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. IPR2015-00230
`Patent No. 7,463,245
` ____________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00230
`Patent No. 7,463,245
` ____________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,667,692
`
`O R A L A R G U M E N T, J A N . 1 9 , 2 0 1 6
`
`
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`Case IPR2015-00229; U.S. Patent No. 7,667,692
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT - ABSTRACT
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract
`
`Petitioner’s DX-2
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT - FIGURES
`’692 PATENT - FIGURES
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 3a, 3d
`EX. 100] CT Figs. 30, 3d
`
`pefifioneps DX_3
`Petitioner’s DX-3
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT – EXEMPLARY CLAIM
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`
`Petitioner’s DX-4
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – FIG. 1
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 1
`
`Petitioner’s DX-5
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – FIG. 3
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3
`
`Petitioner’s DX-6
`
`
`
`
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`• Claims 1-3 and 5-10 over Liebenow and Armstrong ‘691
`• Claims 11-13 and 15-20 over Liebenow and Hedberg
`
`• PO’s Challenges in Response
`• Claims 3 and 5 are not obvious in view of Liebenow and Armstrong ‘691
`• Claims 11, 13, and 19 are not obvious in view of Liebenow and Hedberg
`• PO does not disagree that the substance of independent claims 1 and 12, and
`several dependent claims, is taught by the prior art
`
`Paper 15, Institution Decision at 14; Paper 18, Response
`
`Petitioner’s DX-7
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT – CLAIM 3
`
`• The claim limitation “based on the selected application” should be
`given its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 3
`
`Petitioner’s DX-8
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0048]
`LIEBENOW — PARA. [0048]
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0048]
`EX. 1003 CIT [OO48]
`
`Petitioner’s DX-9
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0069]
`LIEBENOW — PARA. [0069]
`
`In an exemplary c:n1bodime.nt of the invention. key
`[0069]
`function and plarsurms-nl may be adapted In I'll lhu rcquirnr
`mtmls of lht: application being exuculed by [ha digital
`iufurmaliun appl.iuI1<.'c or the uccdzs of (has, usur. Fur instance,
`an user may prefer that the keys L‘-mulfllc-d by a much scnsitivc
`puncl, such as lhc lunch sunsilivc panels 140 S»: 240 shuwn
`in l*'I(}.‘4. 3 mu! 9,
`In: arrarlgcd in u
`l)vural-2 kcyhnzml
`cuulllgnruliuu it1.-.Ic:ul ml" the mum L-mwcnlimml QWIERTY
`kcylwuzarul -:m11i_g1Ira1iuu. Allcrumuly,
`tlu: user may n:n.':~uI:: a
`pur.-.mm|%izul 1-my cnuliguruliuu ur simply .:~urrm1gc Iln: kcys in
`alplmlacticnl nrclcr. [.4ikewis.c, an upplicat inn executed by the
`digital infnrmminn appliance 700 may utilize a cllaracteristic
`kc.-v cnnfi mratinn.
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0069]
`EX- 1003 C” [0059]
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—1O
`Petitioner’s DX-10
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – FIGS. 15 & 16
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 15, 16
`
`Petitioner’s DX-11
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S INTERPRETATION
`
` •
`
` “One skilled in the art would understand that ‘in software’ in the context of the
`rest of the ‘692 specification means that the delineations themselves are
`defined, i.e., drawn, at the application level.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:24-40; Paper 18, Response at 19
`
`Petitioner’s DX-12
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPERT
`PATENT OWNER'S EXPERT
`
`Q.
`
`Is there any reason the application could not
`
`select some type of a keyboard that already existed in the
`
`operating system?
`
`A.
`
`It can. That is one of the things that it can
`
`do.
`
`It's not
`
`the only thing.
`
`I
`
`think this claim language
`
`doesn't limit it to that, but that is within the space of
`
`what it can do.
`
`Q. You mentioned the concept of uniqueness, and
`
`there's a lot to unpack in your answer there, but let's
`
`start with uniqueness.
`
`Is it your opinion that claim 3
`
`requires a unique keyboard? Or unique delineations?
