`_________________________
`BEFORETHEPATENTTRIALANDAPPEALBOARD
`________________________
`SONYCOMPUTERENTERTAINMENTAMERICALLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`APLIXIPHOLDINGSCORPORATION
`PatentOwner
`________________________
`CaseNo.IPR2015-00230
`PatentNo.7,463,245
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`MailstopPATENTBOARD
`PatentTrialandAppealBoard
`U.S.Patent&TrademarkOffice
`P.O.Box1450
`Alexandra,VA22313-145
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Page
`TABLEOFAUTHORITIES.............................................................................................iii
`EXHIBITLIST.....................................................................................................................iv
`INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
`I.
`II.
`OVERVIEWOFTHE’245PATENT................................................................1
`III.
`THEPETITIONFAILSTOSETFORTHANYEVIDENCE
`SUPPORTINGMULTIPLEGROUNDS............................................................4
`IV.
`THEPETITION’SREDUNDANTGROUNDSARENOT
`ENTITLEDTOCONSIDERATION...................................................................7
`V.
`THEPETITIONIMPROPERLYRELIESONARGUMENTS
`PRESENTEDINANEXPERT’SDECLARATION.....................................18
`VI.
`CLAIMCONSTRUCTION.................................................................................20
`VII. PATENTOWNERRESERVESALLRIGHTSTORESPOND
`FURTHER..............................................................................................................25
`VIII. CONCLUSIONANDSTATEMENTOFPRECISE
`RELIEFREQUESTED........................................................................................25
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`IPR2015-00230
`Page
`
`BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheeta Omni, LLC
`IPR2013-00175....................................................................... 18, 19, 20
`
`Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC
`IPR2014-00347......................................................................................5
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.
`CBM2012-00003........................................................ 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC
`IPR2013-00075................................................................................... 10
`
`Raymarine, Inc. v. Navico Holding AS
`IPR2013-00355......................................................................................8
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
`IPR2013-00288............................................................................... 8, 17
`
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.
`IPR2013-00054......................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326................................................................................................7
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1...............................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22.............................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104...........................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107...........................................................................................1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`(SELECTED)
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Exhibit1001
`U.S.Patent7,463,245
`Exhibit1010
`ExpertDeclarationofDr.GregoryFrancisWelch
`Exhibit2001
`AmendedComplaintin Aplix IP Holdings Corporation v.
`Entertainment America LLC,CaseNo.1:14-cv-12745.
`Exhibit2002
`OfficeActiondatedOctober5,2006,fromthefile
`historyofU.S.Ser.No.10/699,555(parentofthe
`applicationforU.S.Patent7,463,245).
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Computer
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`PatentOwnerAplixIPHoldingsCorporation(“Aplix”)submitsthis
`preliminaryresponse,under37C.F.R.§42.107,toPetitionerSony
`ComputerEntertainmentAmericaLLC’s(“SCEA’s”)petitionfor inter partes
`review.SCEAhasfailedtomeetitsburdenofdemonstratingthattrialis
`requiredoneachofseveralthegroundsitraisesperclaim.Infact,for
`multipleproposedgrounds,SCEAfailstosupportitsassertionswithany
`referencetothecitedpriorart.AplixrespectfullysuggeststhattheBoard
`shouldnotinstituteareviewofthemanyredundantandunsupported
`groundsofferedinthepetitionandviatheexpertdeclarationsubmitted
`withthepetition.Finally,andinthealternative,totheextentthatthe
`BoardinstitutesanyreviewofU.S.PatentNo.7,463,245(“the’245patent”)
`itshouldrejectthepetition’sproposedclaimconstruction.
`Beginningin2003,agroupofMassachusettsinventorsledbyDr.
