throbber
DOCKET NO: 440200US
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PATENT: 8,059,015
`
`INVENTOR: Liu Hua et al.
`
`TITLE: CAPACITANCE SENSING MATRIX FOR KEYBOARD
`ARCHITECTURE
`
`TRIAL NO.: IPR2014-__________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL J. WIGDOR
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Daniel J. Wigdor, make this declaration on behalf of BlackBerry
`
`Corp. (“BlackBerry” or “Petitioner”) in connection with the petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,015 (“the ‘015 patent,” attached as Exhibit
`
`1001 to the petition). I am over 21 years of age and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, can be found in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached as Ex. 1009 to the concurrently filed the petition for inter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 1
`
`

`

`partes review. My curriculum vitae also lists each matter in which I have provided
`
`testimony, either though declaration, deposition or trial, in the last 5 years.
`
`3.
`
`I am an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of
`
`Toronto, where I have joint appointments at the Department of Computer Science
`
`and the department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences.
`
`4.
`
`Before joining the faculty at the University of Toronto in 2011, I was
`
`a researcher at Microsoft Research, the user experience architect of the Microsoft
`
`Surface Tablet, and a company-wide expert in user interfaces for new technologies.
`
`5. While studying to obtain my Ph.D. degree at the University of
`
`Toronto, which pioneered much of the early work on touch sensitive devices and,
`
`in particular, multi-touch devices, I was a fellow at the Initiative in Innovative
`
`Computing at Harvard University and conducted research for Mitsubishi Electric
`
`Research Labs (MERL). While at MERL, I was part of the DiamondSpace project
`
`that developed the DiamondTouch multi-touch device. DiamondTouch is a multi-
`
`input touch sensitive device that allows multiple people, simultaneously, to interact
`
`with the display.
`
`6.
`
`In particular, I was responsible for conducting research regarding user
`
`interfaces for use on the DiamondTouch. More particularly, I was responsible for
`
`the design and development of user interface software that ran on the
`
`
`
`2
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 2
`
`

`

`DiamondTouch display, and that responded to user input as detect by changes in
`
`capacitance measurements of the touch sensor.
`
`7. My work regularly involved designating areas of the display to
`
`correspond to buttons and other user interface elements, and writing software to
`
`map the sensed capacitance variations of each sensor area or element to a user
`
`interface object, including pre-processing and filtering of input. My work further
`
`included the creation of applications, as well as general-purpose tools that would
`
`process input and enable application software.
`
`8.
`
`In my work at MERL, I developed such software not only for the
`
`DiamondTouch, but for several other touchscreen technologies as well, such as the
`
`FingerWorks iGesture Pad, mobile phones, and digital whiteboards, among others.
`
`I was also responsible for the design of hardware devices, such as a two-sided
`
`DiamondTouch, and mobile devices.
`
`9.
`
`I hold Hon. B.Sc., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in computer science, and
`
`have published extensively, with about 70 technical publications. Of these,
`
`approximately 16 are peer-reviewed, technical papers which relate directly to the
`
`design of touch sensitive devices and implementation of the same into electronic
`
`
`
`3
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 3
`
`

`

`devices.1 I have also written multiple conference short papers on this topic. I have
`
`given over 70 invited talks, including multiple keynote lectures.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`10.
`In forming my opinions, I read and considered the ‘015 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, the exhibits listed in the Exhibit Appendix filed with the ‘015
`
`petition, as well as any other material referenced herein.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`11. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of patent law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set
`
`forth in this section of my declaration.
`
`A. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`12.
`I understand that the disclosure of patents and prior art references are
`
`to be viewed from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”). Unless I state otherwise, I provide my
`
`opinion herein from the viewpoint of a POSITA at the earliest alleged priority date
`
`for the ‘015 patent, which I have been informed is May 25, 2006.
`
`
`1 This includes papers numbered C.7, C.9, C.11, C.13, C.15, C.16, C.17,
`
`C.18, C.24, C.26, C.29, C.32, C.33, C.39, C.41, C.44 in my curriculum vitae.
`
`
`
`4
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 4
`
`

