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
` ____________
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY F. WELCH
`
`
`
`
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Gregory F. Welch, hereby declare the following:
`1.
`I have been asked to respond to certain issues raised by Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) and their expert, Dr. Karon MacLean, in Patent Owner Aplix IP Holdings
`
`Corporation’s Response to the Petition dated August 6, 2015 (“Paper No. 18”). All
`
`of my opinions expressed in my original declaration dated November 7, 2014 (Ex.
`
`1008) remain the same. I have reviewed the following additional materials in
`
`connection with preparing this supplemental declaration:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Paper No. 15, Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review dated May
`29, 2015;
`Paper No. 18, Patent Owner Aplix IP Holdings Corporation’s
`Response to the Petition dated August 6, 2015;
`Ex. 2003, Declaration of Dr. Karon MacLean dated August 6, 2015;
`Ex. 1043, Ben Shneiderman. Designing the User Interface: Strategies
`for Effective Human-Computer
`Interaction. Addison-Wesley
`Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 3rd edition, 1997;
`Ex. 1044, Peter Tarasewich, “Wireless Devices
`for Mobile
`Commerce: User Interface Design and Usability”, Mobile Commerce:
`Technology, Theory, and Applications, Idea Group Publishing (2002);
`Ex. 1046, Corin R. Anderson, Pedro Domingos, Daniel S. Weld, Web
`Site Personalizers for Mobile Devices, IJCAI Workshop on Intelligent
`Techniques for Web Personalization (ITWP) (2001);
` Ex. 1047, Parisa Eslambolchilar and Roderick Murray-Smith. Tilt-
`based automatic zooming and scaling in mobile devices – a state-
`space implementation. In S. Brewster and M. Dunlop, editors, Mobile
`Human-Computer Interaction - MobileHCI 2004, volume 3160 of
`Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 120–131. Springer Berlin
`Heidelberg, 2004;
`Ex. 1048, Jun Rekimoto. “Tilting operations for small screen
`interfaces.” In Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium on
`User interface software and technology, UIST ’96, pages 167–168,
`New York, NY, USA, October 7–10 1996. ACM;
`Ex. 1049, Ken Hinckley, Jeff Pierce, Mike Sinclair, and Eric Horvitz.
`“Sensing techniques for mobile interaction.” In Proceedings of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`•
`
`13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
`Technology, UIST ’00, pages 91–100, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
`ACM; and
`Ex. 1050, Joel Bartlett. “Rock ’n’ scroll is here to stay.” Computer
`Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 20(3):40–45, May 2000.
`
`OPINION
`A. The ‘692 Patent Does Not Require the Application to “Draw” the
`Delineated Active Areas
`
`2. With regard to Claim 3 of the ‘692 Patent, Dr. MacLean opines that the
`
`claim limitation “selectively configurable sensing surface that provides more than
`
`one delineated active area based on the selected application” requires the
`
`application “to specify the spatial demarcations of the delineations according to the
`
`applications specific needs.” Ex. 2003 at ¶57. Dr. MacLean further opines
`
`“disclosure of ‘692’s Claim 1 clearly requires these delineations to be determined
`
`by the application and its specific requirements, not by the hardware or operating
`
`system.”1 Id. at ¶60. Dr. MacLean also suggests that the claim term “providing”
`
`means “drawing/defining” the delineated active areas. Id. at ¶ 71 (“I list two
`
`examples from the ‘692 specification where ‘692 sets its standard from both of
`
`providing (i.e. drawing/defining) rather than just selecting of system-defined
`
`delineations . . . .”). For reasons described below, I respectfully disagree with
`
`these opinions.
`
`
`1 Note that Dr. MacLean references claim 1 in ¶60, but I assume this is a typographical error and should
`be claim 3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 3
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have been informed that in proceedings before the USPTO the claims
`
`of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`view of the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. The
`
`broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation does not mean
`
`the broadest possible
`
`interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a
`
`special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the
`
`claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those
`
`skilled in the art would reach. I have been informed that the ‘692 Patent has not
`
`expired. It is also my understanding that no claim terms have been expressly
`
`construed by the Board to date.
