`_________________________
`BEFORETHEPATENTTRIALANDAPPEALBOARD
`________________________
`SONYCOMPUTERENTERTAINMENTAMERICALLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`APLIXIPHOLDINGSCORPORATION
`PatentOwner
`________________________
`CaseNo.IPR2015-00229
`PatentNo.7,667,692
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`MailstopPATENTBOARD
`PatentTrialandAppealBoard
`U.S.Patent&TrademarkOffice
`P.O.Box1450
`Alexandra,VA22313-145
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Page
`TABLEOFAUTHORITIES.............................................................................................iii
`EXHIBITLIST.....................................................................................................................iv
`INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
`I.
`II.
`OVERVIEWOFTHE’692PATENT................................................................1
`III.
`THEPETITIONFAILSTOSETFORTHANYEVIDENCE
`SUPPORTINGMULTIPLEGROUNDS............................................................3
`IV.
`THEPETITION’SREDUNDANTGROUNDSARENOT
`ENTITLEDTOCONSIDERATION...................................................................6
`V.
`THEPETITIONIMPROPERLYRELIESONARGUMENTS
`PRESENTEDINANEXPERT’SDECLARATION.....................................20
`VI.
`CLAIMCONSTRUCTION.................................................................................22
`VII. PATENTOWNERRESERVESALLRIGHTSTORESPOND
`FURTHER..............................................................................................................27
`VIII. CONCLUSIONANDSTATEMENTOFPRECISE
`RELIEFREQUESTED........................................................................................27
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`IPR2015-00229
`Page
`
`BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheeta Omni, LLC
`IPR2013-00175....................................................................... 20, 21, 22
`
`Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC
`IPR2014-00347......................................................................................3
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.
`CBM2012-00003........................................................ 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC
`IPR2013-00075......................................................................................9
`
`Raymarine, Inc. v. Navico Holding AS
`IPR2013-00355......................................................................................7
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
`IPR2013-00288............................................................................... 7, 19
`
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.
`IPR2013-00054......................................................................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326................................................................................................6
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1...............................................................................................6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22.............................................................................................6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104...........................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107...........................................................................................1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`(SELECTED)
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Exhibit1001
`U.S.Patent7,667,692
`Exhibit1008
`ExpertDeclarationofDr.GregoryFrancisWelch
`Exhibit2001
`AmendedComplaintin Aplix IP Holdings Corporation v.
`Entertainment America LLC,CaseNo.1:14-cv-12745.
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Computer
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`PatentOwnerAplixIPHoldingsCorporation(“Aplix”)submitsthis
`preliminaryresponse,under37C.F.R.§42.107,toPetitionerSony
`ComputerEntertainmentAmericaLLC’s(“SCEA’s”)petitionfor inter partes
`review.SCEAhasfailedtomeetitsburdenofdemonstratingthattrialis
`requiredoneachofseveralthegroundsitraisesperclaim.Infact,for
`multipleproposedgrounds,SCEAfailstosupportitsassertionswithany
`referencetothecitedpriorart.AplixrespectfullysuggeststhattheBoard
`shouldnotinstituteareviewofthemanyredundantandunsupported
`groundsofferedinthepetitionandviatheexpertdeclarationsubmitted
`withthepetition.Finally,andinthealternative,totheextentthatthe
`BoardinstitutesanyreviewofU.S.PatentNo.7,667,692(“the’692patent”)
`itshouldrejectthepetition’sproposedclaimconstruction.
`Beginningin2003,agroupofMassachusettsinventorsledbyDr.
`BethMarcus,developedinteractive-designtechnologiesforimprovingdata
`entry,control,andgame-playonhand-helddevicesandhostdevices.1
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’692 PATENT
`
`II.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Amongotheradvancements,Dr.Marcusandherteamdeployed
`configurableinputsystemsandelementsonmultiplesurfacesofahand-
`helddevice,implementinguniquecombinationsofandapplicationsfor
`particulartypesofinputelements.2Theteamalsodesignedhand-held
`accessorydevicesthatwouldenableuserstoremotelyoperate(andplay
`videogameson)cellphonesandtabletdevices.3
`Marcusandherteamappliedforpatentsontheirinventions,and,
`afterathoroughreview,theUnitedStatesPatent&TrademarkOffice
`awardedthemseveralpatents,including,onFebruary23,2010,the’692
`patent,titled“HumanInterfaceSystem.”4ThispatentwasassignedtoDr.
