UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00229
`Patent 7,667,692
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY F. WELCH
`
`
`
`
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00229
`Patent 7,667,692
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY F. WELCH
`
`
`
`
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Gregory F. Welch, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. I have also attached a current version of
`
`my Curriculum Vitae as Exhibit 1009.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Florida Hospital Endowed Chair in Healthcare Simulation at
`
`the University of Central Florida (UCF) with appointments in the College of
`
`Nursing, the Computer Science Division of the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science, and the Institute for Simulation & Training. I
`
`am also an Adjunct Professor of Computer Science at the University of North
`
`Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), a Visiting Professor in the School of Information
`
`and Library Studies at University College Dublin (Ireland), and a Visiting
`
`Professor in the Graduate School of Media Design at Keio University (Japan).
`
`3.
`
`In 1986 I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Technology from Purdue
`
`University (with Highest Distinction), in 1995 I received a M.S. in Computer
`
`Science from UNC, and in 1997 I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from
`
`UNC.
`
`4.
`
`Previously I have been a Research Professor at the University of North
`
`Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Senior Engineer at Northrop-Grumman’s Defense
`
`Systems Division where I worked on the AN/ALQ-135 electronic countermeasures
`
`system for the U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle, and a member of the technical staff of
`
`
`
`1
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory where I worked on the Voyager Spacecraft
`
`project.
`
`5. My current research interests include human motion tracking systems,
`
`three-dimensional (3D) telepresence, projector-based graphics, computer vision
`
`and view synthesis, and medical applications of computers for training,
`
`assessment, and practice. I have co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications
`
`in these areas, and I am a co-inventor on multiple patents. I currently supervise
`
`over $2M in research funding (active grants at UCF and UNC), and am jointly
`
`responsible for over $23M in grants overall since 1996, from (for example) the
`
`Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), The
`
`National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (NIH-NLM), the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of
`
`Energy (DOE), and private companies—all involving multi-disciplinary and multi-
`
`institutional projects.
`
`6.
`
`I have co-chaired major academic conferences (including IEEE
`
`ISMAR 2012 and Virtual Reality 2013), served on numerous program committees,
`
`co-chaired workshops, and serve as a peer reviewer for many conferences and
`
`journals. I serve on the editorial board of the International Journal of Virtual
`
`Reality, and I am an Associate Editor for the journal Presence: Teleoperators and
`
`
`
`2
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Virtual Environments, and an Associate Editor for the journal Frontiers in Virtual
`
`Environments.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the IEEE Computer Society, the Association for
`
`Computing Machinery (ACM), the Southern Nursing Research Society (SNRS),
`
`the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation & Learning
`
`(INACSL), and the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH).
`
`8. My work in human interface systems and the associated the computer-
`
`based sensing (e.g., hardware, software, sources/sensors, signal processing, and
`
`algorithms) goes back at least to the early 1980s when I was an undergraduate at
`
`Purdue University, e.g., with the co-development of an environmentally aware
`
`“smart wheelchair” for children with Cerebral Palsy. Fellow student and co-
`
`developer James Williams and I received an “Outstanding Senior Design Project
`
`award for “The Easy Chair” in 1986. One of my core contributions to the
`
`wheelchair project was the development of a novel customizable touch pad to be
`
`used by the children to control the wheelchair. The touch pad was customizable to
`
`allow caregivers to design an interface that was tailored to each child and their
`
`unique (limited) affordances.
`
`9. My work in computer-based sensing continued into the late 1980s and
`
`early 1990s when I worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (the Voyager
`
`Project) and Northrop-Grumman’s Defense Systems Division (a radar jammer). In
`
`
`
`3
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`particular in 1992 I attended graduate school at the University of North Carolina at
`
`Chapel Hill (UNC) where I studied/worked under the direction of Prof. Gary
`
`Bishop and others as a graduate student. My Ph.D. work, which I completed in
`
`1996, introduced a new Kalman filter-based Single Constraint at a Time (SCAAT)
`
`approach to sensing for applications such as human motion tracking in Virtual
`
`Environments. It was one of the critical aspects of the HiBall system for tracking
`
`heads, hands, and user interface devices. This system was commercialized by
`
`3rdTech and sold until approximately 2012.
`
`10. While a research faculty member at UNC from 1996-2011, I co-led/led
`
`the Tracker Research Group, the 3D Computer Vision Group, and the Office of the
`
`Future Group. This includes conception and acquisition of contracts and grants;
`
`leading the subsequent research efforts; advising students; serving on Ph.D.