`

`13. The ‘015 patent pertains to the field of user interface devices and, in
`
`particular, touch sensitive devices, such as a touchscreen for a computer, tablet, or
`
`other computing device.
`
`14.
`
`In determining whom a POSITA would be, I considered the ‘015
`
`patent, the types of problems encountered in designing touch sensitive devices, the
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, the rapid pace of innovation in this field, the
`
`sophistication of touch sensitive computing devices, and the educational level of
`
`workers active in the field.
`
`15. Based on these factors, I have concluded that a POSITA 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). More particularly, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`been well-versed in a number of different algorithms and methods for applying
`
`signals to a capacitance sensor matrix and sensing capacitance variations
`
`responsive to a conductive object, for example, to detect discrete keyboard keys in
`
`a configuration in which the keyboard keys displayed on the touch sensor device
`
`outnumber the number of sensor elements in the touch sensor device. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, 4:14-25, Ex. 1002, Fig. 7, 6:66-7:6, Ex. 1004, Fig. 7, 7:6-
`
`
`
`5
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 5
`
`

`

`12.) That is, one of ordinary skill in the art was aware that the location of a
`
`conductive object of a touch sensor could be interpolated between sensor elements.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`16.
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a
`
`patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper
`
`construction of a claim term is the meaning that a POSITA would have given to
`
`that term.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that claims in inter partes review proceedings are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which is
`
`what I have done when performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`C. Anticipation and Obviousness
`18.
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if a
`
`POSITA would have understood a single prior art reference to teach every
`
`limitation of the claim. The disclosure in a reference does not have to be in the
`
`same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be described
`
`in enough detail, or necessarily implied by or inherent in the reference, to enable a
`
`POSITA looking at the reference to make and use at least one embodiment of the
`
`claimed invention. I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is
`
`not found explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still
`
`be unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`6
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 6
`
`

`

`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the invention
`
`may be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when seen in light of
`
`one or more prior art references. I have been informed that a patent is obvious
`
`when it is only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to
`
`known methods to obtain predictable results. I have been informed that the
`
`following four factors are considered when determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claim; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary
`
`considerations tending to prove obviousness or nonobviousness. I have also been
`
`informed that the courts have established a collection of secondary factors of
`
`nonobviousness, which include: unexpected, surprising, or unusual results; prior
`
`art that teaches away from the alleged invention; substantially superior results;
`
`synergistic results; long-standing need; commercial success; and copying by
`
`others. I have also been informed that there must be a connection, or nexus,
`
`between these secondary factors and the scope of the claim language. I have also
`
`been informed that some examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness include:
`
`a)
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`7
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 7
`
`

`

`b)
`
`Simply substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`c)
`
`Using known techniques to improve similar devices (or
`
`product) in the same way (e.g. obvious design choices);
`
`d)
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`e)
`
`Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success-in other words,
`
`whether something is “obvious to try”;
`
`f)
`
`Using work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of that
`
`work for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`g)
`
`Arriving at a claimed invention as a result of some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that common sense (where
`
`
`
`8
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 8
`
`

`

`substantiated) may be a reason to combine or modify prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`IV. THE ‘015 PATENT
`19. The alleged invention of the ‘015 patent is a method performed on a
`
`capacitive touch sensing device that displays more keyboard keys than “sensor
`
`elements.” More particularly, the ‘015 patent purports to “lower a pin count
`
`between a sensing device, which includes [a] capacitance sensor matrix, and a
`
`processing device” (Ex. 1001, 3:51-54) by assigning multiple keyboard keys to
`
`pre-determined areas on a sensing device corresponding to a single sensor element
`
`(id. at 4:14-16; see also id. at 3:60-62). Fig. 6A of the ‘015 patent illustrates three
`
`keyboard keys 603(1), 603(2), and 603(3) corresponding to a single sensor element
`
`601. (Id. at 18:25-30.)
`
`20. To detect the position of a conductive object on the capacitance sensor
`
`matrix, like most capacitive sensor matrices at the time, the ‘015 patent explains
`
`that “[a] capacitance variation can be measured on the multiple capacitance sensing
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 9
`
`

`

`pins that couple the sensing device and the processing device” (id. at 3:67-4:2) and
`
`in particular, notes that “four pins can be used to determine the position of the
`
`conductive object” (id. at 4:11-13). The ‘015 patent describes an example in which
`
`A first keyboard key, keyboard key A, is assigned between 1 and 3
`in the x-direction, and between 5 and 7 in the y-direction (e.g.,
`{1<X<3 & 5<Y<7}). A second keyboard key, keyboard key B, is
`assigned between 5 and 7 in the x-direction and between 5 and 7 in
`the y-direction (e.g., {5<X<7 & 5<Y<7}). If the A or B keyboard
`key has been pressed, the X/Y location should be within the areas
`of A or B, respectively. The pressed key is outputted after
`comparing the located X/Y position of the conductive object and
`the pre-defined areas of the capacitance sensor matrix. (Id. at
`4:16-25, 4:32-34.)
`
`21. Because each row and column of the capacitive sensor matrix
`
`corresponds to a pin coupled to the processing device used to detect the presence
`
`of a conductive object, and insofar as the ‘015 patent defines multiple sensor
`
`elements per conductive trace (see id. at Fig. 6C, shown below), the ‘015 patent
`
`purports to provide an advantage over conventional sensing devices by “lower[ing]
`
`a pin count between a sensing device, which includes [a] capacitance sensor
`
`matrix, and a processing device” (id. at 3:51-54) by assigning “the keyboard
`
`keys…to smaller areas than keys of a resistance matrix” which “allows a
`
`
`
`10
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 10
`
`