`Marcus’company,Zeemote,Inc.,aBoston-areastart-up,whichsoughtto
`commercializethetechnology.5Aplix,aJapaneseoperatingcompany,later
`acquiredZeemote’sassets,includingthe’692patent.6
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`2
`Ex.2001at¶2
`3
`Ex.2001at¶15.
`4
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`5
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`6
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`The’692patentclaimsmethodsforconfiguringasystemforusewith
`ahosthand-heldelectronicdeviceincludingfirst-andsecond-surfaceinput
`elements,atleastoneofeachsurface’sinputelementsbeingconfiguredto
`maptooneormoreofanapplication’sinputfunctions.7Theclaimsrequire
`thatthesurfaces’inputassembliesbearrangedinsubstantialoppositionto
`eachother(claim1)andthattheapplication’sfunctionsbemappedbased
`onthefinger-thumboppositionofthehumanhand(claim12).Dependent
`claims3and13addasensorpadwithdelineatedactiveareas.Theissued
`claimsreflectthatDr.Marcus’andherteam’sinnovationswerewellahead
`oftheirtimeintheinfancyofthesmartphoneworld.
`Atthethreshold,SCEAfailstosetforthevidenceorargument
`commensuratewithitsassertions.Inparticular,severalproposedgrounds
`arenotsupportedbyanyevidenceinthepetition’sclaimcharts.Inthis
`manner,SCEAimproperlyplacestheburdenontheBoardandAplixto
`guesshowassertedreferencesarebeingappliedbySCEAineachground.
`See37C.F.R.42.104(b)(2)(4); Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,IPR2014-
`Ex.1001atclaims1and12.
`7
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
`MULTIPLE GROUNDS.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`00347,Paper9at24-25; Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054,Paper12at10-11.
`Thisproblempervadesthepetition’sclaimcharts.Forexample,the
`petitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofArmstrongrendersclaims1,2,3,
`5,7,8,9,and10obvious.8Thepetition,however,doesnotmapanypartof
`Armstrongtotheseclaims.Rather,itsimplyasksthatevidencefrom
`Liebenowalonebeusedtorejecttheseclaimsoverthecombinationof
`LiebenowandArmstrong.9Thereareseveralotherinstancesofsimilarly
`unsupportedcombinations:
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofHedbergrenders
`claims1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,and20
`obvious,butpresentsnoevidencemappinganypartofHedberg
`totheseclaims.10
`
`PaperNo.2(petition)at27-30.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at27-30.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at30-32.
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
` ThepetitionassertsthatGriffininviewofArmstrongrenders
`claims1,2,7,8,9,and10obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofArmstrongtotheseclaims.11
` ThepetitionassertsthatGriffininviewofHedbergrenders
`claims1,2,7,8,9,10,12,15,16,17,18,and20obvious,but
`presentsnoevidencemappinganypartofHedbergtothese
`claims.12
` ThepetitionassertsthatRekimotoinviewofLiebenowrenders
`claims5,7,8,9,10,15,16,18,and20obvious,butpresentsno
`evidencemappinganypartofRekimotototheseclaims.13
`Makingtheseassertionswithoutevidenceorexplanation
`improperlyshiftsthePetitioner’sburdenontothePatentOwnertoguess
`howtheassertedreferencesarebeingappliedbythePetitioner.And
`beyondthisdispositivefailuretopresentevidence,thepetitionalso
`presentsextensiveredundancies,detailedinthenextsection.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at45-46.
`11
`PaperNo.2(petition)at46-47.