`
`A.
`
`My reading of claim 3 is it's broad enough to
`
`cover both unique and non—unique delineations just reading
`
`claim 3.
`
`Ex. 1040, MacLean Tr. At 50:1-7, 142:2-8
`EX. 1040, Iv\ocLeon Tl’. AT 50i]-7, 14222-8
`
`pefifioneps DX43
`Petitioner’s DX-13
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPERT
`PATENT OWNER'S EXPERT
`
`Q. would you agree that claim 3 does not require a
`
`custom layout on a key—by—key basis?
`
`A. As
`
`I understand require —— like I said,
`
`I think
`
`it's broad enough to cover both, so I —— my understanding
`
`of require would be that no, it does not require that, but
`
`it covers the case of unique. And certainly the example
`
`of unique seems to be covered in the specification
`
`illustrated in the specification.
`
`Q. Understood.
`
`Is it your opinion that claim 3 does
`
`not require unconventional keyboards or unconventional
`
`delineated active areas?
`
`A.
`
`I believe it does not require unconventional.
`
`Ex. 1040, MacLean Tr. At 142:9-20
`Ex. 1040, Iv\ocLeon Tr. AT 14229-20
`
`pefifioneras DX4 4
`Petitioner’s DX-14
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S VIEW ON LIEBENOW
`
`• “At most, Liebenow teaches different emulated keyboards provided
`by the system and selected by an application.”
`
`• Nothing more is required, even according to PO’s own expert Dr.
`MacLean.
`
`Paper 18, Response at 20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-15
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT – CLAIM 11
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 11
`
`Petitioner’s DX-16
`
`
`
`
`
`HEDBERG
`
` •
`
` Dr. Welch explains that “[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.”
`• Even Dr. MacLean agrees rotational movement that provides landscape and
`portrait views would be useful in a data entry context.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Abstract, 3:6-11; Ex. 1041 at ¶ 16; Ex. 1040 at 98:5-10
`
`Petitioner’s DX-17
`
`
`
`
`
`‘692 PATENT – FIELD OF ENDEAVOR
`
` •
`
` The field of endeavor of the ‘692 Patent should be defined to include at least
`“hand-held electronic devices with one or more input elements.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:15-21; Paper 24, Reply at 6-7
`
`Petitioner’s DX-18
`
`
`
`
`
`HEDBERG – FIELD OF ENDEAVOR
`
`Ex. 1005 at p. 1
`
`Petitioner’s DX-19
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,463,245
`
`O R A L A R G U M E N T, J A N . 1 9 , 2 0 1 6
`
`
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`Case IPR2015-00230; U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`Petitioner’s DX-20
`
`
`
`
`
`‘245 PATENT – EXEMPLARY CLAIM
`‘Z45 PATENT - EXEMPLARY CLAIM
`
`1. A hand-held device comprising:
`a processor configured to process a selected application
`having two or more functions;
`a first surface including at least a first input element
`mapped to at least a first function of the selected appli-
`cation; and
`
`a second surface including at least a second input element
`having a sensor pad comprising a selectively config-
`urable sensing surface that provides more than one
`delineated active area based on the selected application,
`wherein at least a first delineated active area is mapped
`to a second function of the selected application and a
`second delineated active area is mapped to a third func-
`tion of the selected application, further wherein the sec-
`ond surface is substantially in opposition to the first
`surface.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1
`EX- lool Cll Claim l
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—2l
`Petitioner’s DX-21
`
`
`
`
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`• Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 over Liebenow and Andrews
`• Claims 8, 9, and 17-19 over Liebenow and Hedberg
`• Claim 6 over Liebenow and Martin ‘260
`• Claim 16 over Griffin and Liebenow
`
`Paper 16, Institution Decision at 17
`
`Petitioner’s DX-22
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1; Ex. 1003 at Fig. 15
`
`Petitioner’s DX-23
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`
`a first surface including at least a first input element
`mapped to at least a first function of the selected appli-
`cation; and
`
`I0033] As shown in FIGS. 1, 3 and 4,
`
`—of the housing 102 so as to be actuated, e.g.,
`depressed and released, by the thumbs. of the user’s left and
`right hands 122 & 124.111 an exemplary embodiment,-
`
`provt e a uncttnn W en
`another key of the keyboard.