`
`4. Dr. MacLean’s opinion is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the claim term “a selectively configurable sensing surface that provides
`
`more than one delineated active area based on the selected application.” Dr.
`
`MacLean opines “I see a distinction between an application’s ‘selecting’ from a set
`
`of basic delineations provided by the hardware or operating system and ‘providing’
`
`delineations with spatial boarders that are potentially unique to that application as
`
`required by the ‘692 patent.” Ex. 2003 at ¶57 (emphasis in original). However,
`
`claim 3 does not recite that the application “provides” the delineated active areas.
`
`
`
`3
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`Rather, the plain language of the claim recites that the “selectively configurable
`
`sensing surface” – not the application – “provides the more than one delineated
`
`active areas.”
`
`5.
`
`I see nothing in the ‘692 Patent specification that would have led a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the spatial boundaries of the
`
`delineated active areas must be drawn or defined by the application in order to be
`
`“based on the selected application.” Figure 3d of the ‘692 Patent depicts a
`
`configuration of multiple delineated active areas arranged on a pressure senor pad:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3d; see also, id. at 9:24-27 (“As shown in FIG. 3d, the pressure
`
`sensor pad 354 may be configured in software to represent one or more delineated
`
`active areas corresponding to different programmable functions depending on the
`
`application.”). The ‘692 Patent also describes two applications, a text application
`
`
`
`4
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`and a game application, that are both mapped to the same delineated active areas
`
`shown in Figure 3d.
`
`6.
`
`In particular, the inverted U-shaped active area 360 with vertical sides
`
`362 and horizontal side 364 may be mapped to shifting functions in a text
`
`application and game character movement controls in a game application. Id. at
`
`11:38-43 (“Another method to implement full keyboard capability . . . is map in
`
`software the delineated active areas of the second input assembly 350 as follows:
`
`left vertical side 362 of the inverted U-shaped active area 360 to be shift position 1;
`
`anywhere along the horizontal side 364 to be shift position 2 . . . .”); 12:13-18 (“In
`
`this implementation, the vertical side 362 of the inverted U-shaped active area 360
`
`may be programmed to represent the y-directional (vertical) movement of control
`
`of a character in a game, while the horizontal side 364 of the U-shaped active area
`
`360 may be programmed to represent the x-directional (horizontal) movement.”).
`
`The five oblong shaped areas 372 may be mapped to indexing or shifting functions
`
`in a text application and weapon fire functions in a game application. Id. at 10:52-
`
`54 (“For example, going from left to right, each oblong-shaped active area 372
`
`may be mapped to represent a separate index or shift position . . . .”); 12:21-24
`
`(“Rapid firing of weapons may be accomplished by using . . . one of the five
`
`oblong-shaped active areas 372, with each one representing a different weapon or
`
`action.”). Finally, the rectangular-shaped areas 374, 376, 378, 380 may be mapped
`
`
`
`5
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`to shifting functions in a text application and field of view controls in a game
`
`application. Id. at 11:38-48 (“Another method to implement full keyboard
`
`capability . . . is map . . . the top-left rectangular-shaped active area 378 to be shift
`
`position 3; the top-right rectangular-shaped active area 374 to be shift position 4;
`
`the bottom left rectangular-shaped active area 380 to be shift position 5; and, if
`
`needed,
`
`the bottom-right rectangular-shaped active area 376.”); 12:18-21
`
`(“Movement into or out of the field of view may be controlled by the left and right
`
`rectangular buttons 374, 376, 378, 380, thereby allowing 3-D control.”).
`
`7.