`12
`PaperNo.2(petition)at47-59.
`13
`
`5
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION’S REDUNDANT GROUNDS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
`CONSIDERATION.
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`CongresshasdirectedtheBoardtoconsider“theefficient
`administrationoftheOffice,andtheabilityoftheOfficetotimelycomplete
`proceedings....”35U.S.C.§326(b).Pursuanttothiscongressional
`mandate,andtopromoteefficiency,theBoardhaspromulgated
`regulations,oneofwhichrequirespetitionerstoprovide“[a]fullstatement
`ofthereasonsforthereliefrequested,includingadetailedexplanationof
`thesignificanceoftheevidenceincludingmaterialfacts,andthegoverning
`law,rules,andprecedent.”37C.F.R.§42.22(a)(2).
`Here,SCEAaskstheBoardtoreview18claimspursuantto95
`distinctgrounds,raisingasmanyaseightseparategroundsperclaim.Yet
`SCEAfailstodischargeitsobligationtoexplain,withdetailedargument,
`whythe“just,speedy,andinexpensiveresolution”ofthisproceeding
`requirestrialoneachofseveralthegroundsitraisesperclaim,asrequired
`by37C.F.R.§42.1(b).
`TheBoardhasconcludedthat“multiplegrounds,whichare
`presentedinaredundantmannerbyapetitionerwhomakesno
`meaningfuldistinctionbetweenthem,arecontrarytotheregulatoryand
`statutorymandates,andthereforearenotentitledtoconsideration.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,CBM2012-00003,
`Paper7at2.Toassessthisissue,theBoardhasemphasizedthat“[t]he
`properfocusofaredundancydesignationisonwhetherPetitioner
`articulatesameaningfuldistinctionintermsofrelativestrengthand
`weaknesseswithrespecttotheapplicationofthepriorartdisclosuresto
`oneormoreclaimlimitations,” Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications,
`Inc.,IPR2013-00288,Paper23at4,and“notonwhethertheappliedprior
`artdisclosureshavedifferences,foritisrarelythecasethatthedisclosures
`ofdifferentpriorartreferenceswillbeliterallyidentical,” Raymarine, Inc. v.
`Navico Holding AS,IPR2013-00355,Paper21at3(emphasisadded).
`Applyingtheseprinciples,theBoardhasrefusedtoconsidergroundswhen
`aPetitionerfailstoexplain“whythegroundsofunpatentabilitybased,in
`wholeorinpart,”ononepieceofpriorartare“strongerorweakerthanthe
`groundsofunpatentabilityon”otherpieces. Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4.
`TheBoardhasidentifiedtwotypesofredundancies,bothofwhich
`areimproperandbothofwhicharepresentinthepetition.Thefirst
`type—verticalredundancy—involvesmorethanonepieceofpriorart
`appliedbothinpartialcombinationandinfullcombinationtoinvalidatea
`claim,whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Liberty Mutual,
`
`7
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The petition improperly presents vertically redundant
`grounds.
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3.Thesecond—horizontalredundancy—
`“involvesapluralityofprior-artreferencesappliednotincombinationto
`complementeachotherbutasdistinctandseparatealternatives,”again
`whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Id.SCEA’sproposed
`groundsareredundantinbothways.
`SCEAassertsatleast45verticallyredundantgroundsforreview.
`Verticalredundancyexistswhenadditionalreferencesareaddedtoabase
`referenceorcombinationofreferenceswithoutanyapparentorexplained
`needfortheaddition(i.e.,thebasereferenceorcombinationofreferences
`isalreadyallegedtodiscloseallelementsoftheclaim,andnoweaknesses
`areidentifiedforthebasereferenceorcombinationofreferences). See,
`e.g., Liberty Mutual,CBM2012-00003,PaperNo.7,Orderat12.Whena
`petitionassertsverticallyredundantgrounds,itmustexplain“whythe
`relianceinpartmaybethestrongerassertionasappliedincertain
`circumstances andwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethestronger
`assertioninotherinstances.” Id.at3(emphasisinoriginal).