`
`epresse
`
`Such keys
`1n CODJUDCIIOD with
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1; Ex. 1003 at [0033]
`EX. 1001 CIT Clctim l} EX. I003 CIT [0033]
`
`pefifionerts DX_24
`Petitioner’s DX-24
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S INTERPRETATION
`
` •
`
` “One skilled in the art would not have considered these generic operator keys
`(Space Bar, Ctrl, Alt, Shift) to be ‘of’ a selected application; instead, ‘[t]he
`function of such keys are defined at the device or operating system level, not
`at the application level.’ (Ex. 2003, MacLean ¶ 59-61.) ”
`
`• “Liebenow has nothing like this, and simply has no disclosure of application-
`level customized mapping of its first-surface input elements. (Ex. 2003,
`MacLean ¶ 72-84.)”
`
`Paper 19, Response at 29, 30-31
`
`Petitioner’s DX-25
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1; Ex. 1003 at Fig. 15
`
`Petitioner’s DX-26
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`
`a second surface including at least a second input element
`having a sensor pad comprising a selectively config-
`urable sensing surface that provides more than one
`delineated active area based on the selected application,
`
`ternaIely,1h1
`[0048]
`pa
`of
`laaah
`panel may
`la111l1ia llaapaafia
`phsh
`actuation of
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1; Ex. 1003 at [0048]
`Ex. 1001 c1’rC|c1im 1; Ex. 1003 at [0048]
`
`Peamonerss DX_27
`Petitioner’s DX-27
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S INTERPRETATION
`
` •
`
` “One skilled in the art would understand that ‘in software’ in the context of the
`rest of the ’245 specification means that the delineations themselves are
`defined, i.e., drawn, at the application level.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:20-36; Paper 19, Response at 35
`
`Petitioner’s DX-28
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW APPLIED TO CLAIM 1
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1; Ex. 1003 at Fig. 15
`
`Petitioner’s DX-29
`
`
`
`
`
`‘245 PATENT – CLAIM 2
`
`• Dependent Claims 3-5 add specific game functions such as weapon
`fire, directional, speed, size, and positional controls.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 2-5
`
`Petitioner’s DX-30
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDREWS
`ANDREWS
`
`Ex. 1004 at 6:10-14, 9:11-15
`EX. 1004 C11 6210-14, 9211-15
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—31
`Petitioner’s DX-31
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDREWS
`ANDREWS
`
`Figure 4 depicts the detail of sample A-S correlation 231. Actions 40!
`
`represent actions that driving game application program 236 can perform at the
`
`user's request. Semantics 402 are semantic-s chosen from driving simulation gcnrc
`
`2| 1.
`
`In the example depicted by Fig. 4, the action performed by the driving game
`
`describeda
`
`Ex. 1004 at12:22-13:9
`EX. 1004 OH222-1329
`
`pefifioneps DX_32
`Petitioner’s DX-32
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION
`
`PO makes the following assumptions regarding Liebenow:
`1. “Liebenow’s device would have been seen by one skilled in the art as being
`in the same category as other tablet computers of that time period”
`
`
`2. “[T]ablets of the late 1990s and early 2000s were ‘specialized machines,
`focusing in vertical markets such as healthcare, construction, field service
`and retail.’ (Ex. 2005, Lim ¶ 95.)”
`
`
`Based on these assumptions, PO draws the conclusion:
`• “Thus, one skilled in the art looking at Liebenow’s device would have
`understood that adding games to Liebenow would have detracted from its
`purpose and would not have been a desirable addition from the perspective
`of the market to which tablets like Liebenow’s were targeted in the early
`2000s.”