`

`keyboard…to be implemented in smaller areas than the convention keyboards that
`
`use resistance matrices…for example,…on a mobile handset” (id. at 4:35-49).
`
`
`
`22. Fig. 6C of the ‘015 patent illustrates “keyboard keys A-Z 606(0)-
`
`606(25) assigned to pre-defined areas of the sensing device.” (Id. at 19:63-66.)
`
`More particularly, the ‘015 patent describes the following:
`
`Capacitance sensor matrix 600 includes eight rows 504(1)-504(8) and
`eight columns 505(1)-505(8). The rows and columns have 8 sensor
`elements each, sensor elements 501(1)-501(8) and 503(1)- 503(8).
`Rows 504(1)-504(8) are coupled to processing device 210 using
`capacitance sensing pins, conductive traces 502. Columns 505(1)-
`505(8) are coupled to processing device 210 using capacitance
`sensing pins, conductive traces 502. Since sensor matrix 650 is an 8x8
`matrix, there are 16 total capacitance sensing pins that couple the
`
`
`
`11
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 11
`
`

`

`sensor matrix 650 to the processing device 210. Keyboard keys
`606(0)-606(25), which represent the letters A to Z of the alphabet, are
`assigned to pre-defined areas of the sensing device….It should also be
`noted that the 26 keys represented in FIG. 6C may be different
`keyboard keys than those 26 keys, such as alphanumeric characters of
`other languages, function keys, and the like. (See id. at 19:67-20:21.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`23.
`In comparing the claims of the ‘015 patent to the known prior art, I
`
`have carefully considered the ‘015 patent and its file history based upon my
`
`experience and knowledge in the relevant field. In my opinion, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim terms of the ‘015 patent are generally
`
`consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as a POSITA would
`
`have understood them. That said, for purposes of this proceeding, I have applied
`
`the following constructions when analyzing the prior art and the claims:
`
`24. Claims 1, 6, 7, 17, and 18 of the ‘015 patent recite the term “sensor
`
`element.” The term “sensor element” should be construed as including “at least a
`
`portion of a conductive element that is used to detect the presence of a conductive
`
`object.” Fig. 5A (reproduced hereinbelow) illustrates “[e]ach row includ[ing] a
`
`plurality of sensor elements 503(1)-503(K), where K is a positive integer value
`
`representative of the number of sensor elements in the row” and “[e]ach column
`
`includ[ing] a plurality of sensor elements 501(1)-501(L), where L is a positive
`
`integer value representative of the number of sensor elements in the column.” (Ex.
`12
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 12
`
`

`

`1001, 16:64-17:3.) As can be seen in Fig. 5A below, elements 501(1)-501(L ) are
`
`electrically connected and elements 503(1)-503(K) are electrically connected.
`
`“Accordingly, sensor array is an NxM sensor matrix” that “is configured to detect
`
`a position of a presence of a conductive object 303 in the x-, and y-directions.”
`
`(Id. at 17:3-6.)
`
`
`
`25. The ‘015 patent further describes how a “[s]ensor element 601 may be
`
`coupled to additional sensor elements in the sensing device, such as to other sensor
`
`elements in the same row or column.” (Id. at 18:61-63.) Element 601 corresponds
`
`to any of the elements 501(1 through k) and 503(1 through k) shown in the figure
`
`above.
`
`
`
`13
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 13
`
`