`BethMarcus,developedinteractive-designtechnologiesforimprovingdata
`entry,control,andgame-playonhand-helddevicesandhostdevices.1
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’245 PATENT
`
`II.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Amongotheradvancements,Dr.Marcusandherteamdeployed
`configurableinputsystemsandelementsonmultiplesurfacesofahand-
`helddevice,implementinguniquecombinationsofandapplicationsfor
`particulartypesofinputelements.2Theteamalsodesignedhand-held
`accessorydevicesthatwouldenableuserstoremotelyoperate(andplay
`videogameson)cellphonesandtabletdevices.3
`Marcusandherteamappliedforpatentsontheirinventions,and,
`afterathoroughreview,theUnitedStatesPatent&TrademarkOffice
`awardedthemseveralpatents,including,onDecember9,2008,the’245
`patent,titled“HumanInterfaceSystem.”4ThispatentwasassignedtoDr.
`Marcus’company,Zeemote,Inc.,aBoston-areastart-up,whichsoughtto
`commercializethetechnology.5Aplix,aJapaneseoperatingcompany,later
`acquiredZeemote’sassets,includingthe’245patent.6
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`2
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`3
`Ex.2001at¶14.
`4
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`5
`Ex.2001at¶2.
`6
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`The’245patentclaimsahand-heldelectronicdeviceincludingfirst
`andsecondsurfaceinputelements,atleastonesecondsurfaceinput
`elementhavingasensorpadortouch-sensinginputelement“comprisinga
`selectivelyconfigurablesensingsurfacethatprovidesmorethanone
`delineatedactiveareabasedontheselectedapplication.”7Theclaims
`requirethatthedeviceenablemappingbetweenfirst,second,andthird
`functionsofanapplicationand,respectively,aninputelementonafirst
`surface,afirstdelineatedactiveareaoftheconfigurablesensingsurface,
`andaseconddelineatedactiveareaoftheconfigurablesensingsurface.
`SCEA’sleadprior-artreference,Liebenow,waswellvettedbythe
`USPTOduringrelatedprosecutionofthe’245patent’sparentapplication.
`AlthoughtheUSPTOreliedonadetailedanalysisofLiebenowtoinitially
`rejectmanyoftheclaimsinthe’245patent’sparentapplication,8itfound
`thatLiebenowdoesnotdiscloselimitationsverysimilartothoseofthe
`’245patent’sclaims.Specifically,theUSPTOfoundthatLiebenowdoesnot
`disclose“whereinatleastoneoftheinputelementsofthesecondinput
`assemblyisaselectivelyconfigurablesensingsurfacesoastoprovidea
`Ex.1001atclaims1and12.
`7
`Ex.2002(10-5-06OfficeAction)at2-7.
`8
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`pluralityofdelineatedactiveareas,furtherwhereinoneormoreofthe
`delineatedactiveareasismappedtooneormorefunctionsassociatedwith
`theselectedapplication.”9
`The’245patent’sinventionisnotdirectedtoimplementingan
`alphanumericdata-entrykeyboardonareartouchpadasdisclosedin
`Liebenow.Rather,byenablingselectivemappingofdifferentdelineated
`activeareasofasecond-surfacetouchpadtodifferentapplicationfunctions
`incombinationwithenablingyetotherfunctionstobemappedtoafirst-
`surfaceinputelement,the’245patentedinventionunlockedthepotential
`ofhandhelddevicesinfacilitatinguseraccesstosophisticatedoperations
`ingamesandotherapplications. TheissuedclaimsreflectthatDr.Marcus’
`andherteam’sinnovationswerewellaheadoftheirtimeintheinfancyof
`thesmartphoneworld.
`Atthethreshold,SCEAfailstosetforthevidenceorargument
`commensuratewithitsassertions.Inparticular,severalproposedgrounds
`arenotsupportedbyanyevidenceinthepetition’sclaimcharts.Inthis
`Ex.2002(10-5-06OfficeAction)at7.
`9
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
`MULTIPLE GROUNDS.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`manner,SCEAimproperlyplacestheburdenontheBoardandAplixto
`guesshowassertedreferencesarebeingappliedbySCEAineachground.
`See37C.F.R.§42.104(b)(2)(4); Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,IPR2014-
`00347,Paper9at24-25; Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054,Paper12at10-11.