`
`committees; etc. In the mid-to-late 1990s I co-developed methods for tracking
`
`human motion by combining measurements from cameras that recognize and track
`
`natural features in the environment, with inertial and other sensing devices
`
`(accelerometers and gyros). Along the way I have developed human interface
`
`devices for research (e.g., physician interfaces for medical visualization and
`
`telepresence), and supervised the development of human interface devices by
`
`students in a Virtual Worlds course at UNC.
`
`
`
`4
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Presently I am leading the development of several human interface
`
`projects related to healthcare simulation and training at UCF. For example, we
`
`recently developed a system that comprises a plastic model of a human head with
`
`rear-projected dynamic (live) animated facial imagery, and whole-head touch
`
`sensing for medical training, e.g., to train healthcare professionals in the diagnosis
`
`of strokes. We are also working on a full-body version of the same (an entire
`
`“Physical-Virtual Patient Bed”).
`
`12. While
`
`leading
`
`research at UNC and UCF,
`
`I have co-
`
`developed/prototyped many sensing systems associated with human user
`
`interfaces, including systems that used cameras and image processing/computer
`
`vision techniques to recognize and track features and objects (both natural and
`
`instrumented) for applications such as human motion tracking, vehicle tracking
`
`(for 3D environment mapping), Augmented Reality, and automatic camera-
`
`projector calibration.
`
`13. Handheld devices have been used in the field of Augmented Reality
`
`for almost as long as the field has existed, and I have been engaged in the research
`
`community for almost that long, reviewing papers, co-offering tutorials on related
`
`topics, and organizing conferences. My personal research has also included
`
`handheld devices. For example, in 1995, I authored a paper surveying power
`
`management techniques for mobile (i.e., handheld) devices. I have also developed
`
`
`
`5
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`systems for remote medical consultation using handheld mobile devices, such as
`
`PDAs, and associated methods for novel tracking and interaction.
`
`14.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Petitioner. As part of
`
`my work in connection with this proceeding, I have analyzed the following:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692 (Ex. 1001)
`• File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692 (Ex. 1002)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0118175 to Liebenow et al.
`(Ex. 1003);
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,469,691 to Armstrong (Ex. 1004);
`• International Publication No. WO1999/18495 to Hedberg (Ex. 1005);
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0020692 to Griffin et al.
`(Ex. 1006);
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,088,342 to Rekimoto et al. (Ex. 1007);
`• Jenny Preece, Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, David Benyon, Simon
`Holland, and Tom Carey, Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-
`Wesley (1994) (Ex. 1011);
`• More calculators thinking Polish as a famous pioneer faces some rough
`competition, IEEE Spectrum p. 77 (April 1975) (Ex. 1012);
`• Michael McCandless, The PalmPilot and the handheld revolution, IEEE
`Expert pp. 6-8 (November/December 1997) (Ex. 1013);
`• PalmPilotTM Handbook, 3Com Corporation (1997) (Ex. 1014);
`• Neil J. Salkind, PalmPilotTM and PalmTM Organizers! I Didn’t Know You
`Could Do That…TM, Sybex Inc. (2000) (Ex. 1015);
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,543,588 to Bisset et al. (Ex. 1016);
`• Ivan Poupyrev, Shigeaki Maruyama, Jun Rekimoto, Ambient Touch:
`Designing Tactile Interfaces for Handheld Devices, UIST’02 October 27-
`30, 2002 ACM, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 51-60 (Ex. 1017);
`• C. Verplaetse, Inertial proprioceptive devices: Self-motion-sensing toys
`and tools, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 35, Nos. 3&4, 1996, pp. 639-650
`(Ex. 1018);
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,878,276 to Aebli et al (Ex. 1019);
`• Microsoft Computer Dictionary 5th Edition, Microsoft Corporation
`(2002) (Ex. 1020).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`A.
`Inherency
`15.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`
`have been informed that the implicit or inherent disclosures of a prior art reference
`
`may anticipate the claimed invention. Specifically, if a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that the claimed
`
`subject matter is necessarily present in a prior art reference, then the prior art
`
`reference may “anticipate” the claim. Therefore, a claim is “anticipated” by the
`
`prior art if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single item of prior art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`16. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on
`
`an invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether prior art references render a claim obvious, counsel has
`
`informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3)
`
`the level of skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight.