`

`26. While Fig. 5A illustrates “diamond-shaped” sensor elements, the ‘015
`
`patent states that “other shapes may be used for the sensor elements…(e.g.,
`
`rectangular shaped bars)[].” (See id. at 17:23-33.) The ‘015 patent explicitly notes
`
`that “the embodiments described herein are not limited to being diamond shaped,
`
`but may include other shapes, such hexagons, octagons, squares, rectangles,
`
`triangles, circles, ovals, or the like.” (Id. at 18:63-67.)
`
`27. Claims 19 of the ‘015 patent recites the term “capacitance sensor.”
`
`The term “capacitance sensor” should be construed as including “a combination of
`
`hardware and software that provides a signal indicating changes in capacitance.”
`
`The ‘015 patent specification illustrates a capacitance sensor 201 in Figs. 2 and 4
`
`and describes how “the capacitive sensor 201 may be a capacitive switch
`
`relaxation oscillator (CSR)” (id. at 8:25-26; see also id. at 8:26-34) and “may
`
`include physical, electrical, and software components” (id. at 8:34-35). The ‘015
`
`patent further states how “descriptions of capacitance sensor 201 may be generated
`
`and compiled…using a hardware descriptive language[].” (See id. at 8:1-13.)
`
`However, the ‘015 patent does not limit the capacitance sensor to any particular
`
`implementation and specifically states that the capacitance sensor is “not limited to
`
`using relaxation oscillators, but may include other methods, such as current versus
`
`voltage phase shift measurement, resistor-capacitor charge timing, capacitive
`
`
`
`14
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 14
`
`

`

`bridge divider, charge transfer, or the like.” (See id. at 8:49-55.)
`
`Fig. 2 of the ‘015 Patent
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 of the ‘015 Patent
`28. However, the ‘015 patent does not so limit the capacitance sensor and
`
`specifically states that the capacitance sensor is “not limited to using relaxation
`
`oscillators, but may include other methods, such as current versus voltage phase
`15
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 15
`
`

`

`shift measurement, resistor-capacitor charge timing, capacitive bridge divider,
`
`charge transfer, or the like.” (See id. at 8:49-55.)
`
`VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART
`29. The idea of using multiple keyboard keys per sensor element on a
`
`capacitive touch sensing device predates the alleged invention of the ‘015 patent by
`
`decades and forms a basic and well-understood concept underlying today’s touch
`
`sensing devices.
`
`A. Overview of Binstead’s Teachings
`30. Binstead describes a multiple input touchpad sensing device 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 sensor elements.
`
`(Ex. 1002, 6:66 – 7:6, Fig. 7.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 16
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1002, Fig. 7)
`
`
`
`31. As shown in Fig. 7 of Binstead, which is annotated above, it was well-
`
`known in the art to arrange sensor elements 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 multiple sensor elements of the touchscreen interface of
`
`the touchpad sensing device.
`
`B. Overview of Boie’s Teachings
`32. 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. (Id. at 3:5-15.) As shown in Fig. 7 of Boie, the capacitance electrode
`
`
`
`17
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 17
`
`

`

`array 100 is a 4x4 grid defined by the horizontal rows 1-4 and the vertical
`
`columns 1-4.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 7)
`
`33. Fig. 2 of Boie shows multiple horizontal sensor elements 201 of the
`
`row electrodes 203 of the grid and multiple vertical sensor elements 202 of the
`
`column electrodes 204 of the grid. Boie also describes and illustrates in Fig. 3 a
`
`configuration in which horizontal strip electrodes 203’ and vertical strip electrodes
`
`204’ are employed in the grid, and multiple sensor elements are also shown. It is
`
`therefore my opinion, as explained in greater detail below, that it was known to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art that a touch sensing device may use more
`
`keyboard keys than sensor elements and, as a result, fewer capacitance sensing pins
`
`than keyboard keys, to detect the presence of a conductive object on the touch
`
`sensing device.
`
`
`
`18
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 18
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 3)
`
`
`
`VII. ANALYSIS
`34.
`It is my opinion that claims 1, 2,4 -7, 17-19, 21, and 22 of the ‘015
`
`patent are anticipated by Binstead and claims 1, 2,4-7, 13, 17-19, 21, and 22 are
`
`anticipated by Boie. It is also my opinion that claims 13 and 15 are rendered
`
`obvious by Binstead in view of Levy and that Claim 15 is rendered by obvious by
`
`Boie in view of Hristov. At the request of counsel, I have divided these claims into
`
`elements denoted [a], [b], [c], etc. to correspond to the discussion of the same
`
`elements in the petition for inter partes review.
`
`A. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17-19, 21, and 22 Are Anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by Binstead
`
`The following subsections explain, on an element-by-element basis, how
`
`Binstead anticipates claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17-19, 21, and 22.
`
`Claim 1[a]: “A method comprising: assigning a plurality of
`keyboard keys to correspond to pre-defined areas of a sensing
`surface of a sensing device having”
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 19
`
`