`
`Paper 19, Response at 25
`
`Petitioner’s DX-33
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0002]
`LIEBENOW — PARA. [0002]
`
`[0002] Digital information appliances such as electronic
`books, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and portable infor-
`mation handling systems are Well know in the art for storage,
`
`maniiulation and communication of information.-
`
` t is desirable
`that appliance’s housing have a compact, hand-held form-
`factor. As a result, such compact digital information appli-
`ances rarely include a keyboard or keypad, but instead rely
`on displays having touch sensitive panel overlays employing
`touch or pen input for entry and manipulation of informa-
`tion.
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0002]
`EX- lOO3 C” [0002]
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—34
`Petitioner’s DX-34
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0003]
`LIEBENOW — PARA. [0003]
`
`[0003] With the growing popularity of the Internet and
`similar network information services,
`
`Unlike present stationary personal
`computers, compact digital information appliances do not
`constrain the user to a single location while accessing
`information Via a network information service, but instead
`enable the user to freely roam throughout his or her-
`-However, because compact digital information appli-
`ances lack a keyboard, entry of information such as com-
`mands, electronic mail (e-mail) messages, and the like is
`inefficient, reducing the advantage gained from increased
`portability.
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0003]
`EX- lOO3 C” [0003]
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—35
`Petitioner’s DX-35
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPERTS
`PATENT OWNER'S EXPERTS
`
`Rnd games have been available for every device that was
`
`ever made,
`
`I think.
`
`Q. Sure.
`
`So you would agree there were attempts
`
`by Fujitsu and other tablet designers by 2002 to
`
`design and develop tablets that were directed to the
`
`consumer market?
`
`A.
`
`I couldn't speak specifically for Fujitsu in
`
`2000.
`
`Ex. 1040, MacLean Tr. At 24:17-18; Ex. 1041, Lim Tr. At 25:14-17
`Ex. 1040, Iv\c1cLec1n Tr. A1 24:17-18; Ex. 1041, Lim Tr. A1 25:14-17
`
`Pe1-H-ionefis DX_36
`Petitioner’s DX-36
`
`
`
`
`
`‘245 PATENT – CLAIMS 8 AND 9
`‘Z45 PATENT - CLAIMS 8 AND 9
`
`8. The hand-held device of claim 1, further comprising an
`accelerometer.
`
`9. The hand-held electronic device of claim 1, further com-
`prising a gyroscope.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 8-9
`EX. lOOl CIT Claims 8-9
`
`pefifioneris DX_37
`Petitioner’s DX-37
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPERT
`PATENT OWNER'S EXPERT
`
`Q. There we are.
`
`In your opinion would you agree
`
`that Hedberg discloses an accelerometerfl
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And in your view would the gyroscope listed in
`
`the abstract of Hedberg satisfy that limitation?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`If a device has a gyroscope in it, it would
`
`satisfy claim 9 insofar as a gyroscope requirement of it.
`
`Ex. 1040, MacLean Tr. At 91:17-18, 112:13-16
`Ex. 1040, Iv\ocLeon Tr. AT 91:17-18, 1 12:13-16
`
`pefifionerss DX_38
`Petitioner’s DX-38
`
`
`
`
`
`‘245 PATENT – CLAIM 6
`‘Z45 PATENT - CLAIM 6
`
`6. The hand-held device of claim 1, wherein the second
`surface further includes a directional pad.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 6
`EX- 100] C” Claim 6
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—39
`Petitioner’s DX-39
`
`
`
`
`
`MARTIN ‘260
`
`Ex. 1006 at Fig. 11; 18:43-50
`
`Petitioner’s DX-40
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW
`LIEBENOW
`
`i , _ [0] As shown in FIG. 11,
`
`of the digital
`information app1ianee’s housing 302 so that
`it may be
`operably controlled by a fingertip of the user’s hand. How-
`ever,
`the cursor Control device 326 may alternately be
`disposed on the front surface 304 of the housing 302 so as
`to be operably controlled by the user’s thumb 310.
