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. 8,059,015
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,059,015
`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 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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 .......................................................................... 4 
`
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘015 PATENT ............................................................ 5 
`A. 
`The Patent Application .......................................................................... 5 
`
`B. 
`
`Prosecution of the ‘015 Patent .............................................................. 8 
`
`V. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`“sensor element” .................................................................................... 9 
`
`B. 
`
`“capacitance sensor” ............................................................................ 10 
`
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 11 
`VII. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17-19, 21, and 22 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Binstead .......................................................... 12 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 13 and 15 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) by Binstead in view of Levy .................................................... 29 
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13 17-19, 21, and 22 are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Boie. ...................................................... 31 
`
`Claim 15 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`by Boie in view of Hristov .................................................................. 48 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015 to Hua et al.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,391,861 to Levy
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie et al.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 to Hristov
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/697,613 to Hristov
`
` Declaration of Daniel J. Wigdor
`
` Infringement Contentions Served by Patent Owner
`
` Curriculum Vita for Daniel J. Wigdor
`
` Excerpts from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,059,015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`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. 8,059,015 (“the ‘015
`
`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. The ‘015 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 15, 2014, a petition for inter partes review against claims 1, 2, 4-
`
`7, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, and 22 of the ‘015 patent was filed by LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(collectively, “LGE”). (Case IPR2014-01302.) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,004,497 (“the
`
`‘497 patent”) and 8,519,973 (“the ‘973 patent”) involve similar subject matter as
`
`the ‘015 patent and have been asserted in both the BlackBerry and LGE litigations.
`
`Petitions for inter partes review against claims 1-4 of the ‘497 patent (Case
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2014-01342) and claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-20 of the ‘973 patent (Case
`
`IPR2014-01343) were also filed by LGE on August 20, 2014.
`
`Petitioner is filing a petition for inter partes review for each of the ‘497 and
`
`‘973 patents 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) and Monica S. Ullagaddi
`
`(Reg. No. 63,823)
`
`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
`
`cpdocketullagaddi@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 8,059,015
`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
`
`claim 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, 2, 4-7, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, and 22 of the ‘015 patent. The ‘015
`
`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 ‘015 patent is requested in view of the following
`
`references:
`
`Exhibit 1002 – U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Binstead filed October 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. 7,391,861 to Levy filed May 22, 2001,
`
`published on February 28, 2002, issued June 24, 2008, and available as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“Levy”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 5,463,388 to Boie filed January 29, 1993,
`
`issued October 31, 1995, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`(“Boie”).
`
`Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 to Hristov filed July 5, 2006,
`
`claiming priority to provisional application No. 60/697,613 filed on July 8, 2005
`
`(Ex. 1006), issued on October 26, 2010, and available as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) (“Hristov”).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancelation of the challenged claims under the following
`
`statutory grounds.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17-19, 21, and 22 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) by Binstead.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 13 and 15 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`
`Binstead in view of Levy.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13, 17-19, 21, and 22 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by Boie.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 15 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Boie in
`
`view of Hristov.
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘015 PATENT
`A. The ‘015 Patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/440,924 (hereinafter, the “‘924
`
`application”), which matured into the ‘015 patent, was filed May 25, 2006. 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.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`that “[a] capacitance variation can be measured on the multiple capacitance sensing
`
`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.)
`
`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 keyboard…to be
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`implemented in smaller areas than the convention keyboards that use resistance
`
`matrices…for example,…on a mobile handset” (id. at 4:35-49).
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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 19:66-20:21.)
`
`Prosecution of the ‘015 Patent
`
`B.
`During prosecution of the ‘924 application, the Office issued a non-final
`
`Office Action on June 10, 2011 in which claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17-23, 26, 27,
`
`and 29 were rejected over Hristov, and claims 8, 16, 28, and 30 were indicated to
`
`be allowable. (See Ex. 1010, Office Action of June 10, 2011, pp. 52-76.)