`

`35. Binstead describes a “multiple input proximity detector and touchpad
`
`system.” (Ex. 1002, title.) Binstead describes touchpad examples including a
`
`touchscreen interface of a computer system (id. at 2:38-56) that functions as a
`
`keyboard (id. at 2:40-43, 55). Binstead also describes “assign[ing] predetermined
`
`areas of the touchpad to be interpreted as discrete keypads or ‘boxes’.” (Id. at
`
`2:21-22; see also id. at 6:66-7:6.) Thus, in Binstead’s keyboard application, it is
`
`my opinion that the keypads are keyboard keys that are assigned to the
`
`predetermined areas of the touchscreen interface of the touchpad.
`
`Claim 1[b]: “a plurality of sensor elements and”
`
`36. The touchpad is a sensing device with a touchscreen interface that
`
`includes a sensing surface formed of a grid including a first series of parallel
`
`conductor elements 12 and a second series of parallel conductor elements 14. (Id.
`
`at 3:43-55; see also id. at 3:58-61.)
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that portions of any of the first series of conductor
`
`elements 12-2, 12-3, and 12-4 or any of the second series of conductor elements
`
`14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5 correspond to the claimed sensor elements. As shown
`
`below in an annotated version of Binstead’s Fig. 7, portions of, for example,
`
`conducting element 12-2 and conducting element 12-3 are sensor elements; this is
`
`consistent with Patent Owner’s assertions (Ex. 1008, p. 131: “Alternatively, a
`
`portion of an electrode may be a sensor element.”). Moreover, the ‘015 patent
`
`
`
`20
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 20
`
`

`

`does not limit the shape of the sensor elements and describes “other shapes such as
`
`octagons, squares, rectangles, triangles circles, ovals, or the like.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`18:61-67.) Similarly, Binstead contemplates alternative patterns for the conductive
`
`elements based on the conductivity of the conductor elements. (Ex. 1002, Figs.
`
`3A, 3B; 4:30-33, 4:47-62, 5:28-31.)
`
`
`
`Binstead, Fig. 7, Annotated
`
`
`Claim 1[c]: “a plurality of capacitance sensing pins to couple the
`plurality of sensor elements to a processing device,”
`
`38. Binstead discloses a plurality of capacitance sensing pins that connect
`
`the sensor elements to a processing device. These capacitance sensing pins are
`
`shown in Fig. 1 (elements 32, 34) and in Fig. 8 (connections made between the
`
`analogue multiplexer 75 and the conductor elements), for example.
`
`
`
`21
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 21
`
`

`

`39. The ‘015 patent states that “[t]he components of processing device
`
`210 may be one or more separate integrated circuits and/or discrete components.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:48-51.) Similarly, Binstead describes discrete components – a
`
`multiplexor 75, circuitry 80, 85, and 90, and processing means – that form a
`
`processing device. (Ex. 1002, 6:21-33.)
`
`40. Binstead also notes that “Divide-by-n circuit and other components …
`
`could be provided by means of a suitable standard microprocessor.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`6:30-33.) As shown in an annotated version of Binstead’s Fig. 8 provided below,
`
`capacitance sensing pins, boxed in green, couple the series of parallel conductor
`
`elements 12 and 14 to the processing device, boxed in red. It would be understood
`
`by the person of ordinary skill that a “pin” is a means of making an electrical
`
`connection. Binstead does not specify what type of “conductor element” each of
`
`12-1 through 12-4 is, nor does it specify which means is used for connecting it to
`
`the analogue multiplexer, it states merely that “each of [the] conductor elements
`
`12-1 to 12-4 and 14-1 to 14-3 is connected in turn via analogue multiplexer 75[].”
`
`(Id. at 6:10-12.) It would be understood by the person of ordinary skill that a
`
`normal and customary means of connecting to the analogue multiplexer would be
`
`via its pins. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Binstead teaches “a plurality of
`
`capacitance sensing pins to couple the plurality of sensor elements to a processing
`
`device,” as recited in ‘015 patent claim 1.
`
`
`
`22
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Binstead, Fig. 8, Annotated
`
`Claim 1[d]: “wherein the pre-defined areas are disposed adjacent
`to one another and”
`41. Binstead’s Fig. 7 shows that the sensing surface of the touchpad or
`
`touchscreen interface includes multiple adjacent predetermined key areas (i.e.,
`
`boxes 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, and 60-4 and boxes 61-1, 61-2, 61-3, and 61-4 that are
`
`designated with dashed lines). Binstead further explicitly states that “a touch
`
`operated keyboard for attachment to one face of a sheet of glass comprising a
`
`plurality of keypads disposed adjacent [to] each other in a desired pattern[].”
`
`(Ex. 1002, 1:29-37, emphasis added; see also id. at 2:28-33.)
`
`Claim 1[e]: “wherein at least one of the plurality of sensor
`elements corresponds to multiple pre-defined areas;”
`42. As shown above in the annotated version of Binstead’s Fig. 7,
`
`predetermined key areas 61-1, 61-2, 61-3, and 61-4 are shown as being associated
`23
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 23
`
`