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 11, [0049]
`EX- 1003 C” Fig 1 1/ [0049]
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—41
`Petitioner’s DX-41
`
`
`
`
`
`‘245 PATENT – CLAIM 16
`‘Z45 PATENT — CLAIM 16
`
`16. The hand-held device of claim 12, wherein the input
`element comprises a rotary sensor or a directional pad.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 16
`EX. TOO] CIT C|C1iI’T1 16
`
`pefifioneris DX_42
`Petitioner’s DX-42
`
`
`
`
`
`GRIFFIN
`
`Ex. 1007 at Fig. 2
`
`Petitioner’s DX-43
`
`
`
`
`
`PO’S VIEW ON GRIFFIN AND LIEBENOW
`
`PO argues that a PHOSITA would not have incorporated the touch
`panels of Liebenow on the back surface of Griffin because:
`
`1. “Griffin’s focus on thumb input teaches away from adding input
`functions to the back.”
`
`2. “Liebenow’s teachings regarding how to make back-surface
`keyboards work well could not be effectively implemented on
`Griffin.”
`
`3. “Liebenow’s implementation of keys such as Shift and Alt teaches
`away from the proposed combination.”
`
`Paper 19, Response at 51-54
`
`Petitioner’s DX-44
`
`
`
`
`
`GRIFFIN INCLUDED FUNCTION KEYS
`GRIFFIN INCLUDED FUNCTION KEYS
`ON THE BACK SURFACE
`ON THE BACK SURFACE
`
`Ex. 1007 at [0056]
`EX- 1007 C” [0055]
`
`Pe’ri’rioner’s DX—45
`Petitioner’s DX-45
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW SHOWS BENEFIT OF TOUCH
`PANELS
`
`“The motivation for the combination comes directly from Liebenow,
`which describes both an embodiment with hard keys on the back and
`another embodiment where the hard keys are replaced by touch
`panels to emulate keys.”
`
`Paper 26, Reply at 21; Ex. 1003 at Figs. 2, 5
`
`Petitioner’s DX-46
`
`
`
`
`
`GRIFFIN’S FUNCTION KEYS
`IMPLEMENTED WITH LIEBENOW’S
`TOUCH PANEL
`
`As opined by Dr. Welch, this modification would have the “benefit of
`enabling other special function keys in addition to ‘Shift’ and ‘Alt’
`thereby predictably increasing the functionality of the Griffin’s device
`without substantially increasing its size.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0036], [0048]; Ex. 1010, Welch Decl. At ¶ 50
`
`Petitioner’s DX-47
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,218,313
`
`O R A L A R G U M E N T, J A N . 1 9 , 2 0 1 6
`
`
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`Cases IPR2015-00396, IPR2015-00476, IPR2015-00533
`
`Petitioner’s DX-48
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT - OVERVIEW
`
`• ‘313 Patent
`• Same specification as ‘692 and ‘245 Patents
`• Parent to ‘245 Patent; Grandparent to ‘692 Patent
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Instituted Grounds – Three Proceedings, Five Independent Claims
`•
`Independent Claims 1 (00396) and 15 (00533) – Obvious over Pallakoff and Ishihara
`•
`Independent Claims 21 and 52 (both 00476) – Obvious over Pallakoff and Liebenow
`•
`Independent Claim 37 (00533) – Obvious over Liebenow and Ishihara
`
`Instituted Grounds – Exemplary Dependent Claims (00396)
`• Claim 4 – Input Controller (Liebenow)
`• Claim 6 – Directional Pad (Martin)
`• Claim 7 – Palpable Detent (Armstrong)
`• Claim 11 – Game Application (Willner)
`• Claims 13 & 14 – Accelerometer and Gyroscope (Hedberg)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-49
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`• Pallakoff discloses:
`• “a hand-held device with multiple keys on its face (‘face-keys’) and with one ore
`more buttons on its side (‘side-buttons’). 00396 Ex. 1006 at Abstract.
`
`• “one preferred embodiment of a device (and the device’s software processes and
`storage systems) could interpret simultaneous pressing….” Id. At [0020].
`
`• “Cell phone handsets using the present invention would typically be used to access
`multiple mobile Internet services as well as voice services. Depending on the service
`offered by the service provider, a user might be able to access email, instant
`messaging, Web pages, remotely hosted applications, and other services. Id. At
`[0196].