`
`Responsive thereto, Patent Owner amended independent claims 1 and 22 to
`
`recite the subject matter of allowable claim 28, and amended independent claim 6
`
`to recite the subject matter of claim 30, i.e., “wherein at least one of the plurality of
`
`sensor elements corresponds to multiple pre-defined areas.” (Id. at Amendment of
`
`June 24, 2011, pp.36-49.) The Office subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance
`
`and the ‘924 application issued as the ‘015 patent on November 15, 2011.
`
`As discussed in detail infra, the added limitation of “at least one of the
`
`plurality of sensor elements corresponds to multiple pre-defined areas” recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 7 of the ‘015 patent that led to allowance of the ‘924
`
`application is nothing new and was well within the reach of those having only
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe. Prior art references,
`
`including at least Binstead and Boie, clearly teach this feature.
`
`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).
`
`“sensor element”
`
`A.
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`a position of a presence of a conductive object 303 in the x-, and y-directions.”
`
`(Id. at 17:3-6.)
`
`
`
`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; see also id. at 18:61-67.)
`
`
`
` “capacitance sensor”
`
`B.
`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
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`bridge divider, charge transfer, or the like.” (See id. at 8:49-55.)
`
`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 level of skill in the art is evidenced by prior art references. The prior art
`
`references relied upon show that one of ordinary skill in the art was sufficiently
`
`skilled in the design and manufacture of capacitive 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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-
`
`12, Ex. 1007 ¶ 15.) 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. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 15.)
`
`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, 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”
`
`Binstead describes a “multiple input proximity detector and touchpad
`
`system.” (Ex. 1002, title.) Binstead describes touchpad examples including a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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, 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”
`
`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.)
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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,”
`
`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 (lines 12-1 through 12-4 and 14-1 through
`
`14-3 leading to multiplexor 75), for example.
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`75, circuitry 80, 85, and 90, and processing means – that form a processing device.
`
`(Ex. 1002, 6:21-33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 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. (Ex. 1007 ¶ 41.)
`
`
`
`Binstead, Fig. 8, Annotated
`
`Accordingly, Binstead teaches claim 1[c].
`
`Claim 1[d]: “wherein the pre-defined areas are disposed adjacent
`to one another and”
`
`Binstead’s Fig. 7 shows that the sensing surface of the touchpad or
`
`touchscreen interface includes multiple adjacent predetermined key areas (i.e.,
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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;”
`
`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 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:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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; Ex.
`1007 ¶ 43.)
`
`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”
`
`As discussed supra, 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; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 45.)
`
`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.”
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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; Ex. 1007 ¶ 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 application (id. at 2:21-
`
`22, 2:40-43, 2:55).
`
`
`
`Thus, 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. (Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 47, 48.)
`
`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.”
`
`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. (Ex. 1007 ¶ 49.)
`
`Binstead’s device “permits detection of the user’s finger at any point on the
`
`touchpad’s active surface, and the electronic scanning mechanism could be
`
`arranged to assign predetermined areas of the touchpad to be interpreted as discrete
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`keypads, or ‘boxes’.” (Ex. 1002, 2:18-22.) By interpolating the location of a
`
`finger between intersections of conductive elements 12 and 14, there can be more
`
`“boxes” representing pre-defined key areas than there are intersections of
`
`conductive elements. (Ex. 1002, 6:66-7:6.) Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand Binstead to teach comparing the position of the detected finger
`
`with the pre-defined areas corresponding to keys to determine which key is
`
`selected. (Ex. 1007 ¶ 50.)
`
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting
`keyboard data corresponding to the selected key from the
`processing device to a component external to the processing
`device.”
`
`Binstead teaches that the touchpad device may be a touchscreen or a
`
`
`
`standard layout keyboard that outputs keyboard data corresponding to a selected
`
`key from the processing device to an external component such as a computer. (Ex.