`Thisproblempervadesthepetition’sclaimcharts.Forexample,the
`petitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofAndrewsrendersclaims1,7,10-
`12,17,and20obvious.10Thepetition,however,doesnotmapanypartof
`Andrewstotheseclaims.Rather,itsimplyasksthatevidencefrom
`Liebenowalonebeusedtorejecttheseclaimsoverthecombinationof
`LiebenowandAndrews.Thereareseveralotherinstancesofsimilarly
`unsupportedcombinations:
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofHedbergrenders
`claims1,7,10-12,17,and20obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofHedbergtotheseclaims.11
`
`PaperNo.2(petition)at24.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at28-30.
`
`10
`11
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofMartinrenders
`claims1,7,and10-11obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofMartintotheseclaims.12
` ThepetitionassertsthatGriffininviewofLiebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrewsrendersclaims1,10,12,16,and20obvious,
`butpresentsnoevidencemappinganypartofAndrewstothese
`claims.13
` ThepetitionassertsthatPallakoffinviewofRekimotoin
`furtherviewofAndrewsrendersclaims1,10,12,16,and20
`obvious,butpresentsnoevidencemappinganypartof
`Andrewstotheseclaims.14
`Makingtheseassertionswithoutevidenceorexplanation
`improperlyshiftsthePetitioner’sburdenontothePatentOwnertoguess
`howtheassertedreferencesarebeingappliedbythePetitioner.And
`beyondthisdispositivefailuretopresentevidence,thepetitionalso
`presentsextensiveredundancies,detailedinthenextsection.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at30-32.
`12
`PaperNo.2(petition)at41-43.
`13
`PaperNo.2(petition)at57-58.
`14
`
`6
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION’S REDUNDANT GROUNDS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
`CONSIDERATION.
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`CongresshasdirectedtheBoardtoconsider“theefficient
`administrationoftheOffice,andtheabilityoftheOfficetotimelycomplete
`proceedings....”35U.S.C.§326(b).Pursuanttothiscongressional
`mandate,andtopromoteefficiency,theBoardhaspromulgated
`regulations,oneofwhichrequirespetitionerstoprovide“[a]fullstatement
`ofthereasonsforthereliefrequested,includingadetailedexplanationof
`thesignificanceoftheevidenceincludingmaterialfacts,andthegoverning
`law,rules,andprecedent.”37C.F.R.§42.22(a)(2).
`Here,SCEAaskstheBoardtoreview20claimsunder70distinct
`grounds,raisingasmanyaseightseparategroundsperclaim.YetSCEA
`failstodischargeitsobligationtoexplain,withdetailedargument,whythe
`“just,speedy,andinexpensiveresolution”ofthisproceedingrequirestrial
`oneachofseveralthegroundsitraisesperclaim,asrequiredby
`37C.F.R.§42.1(b).
`TheBoardhasconcludedthat“multiplegrounds,whichare
`presentedinaredundantmannerbyapetitionerwhomakesno
`meaningfuldistinctionbetweenthem,arecontrarytotheregulatoryand
`statutorymandates,andthereforearenotallentitledtoconsideration.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,CBM2012-00003,
`Paper7at2.Toassessthisissue,theBoardhasemphasizedthat“[t]he
`properfocusofaredundancydesignationisonwhetherPetitioner
`articulatesameaningfuldistinctionintermsofrelativestrengthand
`weaknesseswithrespecttotheapplicationofthepriorartdisclosuresto
`oneormoreclaimlimitations,” Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Comm’cns Inc.,
`IPR2013-00288,Paper23at4,and“notonwhethertheappliedpriorart
`disclosureshavedifferences,foritisrarelythecasethatthedisclosuresof
`differentpriorartreferenceswillbeliterallyidentical,” Raymarine, Inc. v.
`Navico Holding AS,IPR2013-00355,Paper21at3(emphasisadded).
`Applyingtheseprinciples,theBoardhasrefusedtoconsidergroundswhen
`aPetitionerfailstoexplain“whythegroundsofunpatentabilitybased,in
`wholeorinpart,”ononepieceofpriorartare“strongerorweakerthanthe
`groundsofunpatentabilityon”otherpieces. Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4.
`TheBoardhasidentifiedtwotypesofredundancies,bothofwhich
`areimproperandbothofwhicharepresentinthepetition.Thefirst
`type—verticalredundancy—involvesmorethanonepieceofpriorart
`appliedbothinpartialcombinationandinfullcombinationtoinvalidatea
`claim,whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Liberty Mutual,
`
`8
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The petition improperly presents vertically redundant
`grounds.