`
`Petitioner’s DX-50
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`• Pallakoff discloses:
`
`• “This interpretation software could also be implemented as part of the device’s
`‘firmware,’ or it could be written to run on a processor that also runs a high level
`operating system such as Pocket PC or Linux.” 00396 Ex. 1006 at [0024].
`
`Petitioner’s DX-51
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`• Pallakoff discloses:
`
`• “The most general form of the present invention is a
`hand-held device with multiple keys on its face
`(hereafter called ‘face keys’) and with on or more
`buttons on its side (hereafter called ‘side-buttons’ or
`‘modifier buttons’).” 00396 Ex. 1006 at [0015]; Fig. 3.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-52
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`• Pallakoff discloses:
`
`• “A thumb-wheel can be used to scroll through and
`select the options, as seen on on some cell phone
`handsets today; side buttons on either side of the
`phone can be used; buttons can be added to the face
`(or even the back) of the phone to allow users to switch
`between functions; or combinations of these features
`can be used.” 00396 Ex. 1006 at [0196]; Fig. 3.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-53
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`•
`
`Ishihara discloses a sensor pad with delineated active areas:
`• Describing “an electronic device where a touch panel switch 37 is positioned on the
`back surface of the display area 33 on the front surface of the electronic device….”
`00396 Ex. 1007, at Abstract; Figs. 1a-b, 6, 9a-b.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-54
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 1
`
`• Pallakoff discloses:
`• “For example, an ‘Alternative Letter’ side-button could act like the ‘Alt’ key or the
`‘Ctrl’ key on most PC keyboards—modifying the behavior of whatever other face-
`keys or side-buttons are pressed at the same time.” 00396 Ex. 1006 at [0197].
`
`Petitioner’s DX-55
`
`
`
`
`
`PO’S PALLAKOFF ARGUMENT
`
`• PO argues “Pallakoff teaches away from implementing modifier
`buttons on the back” because “Pallakoff teaches the modifier
`buttons on the side only.”
`
`• Based on this, PO concludes that Pallakoff “teaches away from
`implementing modifier buttons with Ishihara’s rear touchpad.”
`
`
`
`00396 Paper 15, Response at 21-23
`
`Petitioner’s DX-56
`
`
`
`
`
`PALLAKOFF TEACHES VARYING POSITIONS
`OF MODIFIER BUTTONS
`
`00396 Ex. 1006 at [0196], [0200], [0323]
`
`Petitioner’s DX-57
`
`
`
`
`
`PALLAKOFF TEACHES VARYING POSITIONS
`OF MODIFIER BUTTONS
`
`Even PO’s expert agrees:
`
`00396 Ex. 1037, MacLean ‘313 Tr. at 125:14-20.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-58
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 15
`
`Same as Claim 1, except this claim requires:
`
` •
`
` “wherein the set of functions associated with the selected
`application includes a plurality of text symbol functions and a
`plurality of shifting functions”
`
`• “wherein manipulation of one of the selectable active area causes
`the text symbol function of the one or more input elements of the first
`surface to change”
`
`Petitioner’s DX-59
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 15
`
`• Pallakoff discloses face keys associated with characters and side-
`buttons associated with shifting functions.
`
`00533 Ex. 1004 at Abstract
`
`Petitioner’s DX-60
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIMS 21 AND 52
`
`Same as Claim 1, except:
`
` •
`
` Does not require “senor pad configured to selectively represent
`delineated active areas, wherein manipulation of a delineated
`active area causes the input function of one or more input elements
`of the first input assembly to change.”
`
`• Requires “wherein at least one of the input elements of the first input
`assembly is further configured to map to more than one input
`function associated with a selected one of the plurality of
`applications”
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-61
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIMS 21 AND 52
`
`• Pallakoff discloses: “[p]ressing a face-key without holding in any of
`the side-keys produces a given character (or function).” 00476 Ex.
`1004 at Abstract.