`
`
`
`7
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done through the eyes of one of skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`17.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to
`
`consider the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in
`
`the art would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications,
`
`journal articles, industry standards, product literature and documentation, texts
`
`describing competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard
`
`setting organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of
`
`the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the
`
`type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the United States Supreme Court’s most recent
`
`statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was stated in
`
`2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of an
`
`explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`Thus, the teaching suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim
`
`is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid.
`
` I further understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
`
`demands known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I understand that the
`
`prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need
`
`not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the problem
`
`addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves
`
`need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. Under the KSR
`
`obviousness standard, common sense is important and should be considered.
`
`
`
`9
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I
`
`further understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
`
`obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`invention. I understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do
`
`more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the
`
`field at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art
`
`and the solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the
`
`technology in the field.
`
`
`
`10
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I understand that at least the following rationales may support a finding
`
`of obviousness:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`23.
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to
`implement;
`If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claim;
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`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 to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`
`
`11
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`24.
`
` I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art
`
`features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand
`
`that Patent Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`25. Computers have always required interfaces in order to interact with
`
`humans. In the beginning of the modern computing era (i.e., from the 1950s until
`
`the 1970s), users conventionally interacted with computers using punch cards.
`
`Exhibit 1011, Preece at pp. 4-5. At that time, computers were large, costly and ill
`
`
`
`12
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`suited for use by private individuals. Id. This limited the potential user pool to
`
`engineers, programmers, and scientists. Id. However, despite these limitations,
`
`early researchers were endeavoring to make computers more interactive and easier
`
`to use. Examples of early interactive computer systems and interfaces include the
`
`“Sketchpad” developed by Ivan Sutherland in 1963 (Sutherland, I. E. “Sketchpad:
`
`a man-machine graphical communication system,” in AFIPS ’63: Proceedings of
`
`the May 21-23, 1963, spring joint computer conference, pages 329–346, New
`
`York, NY, USA. ACM), the computer mouse by Doug Engelbart and William
`
`English in 1964 ("Display-Selection Techniques for Text Manipulation," William
`
`K. English, Douglas C. Engelbart, and Melvyn L. Berman, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Human Factors in Electronics, March 1967, Vol. HFE-8, No. 1, pp. 5-15), and the
`
`“Lincoln Wand” at MIT in 1966 (Roberts, L. G. (1966). The Lincoln Wand. In
`
`Proceedings of the November 7-10, 1966, fall joint computer conference, AFIPS
`
`’66, pages 223–227, New York, NY, USA. ACM).
`
`26. The community of researchers developing novel human user interfaces
`
`has been around a long time. The User Interface Software and Technology (UIST)
`
`symposium, sponsored by the Association of Computer Machinery (ACM) has
`
`been in existence since 1988. The Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) conference
`
`has been holding an annual conference since 1984, and the ACM Special Interest
`
`Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI) since 1982. The Graphics
`
`
`
`13
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Interface (GI) Conference—formerly known as the Canadian Man-Computer
`
`Communications Conference—has been in existence since 1969.
`
`27. The first personal computers were developed in the 1970s. Ex. 1011,
`
`Preece at p. 5. These computers were much smaller, less costly, and more
`
`interactive, which enabled their use by the general population. Id. Designers of
`
`early personal computers realized that in addition to reducing cost and size,
`
`computers needed well-designed interfaces in order to facilitate widespread use.
`
`Id. The notion of the “user interface” was developed in the 1970s, and computers
`
`with more “user-friendly” interfaces were found to be more successful in the
`
`marketplace. Id. at p. 7.
`
`28.
`
` The first handheld computing devices were pocket-sized scientific
`
`calculators developed by companies such as Hewlett Packard and Texas
`
`Instruments in the early 1970s. Ex. 1012, IEEE Spectrum, April 1975. Even at this
`
`time, it was recognized that the input elements (i.e., keys) needed to map to
`
`multiple input functions in order to provide the full range of functionality desired
`
`by the users. Id at p. 77 (“More functions without fumbling means most keys must
`
`do ‘double duty’ on advanced calculators such as the HP-21 (left) and the Corvus
`
`500 (right).”). General-purpose handheld computing devices started gaining
`
`popularity in the early 1990s and achieved widespread use when the first PalmPilot
`
`was introduced in 1996 by 3Com. Ex. 1013, McCandless at p. 6. The major
`
`
`
`14
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`contributing factors to the PalmPilot’s commercial success were its cost, size, and
`
`a simple user interface. Id. The PalmPilot came with several built-in applications,
`
`including a calendar, to do list, and address book, and also allowed users to install
`
`additional applications by enabling it to connect with a host PC using “HotSync”
`
`technology. Id. The “HotSync” technology also enabled users to synchronize
`
`records on the PalmPilot with records on the PC and perform other device
`
`management functions. Ex. 1014, PalmPilot Handbook at p. 141.