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3.Thesecond—horizontalredundancy—
`“involvesapluralityofprior-artreferencesappliednotincombinationto
`complementeachotherbutasdistinctandseparatealternatives,”again
`whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Id.SCEA’sproposed
`groundsareredundantinbothways.
`SCEAassertsatleast18verticallyredundantgroundsforreview.
`Verticalredundancyexistswhenadditionalreferencesareaddedtoabase
`referenceorcombinationofreferenceswithoutanyapparentorexplained
`needfortheaddition(i.e.,thebasereferenceorcombinationofreferences
`isalreadyallegedtodiscloseallelementsoftheclaim,andnoweaknesses
`areidentifiedforthebasereferenceorcombinationofreferences). See,
`e.g., Liberty Mutual,CBM2012-00003,PaperNo.7,Orderat12.Whena
`petitionassertsverticallyredundantgrounds,itmustexplain“whythe
`relianceinpartmaybethestrongerassertionasappliedincertain
`circumstances andwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethestronger
`assertioninotherinstances.” Id.at3(emphasisinoriginal).
`TheBoardhasspecificallyruledthatwhenbothanticipationand
`obviousnessgroundsarealleged,theobviousnessgroundisredundantand
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`shouldbedismissed. See, e.g., Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,IPR2013-
`00075,Paper8at13-14(findingthatobviousnessgroundsinvolvingthe
`combinationoftheSchilitreferencewithoneormoreadditionalreferences
`wereredundantinviewofanticipationgroundsbasedontheSchilit
`referencealone).
`Thepetitionallegesverticallyredundantgroundsofboth
`anticipationandobviousnessforclaims1,7,10-12,17,and20,asreflected
`inthechartbelow:
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg;
`LiebenowinviewofMartin
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg;
`LiebenowinviewofMartin
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg;
`LiebenowinviewofMartin
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`10
`
`10
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Obviousness grounds
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Claim Anticipation ground
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg;
`LiebenowinviewofMartin
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`LiebenowinviewofAndrews;
`Liebenow
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg
`AstheBoard’sdecisionsdiscussedabovemakeclear,ifthepetitionis
`goingtoassertthatLiebenowanticipatesclaims1,7,10-12,17,and20(as
`itdoes),andthenalsoarguethatthoseclaimsareobviousinlightof
`variouscombinationsofreferences(asitdoes),thenthepetitionmust
`explaintherelativemeritsofthesearguments.Itmustexplain,for
`example,“whytherelianceinpartmaybethestrongerassertionasapplied
`incertaincircumstances andwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethe
`strongerassertioninotherinstances.” Liberty Mutual,CBM2012-00003,
`PaperNo.7,Orderat3(emphasisinoriginal).Thisthepetitiondoesnot
`
`17
`
`20
`
`11
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The petition improperly presents horizontally redundant
`grounds.
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`do.ItmakesnoefforttoexplainwhytheBoardshouldexpendfinite
`resourcestoadjudicateitsobviousnessarguments,givenitsanticipation
`arguments.Forthisreason,theBoardshoulddeclinetoconsiderSCEA’s
`groundsB,C,andD15withrespecttotheseclaims.
`SCEA’sclaimedgroundsarehorizontallyredundantwithrespectto
`atleastclaims1-5,10,12-16,and20.Horizontalredundancyoccurswhen
`multiplereferencesarerelieduponto“provideessentiallythesame
`teachingtomeetthesameclaimlimitation,andtheassociatedarguments
`donotexplainwhyonereferencemorecloselysatisfiestheclaimlimitation
`atissueinsomerespectsthananotherreference, andviceversa.” Liberty
`Mutual,CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3(emphasisinoriginal).TheBoard’s
`instructionsareclear—ifonealternativegroundisbetterfromall
`perspectives,thenthepetitionshouldnotburdenthePatentOwnerand
`theBoardwiththeweakerground.Andifthereisnodifferenceinthe
`grounds,thepetitionshouldassertonlyoneofthegrounds. Id.at12.