`TheBoardhasspecificallyruledthatwhenbothanticipationand
`obviousnessgroundsarealleged,theobviousnessgroundisredundantand
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`shouldbedismissed. See, e.g., Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,IPR2013-
`00075,Paper8at13-14(findingthatobviousnessgroundsinvolvingthe
`combinationoftheSchilitreferencewithoneormoreadditionalreferences
`wereredundantinviewofanticipationgroundsbasedontheSchilit
`referencealone).
`Thepetitionallegesverticallyredundantgroundsofboth
`anticipationandobviousnessforclaimsasreflectedinthechartbelow:
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`--------------------
`--------------------------------------------
`Griffin
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`--------------------
`--------------------------------------------
`Rekimoto
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`1
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`2
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`--------------------
`Rekimoto
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Rekimoto
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`
`3
`
`7
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`IPR2015-00229
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`----------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`----------------------------------------
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`-----------------------------------------
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`8
`
`9
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`Liebenow
`---------------------
`Griffin
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`--------------------
`Rekimoto
`
`10
`
`12
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`IPR2015-00229
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofArmstrong;
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`13
`
`15
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Rekimoto
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`--------------------
`Rekimoto
`Liebenow
`--------------------
`Griffin
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`IPR2015-00229
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`RekimotoinviewofLiebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`------------------------------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`
`12
`
`
`
`20
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`Liebenow
`------------------------------------------
`--------------------
`GriffininviewofHedberg
`Griffin
`AstheBoard’sdecisionsdiscussedabovemakeclear,ifthepetitionis
`goingtoassertthatLiebenowanticipatesclaims1-3,7-10,12,13,15-18,
`and20(asitdoes),andthenalsoarguethatthoseclaimsareobviousin
`lightofvariouscombinationsofreferences(asitdoes),thenthepetition
`mustexplaintherelativemeritsofthesearguments.Thesamerule
`governsSCEA’sassertionthatGriffinanticipatesclaims1,2,7-10,12,15-
`18and20,andRekimotoanticipatesclaims1-3,12,13and17wherethose
`claimsarealsoassertedtobeobviousinlightofacombinationof
`references,includingthebasereference.Tosupporteachoftheseclaims,
`Petitionermustexplain,“whytherelianceinpartmaybethestronger
`assertionasappliedincertaincircumstances andwhythereliancein
`wholemayalsobethestrongerassertioninotherinstances.” Liberty
`Mutual,CBM2012-00003,PaperNo.7,Orderat3(emphasisinoriginal).
`Thisthepetitiondoesnotdo.ItmakesnoefforttoexplainwhytheBoard
`shouldexpendfiniteresourcestoadjudicateitsobviousnessarguments,
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`13
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The petition improperly presents horizontally redundant
`grounds.
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`givenitsanticipationarguments.Forthisreason,theBoardshoulddecline
`toconsiderSCEA’sgroundsB,C,E,F,andG14withrespecttotheseclaims.
`SCEA’sclaimedgroundsarehorizontallyredundantwithrespectto
`atleastclaims1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,18,and20.Horizontal
`redundancyoccurswhenmultiplereferencesarerelieduponto“provide
`essentiallythesameteachingtomeetthesameclaimlimitation,andthe
`associatedargumentsdonotexplainwhyonereferencemoreclosely
`satisfiestheclaimlimitationatissueinsomerespectsthananother
`reference, andviceversa.” Liberty Mutual,CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3
`(emphasisinoriginal).TheBoard’sinstructionsareclear—ifone
`alternativegroundisbetterfromallperspectives,thenthepetitionshould
`notburdenthePatentOwnerandtheBoardwiththeweakerground.And
`ifthereisnodifferenceinthegrounds,thepetitionshouldassertonlyone
`ofthegrounds. Id.at12.“OnlyifthePetitionerreasonablyarticulateswhy
`eachgroundhasstrengthandweaknessrelativetotheothershouldboth
`groundsbeassertedforconsideration.” Id.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at27-59(sectionsIV.B-IV.G).