`
`The fact that two different applications utilize the same delineated
`
`active areas also comports with the understanding of a person of ordinary skill. It
`
`was well understood by skilled artisans at the time of the ‘692 Patent that
`
`consistency was (and still is) a fundamental rule of user interface design for all
`
`computers including mobile devices. For example, in his famous book Designing
`
`the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Prof.
`
`Ben Shneiderman discusses the importance of consistency. Ex. 1043, Shneiderman
`
`at p. 13 (“Consistency primarily refers to common action sequences, terms, units,
`
`layouts, color, typography, and so on within an application program. Consistency
`
`is a strong determinant of success of systems. It is naturally extended to include
`
`compatibility across application programs and compatibility with paper or non-
`
`computer-based systems.”) (emphasis added). In fact consistency is the first of
`
`
`
`6
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`Prof. Shneiderman’s very widely-cited “Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design”
`
`from that book. Id. at p. 74. (“1. Strive for consistency. This rule is the most
`
`frequently violated one, but following it can be tricky because there are many
`
`forms of consistency. Consistent sequences of actions should be required in similar
`
`situations; identical terminology should be used in prompts, menus, and help
`
`screens; and consistent color, layout, capitalization, fonts, and so on should be
`
`employed throughout.”) (emphasis added). Those rules appeared in the first edition
`
`of his book (1986), have persisted through four subsequent editions of the book,
`
`and remain popular and relevant today. The rules apply generally to interface
`
`design, and a person of ordinary skill would have understood they would apply to
`
`mobile devices. Ex. 1044, Tarasewich at p. 5 (“Likewise, many of the current
`
`principles of interface design can be transferred to newer devices, although
`
`soundly applying these principles may be more difficult due to the unique nature of
`
`mobile systems and devices. Fundamental rules such as consistency, shortcuts for
`
`advanced users, the use of feedback, error prevention, easy reversal of actions, and
`
`minimization of short term memory requirements (Shneiderman, 1998) will
`
`undoubtedly transfer to mobile applications.”) (emphasis added), where the citation
`
`“(Shneiderman, 1998)” is referring to the same 3rd edition of Prof. Shneiderman’s
`
`book that I cited above (Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective
`
`Human-Computer Interaction) and the “[f]undamental rules” would indicate
`
`
`
`7
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`Shneiderman’s “Golden Rules.” Thus, Dr. MacLean’s requirement that each
`
`application must redefine spatial boundaries of the delineated active areas is not
`
`supported by the ‘692 Patent specification and would also be contrary to the basic
`
`understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the ‘692 Patent.
`
`8. Based on the above disclosures and analyses, a person having ordinary
`
`skill would understand that the mappings of application functions to the delineated
`
`active areas may change “based on the selected application.” However, the ‘692
`
`Patent does not include any requirement that the spatial boundaries of the
`
`delineated active areas themselves must change from application to application.
`
`9.
`
` Dr. MacLean relies on two examples of different configurations of
`
`delineated active areas in the ‘692 Patent that, in her opinion, “describe a number
`
`of different delineation shape sets of the second surface sensor pad. Ex. 2003 at ¶
`
`71-72. I agree that the ‘692 Patent is not limited to any particular configuration of
`
`delineated active areas. I also agree with Dr. MacLean’s conclusion that the
`
`“delineations may be determined at the application level.” Id. at ¶ 73 (emphasis
`
`added). However, I do not agree that the spatial boundaries of the delineations
`
`must be drawn or defined by the application.
`
`10. The ‘692 Patent discloses “computational aspects described here can
`
`be implemented in analog or digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware,
`
`firmware, software, or in combinations of them.” Ex. 1001 at 14:51-54. A person
`
`
`
`8
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`of ordinary skill would understand this to teach a common sense (reasonable)
`
`choice of realization of the computational aspects. Correspondingly, in the context
`
`of the second surface sensor pad, the term “software” is used very generally
`
`throughout the ‘692 Patent without system-level, application-level, or any other
`
`limitations. Id. at 5:3-5 (“These delineated active areas likewise can be configured
`
`in software to represent one or more input functions.”) (emphasis added); 8:60–62
`
`(“The second input assembly 350 includes a pressure sensor pad 354 having a
`
`plurality of software configurable active areas . . . .”) (emphasis added); 9:24–27
`
`(“As shown in FIG. 3d, the pressure sensor pad 354 may be configured in software
`
`to represent one or more delineated 25 active areas . . . .”) (emphasis added);
`
`11:61–67 (“A method of implementing the functionality of a game controller is . . .