`“OnlyifthePetitionerreasonablyarticulateswhyeachgroundhasstrength
`PaperNo.2(petition)at24-32(sectionsIV.BthroughIV.D).
`15
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`andweaknessrelativetotheothershouldbothgroundsbeassertedfor
`consideration.” Id.
`Here,SCEAproposestherejectionofclaims1-5,10,12-16,and20
`underthreedistinctsetsofreferences:
`i)
`usingLiebenowastheprimaryreference;
`ii)
`usingGriffininviewofLiebenowastheprimaryreference;and
`iii)
`usingPallakoffinviewofRekimotoastheprimaryreference.
`Thechartbelowdemonstratesthisoverlap:
`Liebenow;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinview
`Liebenow;
`ofAndrews;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinview
`Liebenowinfurther
`ofHedberg;
`viewofAndrews
`Liebenowinview
`ofMartin
`
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimoto;
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`Claim
`
`1
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`primary
`reference)
`
`Ground
`(Griffin in view of
`Liebenow as the
`primary reference)
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view
`of Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`primary
`reference)
`
`Claim
`
`2
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view
`of Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00230
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`Ground
`(Griffin in view of
`Liebenow as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`primary
`reference)
`
`Claim
`
`10
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews;
`Liebenowinview
`ofHedberg;
`Liebenowinview
`ofMartin
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews;
`Liebenowinview
`ofHedberg
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view
`of Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00230
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimoto;
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimoto;
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`Ground
`(Griffin in view of
`Liebenow as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenow;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenow;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`15
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the
`primary
`reference)
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`20
`
`Liebenow;
`Liebenowinview
`ofAndrews;
`Liebenowinview
`ofHedberg
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view
`of Rekimoto as the
`primary reference)
`
`IPR2015-00230
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimoto;
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimoto;
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`Ground
`(Griffin in view of
`Liebenow as the
`primary reference)
`
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenow;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenow;
`Griffininviewof
`Liebenowinfurther
`viewofAndrews
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Thepetitiondoesnotexplain“therelativestrengthsorweaknesses
`betweentheappliedpriorartreferences.” Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4.Nordoesthepetitionexplainwhyanyofthemultiple
`referencesisa“betterreferencethantheothertworeferences.” Liberty
`Mutual,CBM2012-00003,at9.
`Thepetitionmakesonlyatokenattempttoarticulateanydistinction
`amongthethreeprimaryreferences.Itexplainsthat(1)“Griffininviewof
`Liebenowisnotredundant...atleastbecauseGriffindisclosesa‘rotary
`sensor’asrecitedbyClaim16”16and(2)PallakoffinviewofRekimotois
`notredundanttoLiebenow...atleastbecausePallakoffdisclosesa‘rotary
`sensor’asrecitedbyClaim16.”17Yetthepetition’sjustificationisitself
`redundant—relying,inbothinstances,onthesamepurporteddistinction
`ofa“rotarysensor,”atermusedinthe’245patent’sclaim16.Itoffersno
`distinctionbetweenGriffininviewofLiebenowandPallakoffinviewof
`Rekimotoandoffersnojustificationfortheirdualinclusion.Also,the
`alleged“rotarysensor”distinctionhasnorelevanceforassertionsagainst
`claims1-5,10,12-15,20,whichdonotrecitearotarysensor.Andthe
`PaperNo.2(petition)at34.
`16
`PaperNo.2(petition)at46-47.
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION IMPROPERLY RELIES ON ARGUMENTS
`PRESENTED IN AN EXPERT’S DECLARATION.
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`petitionoffersnodistinctionsamongthevariouscombinationswith
`respecttotheseclaims.AddingAndrewstoeachoftheseprimary
`references(asthepetitiondoeswithLiebenowaswell)addsstillan
`additionallayerofrepetition.Inthesecircumstances,SCEAhasnotmetits
`burdentodistinguishoverlappingprior-artreferences.Forthisreason,the
`Boardshoulddeclinetoconsiderthepetition’sgroundsE-H.18
`TheBoardhasclarifiedthat“apartymaynotmakeitscasewithin
`thedeclarationofanexpertand[i]tisimproperforanyargumenttobe
`fullydevelopedandpresented,notintheparty’spaperitself,butinthe
`declarationofanexpert.” BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v.