`
`1002, 2:28-33, 2:38-43, 2:55-56; Ex. 1007 ¶ 51.)
`
`Claim 5[a]: “The method of claim 4, wherein assigning the
`plurality of keyboard keys into pre-defined areas comprises
`defining a data structure comprising positional data of the
`predefined areas of the plurality of keyboard keys,”
`
`As discussed supra, Binstead explicitly discloses assigning “predetermined
`
`
`
`areas of the touchpad to be interpreted as discrete keypads, or ‘boxes.’” (Ex.
`
`1002, 2: 20-22; see also id. at 2:28-33 and 2:55-56 (describing a keyboard
`
`implementation).) In order to implement Binstead’s keyboard, one of ordinary
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`skill in the art would understand that Binstead includes a data structure that holds a
`
`set of keyboard key positions which are mapped to the position of the conductive
`
`object in order for the device to determine which key is selected. (Ex. 1007 ¶ 52.)
`
`Claim 5[b]: “wherein selecting the keyboard key comprises
`comparing the position of the conductive object with the
`positional data of the pre-defined areas of the data structure to
`determine a pressed key of the plurality of keyboard keys, and”
`
`To determine which keyboard key is pressed, Binstead describes
`
`determining a touched key from among a set of possible boxes, which are
`
`predefined areas of the touchpad. The storage of a “set” necessitates the use
`
`of a data structure (Ex. 1007 ¶ 52.) This determination necessarily requires
`
`comparison of the position of the conductive object with those predefined
`
`areas. (Id. at ¶ 53.) This determines “a pressed key of the plurality of
`
`keyboard keys.” (Id.)
`
`Claim 5[c]: “wherein outputting the keyboard data comprises
`outputting keyboard data that corresponds to the pressed key.”
`
`See analysis of claim 4 supra. See also Ex. 1007 at ¶ 54.
`
`Claim 6[a]: “The method of claim 1, wherein the pre-defined
`areas of the plurality of keyboard keys are arranged into multiple
`rows on the sensing surface,”
`
`As can be seen in the annotated version of Binstead’s Fig. 7 above, there are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multiple rows of predetermined key areas defined by the dashed line boxes. For
`
`example, predetermined key areas are 61-1 and 61-2 are part of one row,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`predetermined key areas 60-1, 60-2, 61-3, and 61-4 are part of a second row, and
`
`predetermined key areas 60-3 and 60-4 are part of a third row.
`
`Claim 6[b]: “wherein the plurality of sensor elements are
`arranged in a plurality of rows of sensor elements, and”
`
`The annotated version of Binstead’s Fig. 7 is annotated with a first
`
`row of sensor elements that includes portions of conductor element 12-3, as
`
`well as a second row sensor elements that includes portions of conductor
`
`element 12-2. Although not individually annotated, conductor element 12-4
`
`also includes a row of sensor elements.
`
`Claim 6[c]: “wherein at least one of the plurality of rows of sensor
`elements corresponds to a plurality of rows of the predefined
`areas.”
`
`Although each dashed line box in Fig. 7 is not individually labeled, there are
`
`
`
`
`two rows of predetermined key areas (i.e., dashed line boxes boxes) per every row
`
`of sensor elements (i.e., solid line segments). For example, the row of sensor
`
`elements annotated on conductor element 12-3 corresponds to the row of
`
`predetermined key areas that includes 61-1 and 61-2 and the row of predetermined
`
`key areas that includes 60-1, 60-2, 61-3, and 61-4.
`
`Claim 7[a]: “An apparatus, comprising: a sensing device
`comprising a plurality of sensor elements”
`
`Independent claim 7 is similar to independent claim 1 but is drawn to an
`
`apparatus. The discussion set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies with
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,059,015
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`equal force to claim 7.
`
`See, e.g., analysis of elements [a] and [b] of claim 1 supra.
`
`Claim 7[b]: “to detect a presence of a conductive object on a
`sensing s