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Here,SCEAproposestherejectionofclaims1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,12,
`13,15,16,17,18,and20undermultiplesetsofreferences:
`i)
`usingLiebenowastheprimaryreference;
`ii)
`usingGriffinastheprimaryreference;and/or
`iii)
`usingRekimotoastheprimaryreference.
`Thechartbelowdemonstratesthisoverlap:
`Liebenow;
`Griffin;
`Rekimoto;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Griffininviewof
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Armstrong;
`Liebenow
`Liebenowinviewof
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg;
`Hedberg
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`Liebenow;
`Griffin;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Griffininviewof
`Armstrong;
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Hedberg
`
`Rekimoto;
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Claim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`Primary reference)
`
`Ground
`(Griffin as the
`primary reference)
`
`Ground
`(Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`3
`
`5
`
`7
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`Primary reference)
`
`Ground
`(Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00229
`Rekimoto;
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Ground
`(Griffin as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Armstrong;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`
`16
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`8
`
`9
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`10 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Armstrong;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`12 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`Primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00229
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Ground
`(Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Rekimoto;
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Ground
`(Griffin as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Armstrong;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Armstrong;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Armstrong;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`Primary reference)
`
`Claim
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`13 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`15 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`16 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`17 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`18 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`20 Liebenow;
`Liebenowinviewof
`Hedberg
`
`Ground
`(Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00229
`Rekimoto;
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimoto;
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`Rekimotoinviewof
`Liebenow
`
`Ground
`(Griffin as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`Griffin;
`Griffininviewof
`Hedberg
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Thepetitiondoesnotexplain“therelativestrengthsorweaknesses
`betweentheappliedpriorartreferences.” Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4.Nordoesthepetitionexplainwhyanyofthemultiple
`referencesisa“betterreferencethantheothertworeferences.” Liberty
`Mutual,CBM2012-00003,at9.Tothecontrary,thepetitionmakesno
`attempttomeetthisburden.Andevenbeyondthisfailure,thepetition
`alsooffersnodistinctionsbetweenthevariouscombinationswithrespect
`totheseclaims.AddingArmstrongandHedbergtobothLiebenowand
`Griffinaddsstillanadditionallayerofrepetition.Petitioner,however,
`parrotsnearlyidenticaljustifications.Forexample,Petitionerexplains:
` “UponreadingthedisclosuresofHedberg,askilledartisanwould
`haverecognizedthattheadditionofagyroscopeoranaccelerometer
`wouldincreasethedesirabilityofthesystemdescribedinLiebenow
`duetoincreasedsensingcapabilitiestherebyimprovingsimilar
`devicesinthesameway.”15
` “UponreadingthedisclosuresofHedberg,askilledartisanwould
`haverecognizedthattheadditionofagyroscopeoranaccelerometer
`PaperNo.2(petition)at31.
`15
`
`19
`
`
`
`V.
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`wouldincreasethedesirabilityofthehand-heldelectronicdeviceof
`Griffinduetoincreasedsensingcapabilitiestherebyimproving
`similardevicesinthesameway.”16
`Inthesecircumstances,SCEAhasnotmetitsburdentodistinguish
`overlappingprior-artreferences.Tothecontrary,SCEAreliesonthesame
`justificationstoassertseparateanddistinctgrounds.Forthesereasons,
`theBoardshoulddeclinetoconsiderthepetition’sgroundsD-G.17
`TheBoardhasclarifiedthat“apartymaynotmakeitscasewithin
`thedeclarationofanexpert”and“[i]tisimproperforanyargumenttobe
`fullydevelopedandpresented,notintheparty’spaperitself,butinthe
`declarationofanexpert.” BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v.
`Cheeta Omni, LLC,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at23.Ignoringthisdirective,
`thepetitionrepeatedlyincorporatesthedeclarationofSCEA’sproffered
`expert,Dr.GregoryWelch,anddirectstheBoardtodeclarationparagraphs
`presentingmuchmoreexpansiveexplanationandargument.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at46.