`Cheeta Omni, LLC,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at23.Ignoringthisdirective,
`thepetitionrepeatedlyincorporatesthedeclarationofSCEA’sproffered
`expert,Dr.GregoryWelch,anddirectstheBoardtodeclarationparagraphs
`presentingmuchmoreexpansiveexplanationandargument.
`Forexample,thepetitionarguesthattheBoardshouldcombine
`threereferences—Griffin,Liebenow,andAndrews—andcontendsthat“a
`PaperNo.2(petition)at32-58(sectionsIV.EthroughIV.H).
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`personhavingordinaryskillintheartatthetimeofthe‘245patentwould
`haveappreciatedthatthehand-helddeviceofGriffincouldalsoinclude
`gameapplicationsat[sic]taughtbyAndrews.”19Areaderturningto
`paragraph52oftheWelchdeclaration,however,findsfarmorethanthat
`simpleproposition.Paragraph52beginsbyinvokingfourprevious
`paragraphs(whichoccupythree-and-a-halfpages,includingtwofigures),
`incorporatesaseven-pageearliersectionofthedeclaration,thencitesto
`fifteenpagesfromtwootherexhibits,and,finally,citesanotherprevious
`paragraphfromthedeclaration.Thusfortheonesentenceoftreatment
`thatthepetitiondedicatestotheimportanttopicofmotivationtocombine
`threereferences,thepetitionincorporatesanexpertdeclarationparagraph
`thatitselfincorporatesmorethantwenty-fiveotherpagesofdiscussion.
`Plainly,theargumentis“fullydevelopedandpresented,notintheparty’s
`paperitself,butinthedeclarationofanexpert,”whichtheBoard’s BAE
`decisionrecognizedisimproper.
`Thepetitionmirrorsthisapproachthroughout.20Indeed,the35-
`pageexpertdeclarationincreasesthelengthofSCEA’ssubmissionbyover
`PaperNo.2(petition)at41(citingWelchDecl.¶52).
`19
`See, e.g.,PaperNo.2(petition)at25,28,31,33,41,46,and57.
`20
`
`19
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`58%.Insuchcircumstances,theBoardhasnothesitatedtofindthata
`petitionerhasfailedtomeetitsburdeninanappropriatemanner. See, e.g.,
`BAE Sys. Info.,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at24.
`PatentOwneraskstheBoardtorejectPetitioner’sproposed
`constructionof“delineatedactiveareas.”Atthethreshold,SCEAoffersno
`explanationforitsproposedconstructionofdelineatedactiveareas—
`includingwhyconstructionisnecessaryorevenrelevanttotheprior-art
`positionsPetitioneradvances.Infact,SCEA’s“delineatedactiveareas”
`constructionisrelevant,ifatall,onlytonon-infringementargumentsit
`mayadvanceinlitigationagainstAplix.SCEA’sinfringingdevicesmake
`extensiveuseofdelineatedactiveareas.Aplix’sinfringementpositionsdo
`notrelyongraphicalortactiledepictionofthoseareastotheuseronSCEA
`devicesbecausesuchreliancewouldimplyaninterpretationthatis
`contrarytothespecification.Byseekinganinterpretationthatrequires
`somethingbeyondthedelineationofthoseareasinsoftware,SCEAis
`improperlyusingthisforumtotrytonarrowtheclaimsandbolsterits
`non-infringementdefense.AplixrequeststhattheBoarddiscouragethis
`tacticanddeclinetoconstrue“delineatedactiveareas”atthistime.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`AddressingthesubstanceofSCEA’sproposedconstruction,SCEA
`contendsthat“delineatedactiveareas”shouldbeconstruedtomean“areas
`thataredifferentiatedfromeachothereitherphysicallyortactilelyto
`assisttheuserinlocatingthepositiononthesensorpadoftheactive
`areas.”21Neithertheclaimlanguagenortherestofthe’245patent’s
`specificationsupportsSCEA’sinterpretation.