`
`to map in software 65 the delineated active areas of the pressure sensor pad 354 of
`
`the second input assembly 350 analog control”) (emphasis added). This is in
`
`contrast to places where a distinction to “application software” or “software
`
`application” is indicated. Id. at 5:28–33 (“Sensing circuitry . . . may be provided to
`
`. . . convert those signals in a form suitable to be received by a processor running
`
`application software,”) (emphasis added); 5:10–14 (“force producing unit . . . may
`
`provide tactile feedback to the user . . . in response to events occurring in a
`
`software application running on a processor.”) (emphasis added). Thus, a skilled
`
`artisan would have appreciated that analog or digital circuitry, hardware, firmware,
`
`
`
`9
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`any form of software (system-level or application-level), or any combinations
`
`could determine the spatial boundaries of the delineated active areas.
`
`B. Obvious to Combine Liebenow and Hedberg
`11. With regard to the combination of Liebenow and Hedberg, Dr.
`
`MacLean opines “Hedberg’s utility (pan/zoom control of a graphical portal on the
`
`image displayed by a different device) is quite specific, and it is unrelated to the
`
`device uses taught by Liebenow.” Ex. 2003 at ¶ 81. I respectfully disagree at least
`
`because Dr. MacLean’s analysis appears to be omitting a relevant embodiment of
`
`Hedberg.
`
`12. Hedberg teaches a “hand-held display device for use with an electronic
`
`device, said display device being suitable for the purpose of a hand-held data entry
`
`device as well as for both landscape and portrait presentations of a full-page word
`
`processing document.” Ex. 1005 at 3:6-11. The handheld display device includes
`
`an inertial sensor such as an accelerometer or a gyroscope. Id. at Abstract
`
`(“Further, a gyroscope (6) is incorporated in said display device (1) . . . .”), 3:26-30
`
`(“These objects are accomplished by a display device having movement sensitive
`
`means such as a micro gyroscope, strain gauge, piezo-electric, or equilibrium of
`
`force accelerometer etc information in said display device, thereby being
`
`responsive to movements in space . . . .”). In the embodiment referenced by Dr.
`
`MacLean, the handheld display device is used with an electronic device, such as a
`
`
`
`10
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`desktop computer, “to display a complete or a determined part of a screen image.”
`
`Id. at 3:15-18; see also, id. at Abstract, Fig. 3 (showing electronic device 13 as a
`
`desktop computer separate from handheld display device 1). However, in another
`
`embodiment, which was not addressed by Dr. MacLean, the handheld display
`
`device is “incorporated in an electronic device such as a mobile telephone, PDA
`
`(Personal Digital Assistant), and organizer, a data terminal to display a complete or
`
`a determined part of a screen image in a proper size with regard to the current
`
`needs or requirements of the user.” Id. at 3:20-25; see also, 6:34-7:7 (“”); Fig. 5
`
`(showing electric device 13 as a mobile phone). In this embodiment, “these kinds
`
`of electronic devices, provided with a display device of the invention, can work as
`
`stand alone devices . . . .” Id. at 7:10-12 (emphasis added).
`
`13. Liebenow teaches a digital information appliance such as a PDA. Ex.
`
`1003 at [0002] (“Digital information appliances such as electronic books, personal
`
`digital assistants (PDAs) and portable information handling systems . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, the embodiment taught by Hedberg where the standalone handheld
`
`electronic device, such as a PDA, includes an inertial sensor is directly related to
`
`Liebenow’s digital information appliance, which may also be a PDA.