`16
`PaperNo.2(petition)at32-59(sectionsIV.D-IV.G).
`17
`
`THE PETITION IMPROPERLY RELIES ON ARGUMENTS
`PRESENTED IN AN EXPERT’S DECLARATION.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Forexample,thepetitionassertsthat“itwouldhavebeenobviousto
`apersonhavingordinaryskillintheartatthetimeofthe‘692Patentto
`incorporateaninputelementwitha‘resilientdomecap’astaughtby
`ArmstrongintotheinformationappliancetaughtbyLiebenow.”18Forthis
`conclusion,thepetitioncitesDr.Welch’sdeclaration,paragraphs39-41.A
`readerturningtotheseparagraphsuncoversatwo-pageexplanationfor
`thissentence,includingreferencetothedeclaration’s7-page“Background
`oftheTechnology,”section.19Thusfortheonesentenceoftreatmentthat
`thepetitiondedicatestotheimportanttopicoftheobviousnessof
`incorporatingArmstrongintoLiebenow,thepetitionincorporatesthree
`paragraphsfromtheexpert’sdeclarationandthedeclaration’s
`“BackgroundofTechnology.”Plainly,theargumentis“fullydevelopedand
`presented,notintheparty’spaperitself,butinthedeclarationofan
`expert,”whichtheBoard’s BAEdecisionrecognizedisimproper.
`Thepetitionmirrorsthisapproachthroughout.20Indeed,the33-
`pageexpertdeclarationincreasesthelengthofSCEA’ssubmissionbyover
`PaperNo.2(petition)at28-29(citingWelchDecl.¶¶39-41.)
`18
`Ex.1008(WelchDecl.)at20-21.
`19
`See, e.g.,PaperNo.2(petition)at31,45,46,48,and50.
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`53%.Insuchcircumstances,theBoardhasnothesitatedtofindthata
`petitionerhasfailedtomeetitsburdeninanappropriatemanner. See, e.g.,
`BAE Sys. Info.,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at24.
`PatentOwneraskstheBoardtorejectPetitioner’sproposed
`constructionof“delineatedactiveareas.”Atthethreshold,SCEAoffersno
`explanationforitsproposedconstructionofdelineatedactiveareas—
`includingwhyconstructionisnecessaryorevenrelevanttotheprior-art
`positionsPetitioneradvances.Infact,SCEA’s“delineatedactiveareas”
`constructionisrelevant,ifatall,onlytonon-infringementargumentsit
`mayadvanceinlitigationagainstAplix.SCEA’sinfringingdevicesmake
`extensiveuseofdelineatedactiveareas.Aplix’sinfringementpositionsdo
`notrelyongraphicalortactiledepictionofthoseareastotheuseronSCEA
`devicesbecausesuchreliancewouldimplyaninterpretationthatis
`contrarytothespecification.Byseekinganinterpretationthatrequires
`somethingbeyondthedelineationofthoseareasinsoftware,SCEAis
`improperlyusingthisforumtotrytonarrowtheclaimsandbolsterits
`non-infringementdefense.AplixrequeststhattheBoarddiscouragethis
`tacticanddeclinetoconstrue“delineatedactiveareas”atthistime.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`AddressingthesubstanceofSCEA’sproposedconstruction,SCEA
`contendsthat“delineatedactiveareas”shouldbeconstruedtomean“areas
`thataredifferentiatedfromeachothereitherphysicallyortactilelyto
`assisttheuserinlocatingthepositiononthesensorpadoftheactive
`areas.”21Neithertheclaimlanguagenortherestofthe’692patent’s
`specificationsupportsSCEA’sinterpretation.