`

`with one of the annotated sensing elements; predetermined key areas 60-1 and 60-2
`
`are shown as being associated with another annotated sensing element; and
`
`predetermined key areas 60-3 and 60-4 are shown as being associated with a third
`
`annotated sensing element. Binstead shows and describes how each sensor
`
`element may be associated with multiple pre-defined areas. For example, Figure 7
`
`shows multiple boxes 60-2, 60-4 associated with conductor element 14-2 and
`
`multiple boxes 61-3 and 61-4 as associated with conductor element 14-3. Thus,
`
`the “conductor elements” of Binstead are examples of sensor elements. Binstead
`
`explains how the conductor elements may correspond to multiple pre-defined
`
`areas: “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, 6:49-52.) It also describes:
`
`It will be clear 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, as indicated in FIG. 7. 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, see also 2:18-22.)
`
`Claim 1[f]: “determining a position of a presence of the
`conductive object on the sensing device by measuring capacitance
`on the plurality of capacitance sensing pins; and”
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 24
`
`

`

`43. As discussed above, Binstead detects changes in capacitance on more
`
`than one conductor element 12, 14 based on scanning sequences to interpolate
`
`keystrokes between the conductor elements 12, 14. (Ex. 1002, 6:49-51.) The
`
`interpolation results in a representation of a finger position on the touchpad. (Id. at
`
`6:66-67.) More particularly, Binstead’s touchpad scanning system samples each
`
`conductor element 12 and 14 in turn, stores each measured capacitance value in
`
`memory, and compares the stored, measured capacitance values with reference
`
`capacitance values from earlier scans and with other capacitance values from a
`
`current scan in order to detect a keystroke. (Id. at 6:34-41.)
`
`44. Although not explicitly explained in Binstead, the person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand “the interpolation technique” referred therein to be the
`
`examination of relative capacitance changes in adjacent conductor elements to
`
`determine the precise location of the conductive object on the device. For example,
`
`if the changes in two elements (e.g., 12-1 and 12-2) were identical, the conductive
`
`object would be known to be centrally located between the elements.
`
`Claim 1[g]: “selecting a keyboard key of the plurality of keyboard
`keys when the position of the presence of the conductive object is
`determined to be within the pre-defined area of the sensing device
`corresponding to the keyboard key.”
`
`45. Binstead’s device interprets the detected finger position as a discrete
`
`
`
`keyboard key that is assigned to the predetermined key area in which the position
`
`is located. (Ex. 1002, 2:18-22.)
`
`
`
`25
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1007, pg. 25
`
`

`

`46.
`
`“The position of the finger may be a digital representation of which
`
`‘box’ or predetermined area of the touchpad has been activated from a set of
`
`possible boxes[].” (Ex. 1002, 2:28-33.) The detected finger position corresponds
`
`to a predetermined key area (id. at 6:66-7:6), which is assigned with a keyboard
`
`key in the Binstead’s keyboard (id. at 2:21-22, 2:40-43, 2:55).
`
`47. Thus, it is my opinion that Binstead teaches “selecting a keyboard key
`
`of the plurality of keyboard keys” based on determining the predetermined key
`
`area in which the finger position has been detected.
`
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the keyboard
`key comprises comparing the position of the conductive object
`with the pre-defined areas.”
`
`48. As discussed supra, the position of the conductive object such as a
`
`
`
`finger is detected based on, for example, a predetermined key area 60, 61 or an x-y
`
`coordinate. (Ex. 1002, 6:66-7:6, 2:28-33.) In the keyboard application described
`
`in Binstead, the predetermined key areas are assigned to keys. If the
`
`predetermined key areas were not somehow mapped or assigned to particular
`
`keyboard keys, then the keyboard application would not function as intended – it is
`
`necessary to assign each predetermined key area to a particular keyboard key in
`
`order to Binstead’s method to function predictably.
`
`49. Binstead’s device “permits

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket