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. 8,519,973
`__________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-8, 11, 12, AND 14-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,519,973
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`BlackBerry Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-_____
`Patent U.S. 8,519,973
`__________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-8, 11, 12, AND 14-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,519,973
`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 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 2
`
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘973 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`Background Art ..................................................................................... 4
`
`1. Piguet ..................................................................................................... 4
`2. Binstead ................................................................................................. 6
`3. Boie ........................................................................................................ 7
`The ‘973 Patent ..................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Binstead Anticipates Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the
`‘973 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................. 15
`
`Boie Anticiaptes Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the
`‘973 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................. 37
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 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 8,519,973
`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.
`
`Related Matters: Petitioner states that U.S. Patent No. 8,519,973 (“the ‘973
`
`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 served on September 12, 2013. The ‘973 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 of the ‘973 patent was filed by LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. and related companies (collectively, “LGE”). IPR2014-1343.
`
`The ‘973 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 8,004,497 (“the ‘497
`
`patent”). LGE filed a petition for inter partes review against claims 1-4 of the
`
`‘497 patent on August 20, 2014. Case IPR2014-1342. Petitioner is filing a
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ‘497 patent concurrently with this petition.
`
`Lead Counsel: Robert C. Mattson (Reg. # 42,850).
`
`Backup Counsel: John S. Kern (Reg. # 42,719); Christopher Ricciuti (Reg. #
`
`65,549)
`
`Service Information: Papers concerning this matter should be served on:
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 patent. The
`
`‘973 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 ‘973 patent is requested in view of the following:
`
`Exhibit 1002 – U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427, issued October 24, 2000, and
`
`available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“Binstead”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388, 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:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as anticipated by Binstead.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as anticipated 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 ‘973 PATENT
`The ‘973 patent was filed April 9, 2012 and issued August 27, 2013. The
`
`alleged invention of the ‘973 patent is a method performed on a touch screen
`
`device 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 ‘973 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 1:61 – 2:4, 3:17-33.)
`
`Specifically, the ‘973 patent touts the following:
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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
`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 3:17-33.)
`
`A. Background Art
`The idea of using fewer sensors than active buttons on a capacitance sensing
`
`device predates the alleged invention of the ‘973 patent by decades.
`
`1.
`
`Piguet
`
`For example, Piguet (Ex. 1004) issued on December 30, 1980, and describes a
`
`capacitive sensing device formed of a plurality of electrodes that form “sensing areas”
`
`as described in the specification of the ‘973 patent. The activation of Piguet’s
`
`electrodes controls the device display. (Ex. 1004 Abstract, 3:13-21.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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
`
`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 that the later-
`
`filed ‘973 patent alleges to be inventive – 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, 2:55-60, 3:6-33.) As shown in Fig. 7
`
`of Piguet below, a capacitance sensing device may detect activation of buttons
`
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`even when there are fewer sensing areas (labeled “senor elements”) than buttons
`
`(labeled “1” through “9,” “F” and “C” in Fig. 7).
`
` (Ex. 1004 Fig. 7)
`
`2.
`
`Binstead
`
`
`
`While Piguet applies this concept of using fewer sensing areas than buttons to
`
`a one-dimensional sensing device (i.e., a device without sensing areas overlapping in
`
`the x and y directions), one of ordinary skill in the art also knew to apply the same
`
`concept to two-dimensional sensing devices in order to detect the presence of a
`
`conductive object on a two-dimensional sensor array. 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 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.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`As shown in Fig. 7 of Binstead, it was known to arrange sensing areas in a two-
`
`dimensional array of overlapping rows and columns, where each conductive
`
`element 12-2 through 12-4 and 14-1 through 14-5 represents a separate sensing
`
`area.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`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, Boie also demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`was aware that a capacitance sensing device may use fewer sensing areas than
`
`buttons and, as a result, have fewer pins than buttons, which is the same feature and
`
`same advantage touted in the ‘973 patent. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 30-40.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The ‘973 Patent
`
`B.
`Figure 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:
`
` (Ex. 1001 Fig. 6B)
`
`
`
`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 17:30-40.)
`
`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 17:50-57, 61-62.) Particularly, button 601 includes a sensor element having
`
`a surface area of one conductive material (i.e., white surface), and button 603
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`includes a sensor element having a surface area of another conductive material.
`
`(Ex. 1001 17:50-57, 61-62.) Button 601 is coupled to a first pin 609, and
`
`button 603 is coupled to a second pin 610. (Ex. 1001 17:50-57, 61-62.)
`
`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 17:58-65.) 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. (Ex. 1001 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. (Ex. 1001 18:6-11.)
`
`The ‘973 patent also describes measuring capacitance variations. For
`
`example, the ‘973 patent describes that capacitance variation δ1and δ2 are
`
`measured on pins 609 and 610, respectively. (Ex. 1001 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.
`
`(Ex. 1001 18:38-48.) Similarly, if the capacitance variation δ1, measured on the
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`first pin 609, is equal to the capacitance variation δ2 measured on the second pin
`
`610, then it is determined that the second button 602 has been pressed. (Ex.
`
`1001 18:38-48.) 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. (Ex. 1001 18:38-48.)
`
`During prosecution of the ‘973 patent, the Patent Owner filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer over the ‘497 patent. The Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for
`
`Allowance issued during prosecution of the ‘497 patent indicated that the applied
`
`prior art and, in particular, U.S. Patent No. 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, 58,
`
`emphasis in original.)
`
`The ‘973 patent issued on August 27, 2013, with 20 claims, 3 of which are
`
`independent (claims 1, 7, and 17). Independent claim 1 of the ‘973 patent is
`
`representative and reads as follows:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`[a] determining capacitance variations of a first number of two or more sense
`elements of a touch screen device [b] using a processing device to
`detect a presence of a conductive object on any one of a second
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`number of three or more button areas of the touch screen device, [c]
`wherein the first number of sense elements is less than the second
`number of button areas; and
`[d] 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.
`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
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`Sense Elements: Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20, whether directly or through
`
`dependency, use the term “sense elements.” Under its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification, the term “sense element” should be
`
`defined as “areas on which capacitance changes are to be measured.” The
`
`specification of the ‘973 patent describes “sensor elements” as regions over which
`
`the sensing device can discriminate the presence of a conductive object. For
`
`example, the ‘973 patent states that “three or more button operations performed by
`
`the conductive object on three or more sensor elements” are realized on two pins of
`
`a processing device. (Ex. 1001 3:6-9; see also 3:50 – 4:17, 17:50 – 18:22, 19:12 –
`
`22:42, Figs. 5-7). The claim term “sense element” does not appear in the
`
`specification, but appears to correspond to “sensor element” as used in the patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Each pin, in turn, corresponds to an electrically isolated sensing area. “For
`
`example, a three-button scheme using two pins includes one sensor element that
`
`has 100% of the first sensing area, the second sensor element has 50% of the first
`
`sensing area and 50% of the second sensing area, and the third sensor element has
`
`100% of the second sensing area.” (Ex. 1001 3:50-54; see also Ex. 1001 3:54 –
`
`4:17, 17:50 – 18:22, 19:12 – 22:42, Figs. 5-7). Because each sensing area, and not
`
`sensor element or button area, corresponds to a pin on the processing device, the
`
`‘973 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 1:61 – 2:4, 3:17-33.) This arrangement of pins directly corresponding to
`
`sensing areas, and the number of sensor elements and button areas being greater
`
`than the number of pins is consistently described throughout the specification.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘973 patent also generally tracks this arrangement because, although
`
`the claim states that there should be less sense elements than button areas, the
`
`claim does not specify a number of pins corresponding to the sense elements.
`
`Accordingly, the term “sense element” has been interpreted to simply
`
`correspond to an “area on which capacitance changes are to be measured,” which
`
`encompasses a “sensing area” as described in the specification, or other areas that
`
`can be used to discriminate the presence of a conductive object based upon
`
`capacitance changes. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25-29.)
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`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. Because of the repetitive nature of the claim
`
`elements, Petitioner has annotated portions of the claims [a], [b], [c], etc. for ease of
`
`cross-reference.
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`A. Binstead Anticipates Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`This section explains how Binstead teaches every element of, and therefore
`
`anticipates, claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 patent.
`
`Claim 1[a]: “determining capacitance variations of a first number of
`two or more sense elements of a touch screen device”
`
`
`
`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 1:17-20, 2:18-22.) Binstead
`
`employs interpolation so 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 sense elements. (Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6, 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
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`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.) 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)
`
`“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
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.) Further, “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.) In this way, conductor elements 12 (12-1 through
`
`12-n) and 14 (14-1 through 14-n) are areas on which capacitance changes are to be
`
`measured and, thus, comprise the “sense elements” of the claimed invention. (Ex.
`
`1006 ¶ 64.)
`
`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
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 8)
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`output line 92, comprise “a first number of two or more sense elements of a touch
`
`screen device,” as claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 59-66.)