`Regarding“physically,”SCEAgivestwoexamplesfromthe’245
`patentofwhatSCEAreferstoas“physicallydepictingtheareastothe
`user”:
`“Inoneexample,delineatedactiveareasincludeoblongshaped
`buttons.”22
`“Alternatively,theactiveareascanbephysicallydepictedon
`thedisplayofthehandhelddeviceinordertoassisttheuserin
`locatingthedifferentactiveareasofthepad.”23
`Regarding“tactilely,”SCEAidentifiesaportionofthespecification
`thatdescribesuseofashape-changingmediato“allow‘theusertotactilely
`discriminatebetweentheoneormoredelineatedactiveareas.’”24
`PaperNo.2(petition)at8.
`21
`Id.(citingEx.1001,9:20-36andFigure3d’selements372).
`22
`Id.(citingEx.1001,9:64-10:3).
`23
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`SCEAusestheaboveexamplestoconflate“delineation”ofanactive
`areawithoptionaltechniquesforhelpingtheuserlocateadelineated
`activearea.Butthe’245specificationnowheresuggeststhatthese
`optionaltechniquesarenecessaryforcreatingadelineatedactivearea.In
`fact,the’245specificationrepeatedlyclarifiesthatdepictingthedelineated
`activeareastotheuserisdistinctfromactuallycreatingthedelineated
`activeareas.
`Fromtheoutset,thepetitioncreatesconfusionbyusingtheword
`“buttons”toreferenceelements372ofFigure3d,perhapsinaneffortto
`implythatthoseareasaredescribedinthespecificationasnecessarily
`beingphysicallydepictedtotheuser.However,thespecificationrefersto
`elements372onlyas“oblongshapedactiveareas,”notas“buttons.”25
`Moreover,Figure3doutlineselements372usingstandarddashedlines,
`which,asshownintheManualofPatentExaminingProcedure(MPEP),are
`conventionallyusedfor“hiddenlines.” SeeMPEP608.02IX.Thusthereis
`nothingtosuggestthatareas372are,bythemselves,physicallydepictedto
`theuserasbuttons.Rather,itisonlythroughtheoptionaluseofshape-
`Id.(citingEx.1001,9:61-62)(internalquotationmarksadded).
`24
`See, e.g.,Ex.1001,9:40.
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`changingmediathat“theuserwillabletoperceivetheoneormore
`delineatedactiveareasasiftheywerephysicalbuttons.”26
`Thepetitionimproperlyimpliesthatthedelineatedactiveareasexist
`onlybyvirtueofbeingrepresentedonadisplayorotherwisephysically
`depictedtotheuser.However,thespecificationportioncitedbySCEA
`makesclearthatthereferencedareasaredelineatedapartfromwhetheror
`nottheyaregraphicallyrepresentedonadisplay.The’245patentstates
`that“acomputergraphicalrepresentation(notshown)oftheconfiguration
`of the delineated active areasofthepad354maybedisplayedtemporarily
`(or[at]somepredeterminedtime)onaportionofthedisplay330to
`visuallyassisttheuser in locating where the delineated active areas of
`the pad are positioned.”27Thespecificationdoesnotdescribe“active
`areas”thatbecome“delineated”onlybyvirtueofagraphical
`representation.Rather,thegraphicalrepresentationisofthe“delineated
`activeareas.”
`Attheendoftheparagraphcitedinthepetition,the’245
`specificationmakesclearthatthegraphicalrepresentationfeatureis
`Ex.1001,9:63-64.
`26
`Ex.1001,9:64-10:3(emphasisadded).
`27
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`optionalandcould,inoneembodiment,beactivatedordeactivatedbythe
`user:
`“Moreover,aninputelement342ofthefirstinput
`assembly340maybemapped to activate and/or
`deactivate the displayingofthecomputer
`graphicalrepresentation.28
`Nowheredoesthespecificationsuggestthatturningoffsuchafeature
`wouldsomehowmeanthatthedelineatedactiveareasnolongerexist.
`Rather,similartotheoptionaluseof“shapechangingmedia,”graphical
`displayofthedelineatedactiveareasissimplyanotheroptionalfeatureto
`helptheusermoreeasilyfindthoseareas.