`
`29.
`
`It was also common for users to install game applications on their
`
`PalmPilots. Exhibit 1015, Salkind at pp. 180-193. Due to the limited number of
`
`input elements on the PalmPilot, input elements had to map to multiple game
`
`functions. In the game Galax, for example, the Up button moved the ship right
`
`during the game and also allowed the user to view a game options menu before the
`
`game started. Id. at pp. 184-185. Additionally, the same input element (e.g., the
`
`Up button) would map to different game functions for each game application. In
`
`the game BombRun, for example, the Up button mapped to the function of
`
`speeding up while in the Frogs vs. Cars game, the Up butted moved the position of
`
`the frog up. Id. at pp. 180-183.
`
`30. As discussed by McCandless, the marketplace demanded that handheld
`
`computing devices perform virtually any function that a normal computer could do
`
`and more. Ex. 1013, McCandless at p. 7. For example, users wanted to be able to
`
`
`
`15
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`access their e-mail from their handheld devices and program their VCRs. Id.
`
`Thus, market pressures drove handheld computing devices to become smaller and
`
`more user-friendly all while offering a greater range of functionality.
`
`31. A human-computer interface consists of input and output. The input
`
`interface enables users to effectively communicate their intentions to the computer
`
`in such a way that the computer can interpret them. Ex. 1011, Preece at p. 212.
`
`The PalmPilot input interface included a few buttons on the front side used for
`
`scrolling, accessing specific applications, and power control; a touchscreen display
`
`used for navigation; and a “Graffiti” pad that enabled the user to enter characters
`
`with a stylus. Ex. 1013, McCandless at p. 6; see also, Ex. 1014, PalmPilot
`
`Handbook at pp. 4-6. While this arrangement enabled the PalmPilot to be quite
`
`small (i.e., about the size of a wallet), it also required the user to learn a new
`
`alphabet in order for the “Graffiti” letter recognition system to work accurately.
`
`Ex. 1013, McCandless at p. 6. This design made text entry difficult for novice
`
`users. Ex. 1003 at [0003]. Designers sought to make handhelds even more user
`
`friendly so that the average user could readily use the device without having to
`
`spend too much time learning how to use it. Id. at [0003] -[0004].
`
`32.
`
`It was generally recognized that using touchscreen input mechanisms
`
`with any computing device created usability issues, including lack of precision,
`
`high error rates, fingers obscuring detain on the screen, and screen smudging. Ex.
`
`
`
`16
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1011, Preece at p. 218. Some of these problems were compounded when
`
`touchscreens were implemented on the small displays of handheld computing
`
`devices. For example, moving a finger or stylus across the surface of a small
`
`touchscreen display blocked the user’s view of a large portion of the screen.
`
`Exhibit 1016, Bisset at 4:16-21. In the early 1990s, designers recognized that
`
`placing touch-sensitive surfaces on the back of handheld devices could solve this
`
`problem. Id. at Abstract, 6:12-22, Fig. 17. Thus, the touch-sensitive surface could
`
`be used to select elements on the display in the same manner as the touchscreen
`
`display, but without blocking the user’s view of the screen. Id. at 6:36-63.
`
`33.
`
`It has also been long recognized that computing devices need to
`
`provide the appropriate system feedback in response to user inputs in order “to
`
`guide, reassure, inform and, if necessary, correct users’ errors.” Ex. 1011, Preece
`
`at pp. 212-213. The most common form of system feedback is visual feedback, but
`
`tactile feedback was also a well-known form of system feedback. Id. Tactile
`
`feedback could include the feel of a button being depressed or the feel of a
`
`vibration, for example. Indeed, researchers found that tactile feedback, including
`
`vibrational feedback, was more effective than visual feedback for handheld
`
`electronic devices. Exhibit 1017, Poupyrev at p. 51 (“Indeed, mobile devices are
`
`naturally at a close proximity to our skin . . . . Skin is the largest human sensory
`
`organ . . . . Mobile interfaces can utilize this. Tactile feedback also provides
`
`
`
`17
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`superior temporary discrimination, e.g., when rapidly successive data needs to be
`
`resolved, the feel of touch is about five times faster than vision.”). By the time of
`
`the ‘692 Patent, which counsel has informed me is October 31, 2003, “vibrotactile”
`
`actuators for handheld computing devices were well known. Id. at p. 51 (“Figure
`
`1: TouchEngineTM actuator – a new vibrotactile actuator for designing tactile
`
`interfaces for small handheld computing devices; it is only 0.5 mm thick.”).