`Regarding“physically,”SCEAgivestwoexamplesfromthe’692
`patentofwhatSCEAreferstoas“physicallydepictingtheareastothe
`user”:
`“Inoneexample,delineatedactiveareasincludeoblongshaped
`buttons.”22
`“Alternatively,theactiveareascanbephysicallydepictedon
`thedisplayofthehandhelddeviceinordertoassisttheuserin
`locatingthedifferentactiveareasofthepad.”23
`Regarding“tactilely,”SCEAidentifiesaportionofthespecification
`thatdescribesuseofashape-changingmediato“allow‘theusertotactilely
`discriminatebetweentheoneormoredelineatedactiveareas.’”24
`PaperNo.2(petition)at8.
`21
`Id.at7(citingEx.1001,9:24-40andFigure3d’selements372).
`22
`Id.(citingEx.1001,10:1-7).
`23
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`SCEAusestheaboveexamplestoconflate“delineation”ofanactive
`areawithoptionaltechniquesforhelpingtheuserlocateadelineated
`activearea.Butthe’692specificationnowheresuggeststhatthese
`optionaltechniquesarenecessaryforcreatingadelineatedactivearea.In
`fact,the’692specificationrepeatedlyclarifiesthatdepictingthedelineated
`activeareastotheuserisdistinctfromactuallycreatingthedelineated
`activeareas.
`Fromtheoutset,thepetitioncreatesconfusionbyusingtheword
`“buttons”toreferenceelements372ofFigure3d,perhapsinaneffortto
`implythatthoseareasaredescribedinthespecificationasnecessarily
`beingphysicallydepictedtotheuser.However,thespecificationrefersto
`elements372onlyas“oblongshapedactiveareas,”notas“buttons.”25
`Moreover,Figure3doutlineselements372usingstandarddashedlines,
`which,asshownintheManualofPatentExaminingProcedure(MPEP),are
`conventionallyusedfor“hiddenlines.” SeeMPEP608.02IX.Thusthereis
`nothingtosuggestthatareas372are,bythemselves,physicallydepictedto
`Id.at7-8(citingEx.1001,9:62-10:1)(internalquotationmarks
`24
`added).
`See, e.g.,Ex.1001,9:44.
`25
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`theuserasbuttons.Rather,itisonlythroughtheoptionaluseofshape-
`changingmediathat“theuserwillabletoperceivetheoneormore
`delineatedactiveareasasiftheywerephysicalbuttons.”26
`Thepetitionimproperlyimpliesthatthedelineatedactiveareasexist
`onlybyvirtueofbeingrepresentedonadisplayorotherwisephysically
`depictedtotheuser.However,thespecificationportioncitedbySCEA
`makesclearthatthereferencedareasaredelineatedapartfromwhetheror
`nottheyaregraphicallyrepresentedonadisplay.The’692patentstates
`that“acomputergraphicalrepresentation(notshown)oftheconfiguration
`of the delineated active areasofthepad354maybedisplayedtemporarily
`(or[at]somepredeterminedtime)onaportionofthedisplay330to
`visuallyassisttheuser in locating where the delineated active areas of
`the pad are positioned.”27Thespecificationdoesnotdescribe“active
`areas”thatbecome“delineated”onlybyvirtueofagraphical
`representation.Rather,thegraphicalrepresentationisofthe“delineated
`activeareas.”
`Ex.1001,9:67-10:1.
`26
`Ex.1001,10:1-7(emphasisadded).
`27
`
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Attheendoftheparagraphcitedinthepetition,the’692
`specificationmakesclearthatthegraphicalrepresentationfeatureis
`optionalandcould,inoneembodiment,beactivatedordeactivatedbythe
`user:
`“Moreover,aninputelement342ofthefirstinput
`assembly340maybemapped to activate and/or
`deactivate the displayingofthecomputer
`graphicalrepresentation.28
`Nowheredoesthespecificationsuggestthatturningoffsuchafeature
`wouldsomehowmeanthatthedelineatedactiveareasnolongerexist.
`Rather,similartotheoptionaluseof“shapechangingmedia,”graphical
`displayofthedelineatedactiveareasissimplyanotheroptionalfeatureto
`helptheusermoreeasilyfindthoseareas.