`
`14. Dr. MacLean also opines that Liebenow does not teach any uses that
`
`would benefit from using inertial sensors to effect panning/zooming of the
`
`graphical display as taught by Hedberg. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 84-85. To the contrary,
`
`
`
`11
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`Liebenow teaches an embodiment where the digital information appliance includes
`
`a web browser. Ex. 1003 at [0051] (“In an exemplary embodiment, the digital
`
`information appliance 300 may be configured for use with an information network
`
`such as the Internet. In such an embodiment, keys 312 may provide browsing
`
`functions for browsing content pages within the network such as ‘Back’ and
`
`‘Forward’ for navigating among content pages, ‘Stop’ for stopping the display of
`
`incoming content, ‘Refresh’ for reloading a content page, ‘Home’ for returning to a
`
`home page from a content page, and the like, ‘Search’ for invoking a network
`
`search engine, and the like.”). At the time of the ‘692 Patent, web pages were
`
`rarely designed to fit on the small screens of PDAs and cell phones. Ex. 1046,
`
`Anderson at p. 1 (“The fastest growing community of web users is that of mobile
`
`visitors — people who browse the web with wireless PDAs, cell phones, and
`
`pagers. Ninety-five percent of cell phones sold today are ‘web-ready’ and
`
`authorities predict that the number of wireless Internet devices will outnumber
`
`desktop computers by 2003. Despite this trend, however, few web sites today cater
`
`to mobile visitors,
`
`instead optimizing
`
`their content for desktop clients.
`
`Unfortunately, mobile devices are not as capable as their desktop counterparts,
`
`being limited by small screens, low-bandwidth networks and slower processors.”).
`
`A skilled artisan would have appreciated that the panning and zooming features
`
`
`
`12
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`described by Hedberg could be used to allow the user to view desired portions of a
`
`webpage displayed on Liebenow’s digital information appliance.
`
`15. Furthermore, much of the prior art cited on the face of the ‘692 Patent
`
`would have been known to a skilled artisan, and that knowledge would reinforce
`
`the value of combining Hedberg’s teachings with a Liebenow digital information
`
`appliance for navigating content that is larger than the screen of a mobile device.
`
`Ex. 1047, Eslambolchilar at p. 1 (“Navigation techniques such as scrolling (or
`
`panning) and zooming are essential components of mobile device applications
`
`such as map browsing and reading text documents, allowing the user access to a
`
`larger information space than can be viewed on the small screen.” and “Speed-
`
`dependent automatic zooming is a relatively new navigation technique [7, 8, 14,
`
`22, 25, 26] that unifies rate-based scrolling and zooming to overcome these
`
`limitations. The user controls the scrolling speed only, and the system
`
`automatically adjusts the zoom level so that the speed of visual flow across the
`
`screen remains constant. Using this technique, the user can smoothly locate a
`
`distant target in a large document without having to manually interweave zooming
`
`and scrolling, and without becoming disoriented by extreme visual flow. In this
`
`paper we demonstrate that, as suggested by Igarashi and Hinckley [14], SDAZ is
`
`well suited to implementation on mobile devices instrumented with tilt sensors,
`
`which can then be comfortably controlled in a single-handed fashion.”) (emphasis
`
`
`
`13
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`added). Ex. 1048, Rekimoto at p. 167 (“This TechNote introduces new interaction
`
`techniques for small screen devices such as palmtop computers or handheld
`
`electric devices, including pagers and cellular phones. Our proposed method uses
`
`the tilt of the device itself as input. Using both tilt and buttons, it is possible to
`
`build several interaction techniques ranging from menus and scroll bars, to more
`
`complicated examples such as a map browsing system and a 3D object viewer.”