`
`34. Handheld devices have also commonly included inertial sensors, such
`
`as accelerometers and gyroscopes, since at least the 1990s. For example,
`
`Verplaetse contemplated incorporating inertial sensors into a PDA in 1996 in order
`
`to enable the PDA to use motion as input. Exhibit 1018, Verplaetse at pp. 639-
`
`640. Verplaetse also recognized that advances in microelectromechanical system
`
`(MEMS) technologies in the early 1990s “enabled inertial sensors to be come
`
`available on the small size and price scales associated with such commonplace
`
`devices as consumer appliances.” Id. at p. 640.
`
`35. Prior to the ‘692 Patent, handheld devices also commonly included
`
`input/output (I/O) controllers that provided an interface between input elements
`
`such as touch panels, and the microprocessor. Exhibit 1019, Aebli at 6:25-41. Fig.
`
`5. It was well known that this type of arrangement was beneficial because it
`
`reduced processing demands on the microprocessor freeing it up to perform other
`
`tasks. Ex. 1020, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at p. 275.
`
`
`
`18
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`36.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ‘692 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, which
`
`counsel has informed me is October 31, 2003, I considered several factors,
`
`including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention, and
`
`considered the students who I had taught and with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a person
`
`with (1) an undergraduate degree in computer science, computer engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, or similar technical fields; (2) a working knowledge of
`
`computers - including handheld computing devices, and their processing, storage,
`
`hardware—including input devices, and software; (3) two to four years of
`
`experience (or, with a graduate degree in the above-stated fields, one to two years
`
`of experience) with designing and developing human-computer interfaces and the
`
`associated technologies.
`
`38. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I was
`
`
`
`19
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`at least a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ‘692
`
`Patent.
`
`C. Obvious to Combine Liebenow and Armstrong
`
`39. Liebenow teaches a handheld electronic device, such as a PDA, having
`
`a display and keys, including keys 150, 152, 154, and 156, mounted on the front
`
`surface. Ex. 1003 at [0033], Figs 1, 3, 4. Additionally, Liebenow discloses,
`
`“[K]eys 150, 152, 154, & 156 may be used to accomplish such actions as
`
`‘pressing’ or ‘clicking’ on-screen ‘buttons’.” Id. at [0033]. These keys “maybe
`
`[sic] comprised of a keycap, a tension mechanism for suspending the keycap and
`
`allowing it to be actuated (i.e., depressed) . . . . It should however be appreciated
`
`that other key structures may be utilized.” Id. at [0035].
`
`40. Armstrong teaches a handheld electronic device, such as a PDA or a
`
`web browser, having input elements, such as two or four way analog rockers or
`
`analog push buttons, having “resilient dome cap(s)” positioned inside “for
`
`providing tactile feedback to the finger depressing the depressible surface.” Ex.
`
`1004 at Abstract; see also, id. at 2:5-12. Armstrong also teaches that such input
`
`elements can be mapped to numerous device and application functions. Id. at 1:66-
`
`2:15, 4:33-40. For example, Armstrong teaches an embodiment where this type of
`
`input element is utilized to perform scrolling functions. Id. at 6:4-9.
`
`
`
`20
`
`SCEA Ex. 1008 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the ‘692 Patent to combine the teachings of Liebenow
`
`and Armstrong to “position[] a palpable detent with at least one input element of
`
`the first input assembly or the second input assembly so as to provide tactile
`
`feedback when manipulated by the human user” as recited by Claim 6.
`
`Specifically, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to
`
`incorporate an input element, such as a key, with a “resilient dome cap” as taught
`
`by Armstrong into the handheld device taught by Liebenow. As I discussed in the
`
`Background of the Technology, enabling the user to feel the press of a button was
`
`considered an important form of tactile feedback for many yea
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