`
` •
`
` Pallakoff also discloses:
`
`00476 Ex. 1004 at Abstract; [0015]
`
`Petitioner’s DX-62
`
`
`
`
`
`‘313 PATENT – CLAIM 37
`
`Same as Claim 1, except:
`
` •
`
` Does not require:
`•
` “wherein manipulation of a delineated active area causes the input function of one
`or more input elements of the first input assembly to change”
`
`• Requires:
`• “wherein at least one of the input elements of the second input assembly is a
`selectively configurable sensing surface so as to provide a plurality of delineated
`active areas”
`• “further wherein one or more of the delineated active areas is mapped to one or
`more functions associated with the selected application”
`• “further wherein the memory is further configured to store for each application a
`mapping of the selectively configurable sensing surface to the plurality of delineated
`active areas.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-63
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0048]
`
`00533 Ex. 1003 at [0048]
`
`Petitioner’s DX-64
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – FIGS. 15 & 16
`
`00533 Ex. 1003 at Fig. 15, 16
`
`Petitioner’s DX-65
`
`
`
`
`
`LIEBENOW – PARA. [0007]
`
`00533 Ex. 1003 at [0007]
`
`Petitioner’s DX-66
`
`
`
`
`
`EXEMPLARY DEPENDENT – CLAIM 4
`
`• Liebenow (00396 Ex. 1008) discloses:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-67
`
`
`
`
`
`EXEMPLARY DEPENDENT – CLAIM 6
`
`• Martin ‘487 discloses a D-pad 18. 00396 Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1a.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-68
`
`
`
`
`
`EXEMPLARY DEPENDENT – CLAIM 7
`
`• Armstrong ‘691 discloses:
`• “A hand-held web browser for establishing contact with a computer network, the
`browser including a housing. . . a proportional sensor for creating a varying value
`according to varying depression applied by a finger of a human user to a depressible
`surface of the sensor. . . In one preferred embodiment the proportional sensor(s)
`include resilient dome cap(s) for providing tactile feedback to the finger depressing
`the depressible surface.” 00396 Ex. 1010 at Abstract
`
`Petitioner’s DX-69
`
`
`
`
`
`EXEMPLARY DEPENDENT – CLAIM 11
`
`• Willner discloses a handheld data input device “having upper surface
`controls which generate signals representing alphabetic characters in a
`keyboard mode and directional control signals in a game controller
`mode.” 00396 Ex. 1011at 3:9-13
`
`• Willner’s handheld device also includes side or rear surface controls that
`are mapped to game functions such as weapon fire and game
`character maneuvers “such as jumping, flying, and the like.” Id. at 7:36-47
`
`Petitioner’s DX-70
`
`
`
`
`
`EXEMPLARY DEPENDENT – CLAIMS 13 & 14
`
`Hedberg discloses:
`• “Further, a gyroscope (6) is incorporated in said display device (1) and connected
`to said control circuits, whereby said display device (1) is responsive to movements
`in the space for displaying said screen image (7) in different magnifications, and/or
`in different parts (8).” 00396 Ex. 1012 at Abstract
`
`• “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 incorporated in said display device, thereby being
`responsive to movements in the space for displaying the complete screen image in
`different magnifications, or in different parts. ” Id. at 3:26-32.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-71
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLNER IS ANALOGOUS ART
`
`‘313 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Willner:
`
`00396 Ex. 1001 at Refs Cited; Col. 1:5-11; 5:60-67; Ex. 1011 at 1:6-19
`
`Petitioner’s DX-72
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`IPR2015-00230
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on January 13, 2016
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits was served via electronic filing with
`the Board on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Michael Mauriel, USPTO Reg. No. 44,226
`Sherman W. Kahn (pro hac vice)
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`15 West 26th Street, Floor 7
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 529-5131 Ex. 101
`Facsimile:
`(212) 529-5132
`E-mail:
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`
`
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612) 373-0929
`E-mail:
`bgilbertson@greeneespel.com
`
`
`sdunlop@greeneespel.com
`
`
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`Dated: January 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Abran J. Kean
`
`
`
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`
`Abran J. Kean, Reg. No. 58,540
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