`Thespecificationmakesclearthatformationofdelineatedactive
`areasshowninFigure3ddoesnotdependonphysicaldepictionofthose
`areastotheuser,butratherdependsontheareasbeingmappedin
`softwaretodifferentapplicationfunctions:“AsshowninFIG.3d,the
`pressuresensorpad354maybeconfiguredinsoftwaretorepresentone
`ormoredelineatedactiveareascorrespondingtodifferentprogrammable
`functionsdependingontheapplication.”29Thepatentreferstothoseareas
`SeeEx.1001,10:3-5(emphasisadded).
`28
`Ex.1001,9:20-23.
`29
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`asbeing“delineatedactiveareas”byvirtueofthissoftware-configured
`mappingbetweenareasofthetouchpadandprogrammablefunctionsofan
`application.Givendelineatedactiveareasdefinedinthismanner,optional
`additionalfeaturesmayalsobepresent,suchasagraphicaldisplayor
`shape-changingmedia,tohelpshowtheuserthelocationofthedelineated
`activeareas.Butthosefeaturesthemselvesarenotwhatcreate“delineated
`activeareas”withinthemeaningoftheclaim.
`ShouldtheBoarddiscernanyinstitutablegroundofthepresent
`Petition,PatentOwnerAplixreservesanyandallrightstorespondtothe
`claimconstructions,arguments,exhibits,andsupportingdeclaration
`materialssubmittedtotheBoard.
`TheBoardshouldnotinstitutean inter partesreviewofthe’245
`patentbasedonthepetition’sunsupportedandredundantpositionsand
`misuseofanexpertdeclaration,andshouldnotadoptthepetition’s
`proposedclaimconstructionfor“delineatedactiveareas.”
`
`VII. PATENT OWNER RESERVES ALL RIGHTS TO RESPOND FURTHER
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`25
`
`
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Dated:March3,2015.
`
`By:
`
`IPR2015-00230
`/RobertJGilbertson/
`RobertJ.Gilbertson(prohacvice)
`SybilL.Dunlop(prohacvice)
`X.KevinZhao(prohacvice)
`GREENEESPELPLLP
`222SouthNinthStreet,Suite2200
`Minneapolis,MN55402
`Telephone:(612)373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612)373-0929
`E-mail:
`BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
`SDunlop@GreeneEspel.com
`KZhao@GreeneEspel.com
`MichaelMauriel,USPTOReg.No.44,226
`ShermanW.Kahn(prohacvice)
`MAURIELKAPOUYTIANWOODSLLP
`27W.24thStreet,ThirdFloor
`NewYork,NY10010
`Telephone:(212)529-5131
`Facsimile:
`(212)529-5132
`E-mail: mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`26
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-00230
`U.S.PatentNo.7,463,245
`Pursuantto37C.F.R.§42.6,Iherebycertifythatonthis3rddayof
`March2015,theforegoingPatentOwnerAplixIPHoldingsCorporation’s
`PreliminaryResponseisbeingservedelectronicallyviaemailonthecounselof
`recordforPetitionerlistedbelow.Iamalsoservingonthesamedateacopyvia
`USmaildeposittothecounselofrecordforPetitionerlistedbelow.
`EricA.Buresh(Reg.No.50,394)
`AbranJ.Kean(Reg.No.58,540)
`Eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`PostalandHand-DeliveryAddress:
`PostalandHand-DeliveryAddress:
`ERISEIP,P.A.
`ERISEIP,P.A.
`6201CollegeBlvd.,Suite300
`5600GreenwoodPlazaBlvd.,Suite200
`OverlandPark,Kansas66211
`GreenwoodVillage,Colorado80111
`Telephone:(913)777-5600
`Telephone:(913)777-5600
`Fax:(913)777-5601
`Fax:(913)777-5601
`/SybilL.Dunlop/
`Dated: March3,2015.
`SybilL.Dunlop
`GREENEESPELPLLP
`222SouthNinthStreet,Suite2200
`Minneapolis,MN55402
`Telephone:
`(612)373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612)373-0929
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`27
`
`