`
`Moreover, the scanning system of Binstead and sensing circuitry “samples
`
`each conductor element in turn according to the analogue multiplexer sequence,
`
`and stores each capacitance value in memory. These values are compared with
`
`reference values from earlier scans, and with other capacitance values in the same
`
`scan from the other conductor elements in order to detect a keystroke. Keystrokes
`
`must be above a threshold value to be valid….” (Ex. 1002 6:34-41.) By sampling
`
`conductor elements in sequence and comparing the detected changes in
`
`capacitance with reference values from earlier scans, and with other capacitance
`
`values in the same scan from the other conductor elements, Binstead teaches
`
`“determining capacitance variations of a first number of two or more sense
`
`elements of a touch screen device,” as claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 67.)
`
`Claim 1[b]: “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.”
`
` With respect to the claim phrase “using a processing device to detect a
`
`presence of a conductive object,” Binstead Fig. 8 shows that 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.) After passing through a capacitance
`
`controlled oscillator 85 and a divide-by-n circuit 90, a processing means receives
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`data from the divide-by-n counter and “store[s] it in a plurality of locations, each
`
`allocated to a particular one of the conductor elements 12 and 14.” (Ex. 1002 6:21-
`
`30.) Thus, Binstead teaches this claim element. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 68.)
`
`
`
`With respect to the claim phrase “on any one of a second number of three or
`
`more button areas of the touch screen device,” Binstead Fig. 7, reproduced and
`
`annotated above, specifically shows 8 button areas. Thus, Binstead teaches claim
`
`element 1[b]. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 69.)
`
`Claim 1[c]: “wherein the first number of sense elements is less than the
`second number of button areas.”
`
`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
`
`of configurations capable of being resolved by the system.” (Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6,
`
`emphasis added.)
`
`(Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Conductive elements 14-1 through 14-5 and conductive elements 12-2
`
`through 12-4 define eight sense elements. In contrast, through the described
`
`interpolation technique, the device of Binstead achieves increased resolution of
`
`keypad areas to sense elements well beyond a one-to-one correspondence, as
`
`shown by the dozens of “boxes” in Fig. 7 as compared to the eight sense elements.
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶ 71.) Moreover, Binstead teaches that at least 256 keypad areas can be
`
`resolved using only sixteen conductive elements and, thus, 16 pins. (Ex. 1002
`
`8:22-25.) Accordingly, Binstead teaches claim element 1[c]. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 70-72.)
`
`Claim 1[d]: “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.”
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 7, annotated below, the combination of conductive
`
`elements (i.e., the first number of two or more sense elements) 14-2 and 12-3 is
`
`used to recognize keypad 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, one of the three or more button areas is recognized “using the
`
`determined capacitance variations of the first number of two or more sense
`
`elements,” as claimed. (See also Ex. 1002 6:66 – 7:6; Ex. 1006 ¶ 73.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`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 sense element
`
`12-3. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 74-75.) When a conductive object, is placed on box 60-4,
`
`recognition of this button press is detected, at least, on the second sense element
`
`14-2. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76-77.) Lastly, when a conductive object is placed on box 60-
`
`2, recognition of this button press is detected on both the first sense element 12-3
`
`and the second sense element 14-2. (Ex. 1006 ¶ 78.) Accordingly, Binstead
`
`discloses “recognizing an activation of one of the three or more button areas [e.g.,
`
`the 60-2 button] using the determined capacitance variations of the first number of
`
`two or more sense elements [e.g., conductive elements 12-3 and 14-2],” as
`
`claimed. (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 79-80.)
`
`21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,519,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Claim 2[a]: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first number is two
`and the second number is three, and wherein the recognizing
`comprises:”
`
`As discussed above for claim 1[d], the first number of sense elements is two
`
`(conductive elements 12-3 and 14-2), and the second number of button areas is
`
`three (buttons 60-1, 60-4, and 60-2, for example). Thus, Binstead teaches
`
`“wherein the first number is two and the second number is three.” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 81.)
`
`Claim 2[b]: “detecting the presence of the conductive object at a first
`button area when the capacitance variation of a first sense element is
`greater than a reference value and the capacitance variation of a second
`sense element is not greater than the reference value.”
`
`Figure 7 of Binstead, annotated below, teaches this claim element with
`
`reference to a keystroke detected at button area 60-1.
`
` (Ex. 1002 Fig. 7)
`
`When the 60-1 box is activated by a conductive object, the presence of the
`
`conductive object is detected, at least, on the first sense element 12-3. This is
`
`described explicitl
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
