button press is detected on both the first sensing area 12-3 and the second
`
`sensing area 14-2. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 59.) Accordingly, Binstead discloses “wherein a
`
`combination of the at least two sensing areas is used to recognize at least one of the
`
`activated buttons,” as claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 54-61.)
`
`2.
`
`Binstead Anticipates Claim 2
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites additional steps 2[a]-[c] for
`
`recognizing the plurality of button activations. As discussed above in Sec.
`
`VII(A)(1), activation of the boxes or buttons 60-1, 60-4, and 60-2 teaches
`
`recognizing the recited “first,” “second,” and “third” activated buttons as recited in
`
`claim 2. (Ex. 10