`
`and “Sensing rotation of the device is much easier than sensing motions, by using
`
`small solid-state angular rate sensors (gyros). We can also use an electric
`
`inclinometer or a compass to assist the other sensors. As these types of sensors
`
`become used in other devices, we believe that the tilting interface becomes much
`
`more practical. Unlike pen interfaces, tilting allows single hand operation (i.e.,
`
`only one hand is required to hold and operate the device). This feature is
`
`particularly useful for very small electronic devices such as pagers.”) (emphasis
`
`added). A skilled artisan would have been aware of examples such as these and
`
`appreciated that the panning and zooming features described by Hedberg could be
`
`used to allow the user to view desired portions of a webpage displayed on a digital
`
`information appliance per the teachings of Liebenow.
`
`16. Dr. MacLean also opines that the pan/tilt functionality taught by
`
`Hedberg “could” interfere with data entry on Liebenow’s device. Ex. 2003 at ¶
`
`86. Again, I disagree. As discussed above, Hedberg teaches viewing both
`
`
`
`14
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`landscape and portrait presentations of a full-page word processing document
`
`using the handheld display device. Ex. 1005 at 3:6-11. Liebenow suggests
`
`allowing the user to enter information while the device is held in an “inverted”
`
`(i.e., portrait) orientation shown in Fig. 7. Ex. 1003 at [0043] (“In an exemplary
`
`embodiment, the keys 234 are oriented so the user may enter information in an
`
`inverted orientation (i.e., while the digital information 200 appliance is held in the
`
`position shown in FIG. 7). For instance, as shown in FIG. 8, for a user desiring to
`
`hold the appliance in his or her right hand, the keypad 232 may be rotated so that
`
`the bottom row of keys of the keypad 232 is adjacent to right side surface 208 of
`
`the housing 202. Alternately, for users desiring to hold the digital information in
`
`the left hand, the keypad 232 may be rotated so the bottom row of keys of the
`
`keypad 232 is adjacent to the left side surface 210 of the housing 202.”).
`
`Liebenow also shows a user entering data while the device is held in a landscape
`
`orientation. See e.g., id. at Fig. 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`appreciated the inertial sensors taught by Hedberg could enable the information
`
`appliance of Liebenow to detect whether or not it was being held in a portrait or
`
`landscape position. This type of use would not create the usability problems
`
`identified by Dr. MacLean—it would in fact enhance the usability, and would
`
`therefore not interfere with data entry on Liebenow’s information appliance.
`
`
`
`15
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`17. Again, much of the relevant prior art cited on the face of the ‘692
`
`Patent would be known to a skilled artisan, and would reinforce the idea that the
`
`teachings of Hedberg would in no way cause usability problems with a digital
`
`information appliance per the teachings of Liebenow, and would instead naturally
`
`enhance such a digital information appliance, e.g., by combining portrait/landscape
`
`detection, srolling, and zooming for small displays. Ex. 1049, Hinckley at p. 96
`
`(“Unlike a stationary desktop monitor, users of mobile devices can tilt or rotate
`
`their displays to look at them from any orientation. Using the tilt sensor, we detect
`
`these gestures and automatically reformat the display to suit the current viewing
`
`orientation. For example, a user reading an E-book or inspecting a spreadsheet
`
`may find a portrait or landscape display mode more pleasant depending on the
`
`document content.”) (emphasis added). Ex. 1050, Bartlett at p. 40 (“Not missing a
`
`chance to show off the latest pictures of your children, you reach for your new
`
`photo album. As you remove it from your pocket, it activates and you see a display
`
`of photograph thumbnails in the album. Tilting the album on either axis scrolls
`
`through the thumbnails until you find the pictures you want to show. A gentle
`
`fanning gesture zooms in on the first picture, then you hand the album to your
`
`friend. After admiring the picture, she gestures to step through the rest of the
`
`album. The pictures are in both landscape and portrait mode, so a simple gesture
`
`
`
`16
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`is all that’s required to reorient the album to best display them.”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`18.
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`By:
`Gregory F. Welch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCEA Ex. 1041 Page 18