`Thespecificationmakesclearthatformationofdelineatedactive
`areasshowninFigure3ddoesnotdependonphysicaldepictionofthose
`areastotheuser,butratherdependsontheareasbeingmappedin
`softwaretodifferentapplicationfunctions:“AsshowninFIG.3d,the
`pressuresensorpad354maybeconfiguredinsoftwaretorepresentone
`ormoredelineatedactiveareascorrespondingtodifferentprogrammable
`SeeEx.1001,10:7-9(emphasisadded).
`28
`
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`functionsdependingontheapplication.”29Thepatentreferstothoseareas
`asbeing“delineatedactiveareas”byvirtueofthissoftware-configured
`mappingbetweenareasofthetouchpadandprogrammablefunctionsofan
`application.Givendelineatedactiveareasdefinedinthismanner,optional
`additionalfeaturesmayalsobepresent,suchasagraphicaldisplayor
`shape-changingmedia,tohelpshowtheuserthelocationofthedelineated
`activeareas.Butthosefeaturesthemselvesarenotwhatcreate“delineated
`activeareas”withinthemeaningoftheclaim.
`ShouldtheBoarddiscernanyinstitutablegroundofthepresent
`Petition,PatentOwnerAplixreservesanyandallrightstorespondtothe
`claimconstructions,arguments,exhibits,andsupportingdeclaration
`materialssubmittedtotheBoard.
`TheBoardshouldnotinstitutean inter partesreviewofthe’692
`patentbasedonthepetition’sunsupportedandredundantpositionsand
`Ex.1001,9:24-27.
`29
`
`VII. PATENT OWNER RESERVES ALL RIGHTS TO RESPOND FURTHER
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`27
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`misuseofanexpertdeclaration,andshouldnotadoptthepetition’s
`proposedclaimconstructionfor“delineatedactiveareas.”
`Dated:March3,2015.
`By:
`/RobertJGilbertson/
`RobertJ.Gilbertson(prohacvice)
`SybilL.Dunlop(prohacvice)
`X.KevinZhao(prohacvice)
`GREENEESPELPLLP
`222SouthNinthStreet,Suite2200
`Minneapolis,MN55402
`Telephone:(612)373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612)373-0929
`E-mail:
`BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
`SDunlop@GreeneEspel.com
`KZhao@GreeneEspel.com
`MichaelMauriel,USPTOReg.No.44,226
`ShermanW.Kahn(prohacvice)
`MAURIELKAPOUYTIANWOODSLLP
`27W.24thStreet,ThirdFloor
`NewYork,NY10010
`Telephone:(212)529-5131
`Facsimile:
`(212)529-5132
`E-mail: mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`28
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-00229
`U.S.PatentNo.7,667,692
`Pursuantto37C.F.R.§42.6,Iherebycertifythatonthis3rddayof
`March2015,theforegoingPatentOwnerAplixIPHoldingsCorporation’s
`PreliminaryResponseisbeingservedelectronicallyviaemailonthecounselof
`recordforPetitionerlistedbelow.Iamalsoservingonthesamedateacopyvia
`USmaildeposittothecounselofrecordforPetitionerlistedbelow.
`EricA.Buresh(Reg.No.50,394)
`AbranJ.Kean(Reg.No.58,540)
`Eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`PostalandHand-DeliveryAddress:
`PostalandHand-DeliveryAddress:
`ERISEIP,P.A.
`ERISEIP,P.A.
`6201CollegeBlvd.,Suite300
`5600GreenwoodPlazaBlvd.,Suite200
`OverlandPark,Kansas66211
`GreenwoodVillage,Colorado80111
`Telephone:(913)777-5600
`Telephone:(913)777-5600
`Fax:(913)777-5601
`Fax:(913)777-5601
`/SybilL.Dunlop/
`Dated: March3,2015.
`SybilL.Dunlop
`GREENEESPELPLLP
`222SouthNinthStreet,Suite2200
`Minneapolis,MN55402
`Telephone:
`(612)373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612)373-0929
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`29