throbber
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. IPR2015-00396
`Patent 7,218,313
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 2
`A. WILLNER AND HEDBERG ARE ANALOGOUS ART ........................................... 2
`1. Willner Is Analogous Art ....................................................................... 4
`2. Hedberg Is Analogous Art ...................................................................... 6
`B. ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS .................................................... 7
`1. Pallakoff, Ishihara, and Martin Are Properly Combinable ..................... 8
`2. Pallakoff-Ishihara-Martin Renders Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, and 12
`Obvious ................................................................................................ 13
`3. Pallakoff-Ishihara-Liebenow Renders Claim 4 Obvious ..................... 17
`4. Pallakoff-Ishihara-Armstrong Renders Claim 7 Obvious .................... 18
`5. Pallakoff-Ishihara-Willner Renders Claim 11 Obvious ....................... 19
`6. Pallakoff-Ishihara-Hedberg Renders Claims 13 and 14 Obvious ........ 21
`7. PO’s Assertions About Dr. Welch Are Unsupported ........................... 21
`C. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS FAIL TO SHOW NONOBVIOUSNESS .............. 23
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`Most of the substantive positions advanced by PO in this proceeding are a
`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`
`I.
`
`criticism of how the teachings of a secondary reference would allegedly be
`
`incorporated into the physical structure of a primary reference. PO resorts to vague
`
`notions of design principles, reasoning that (in the view of PO and its experts) the
`
`combinations would be physically subpar. Last week, the Federal Circuit rejected
`
`exactly this type of reasoning, and reiterated the longstanding principle that “‘[t]he
`
`test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
`
`bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference….’” MCM Portfolio
`
`LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., --- F.3d ----, No. 2015-1091, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-
`
`10 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981))
`
`(citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “Rather, the test is what
`
`the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” Id. Even where physical incorporation of one technology into another
`
`would have conflicted, there was no error in the determination that the claimed subject
`
`matter would have been obvious. Id. For exactly the same reason, PO’s arguments are
`
`fatally flawed, because PO focuses on combining one physical structure into another,
`
`and overlooks what the combinations here would have suggested to a PHOSITA.
`
`Another prominent and flawed theory in PO’s argument involves interpreting
`
`prior art teachings. Without identifying any support for its approach, PO relies on a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`form of hyper-rigid textualism. According to PO, a PHOSITA must consider only the
`
`narrowest possible interpretation of language, blinding herself to other interpretations
`
`or implications of prior art teachings. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have
`
`instructed otherwise. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
`
`(“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton.”); MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10 (no requirement “that the
`
`claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.”).
`
`PO’s remaining positions involve reading limitations from the specification
`
`into the claims, or excluding scope from the field of endeavor that the inventors of the
`
`‘313 Patent explicitly included in the specification. These theories are rooted in
`
`oversimplifications of the record and misapplications of the law. The Board should
`
`consider the entire record, rather than the limited and oversimplified view that PO
`
`promotes. When the correct legal principles for obviousness and claim interpretation
`
`are applied, the Board should find that all Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Willner and Hedberg are Analogous Art
`
`Without proposing a definition for the field of endeavor of the ‘313 Patent, and
`
`without identifying any evidence to support a narrow definition, PO concludes that
`
`Willner and Hedberg are not analogous. See Paper 15, Response at 3-17. Once the
`
`field of endeavor is correctly defined, applying that definition to Willner and Hedberg
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`shows that both references are within the field of endeavor of the ‘313 Patent.
`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`
`Support for defining the field of endeavor come from a patent’s “written
`
`description and claims, including the structure and function of an invention.” In re
`
`Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Like in the copending proceedings,
`
`review of the written description and claims of the ‘313 Patent shows that the field of
`
`endeavor should be defined to include: “hand-held electronic devices with one or
`
`more input elements.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claims; Col. 1:5-11
`
`(broadly defining relevant devices); 4:25-37; 6:16-20; 7:50-65; 8:31-52; Figs. 1-3a;
`
`see also, e.g., In re Shaneour, 600 Fed. App’x. 734, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Like in the copending proceedings, no authority cited by the PO supports a
`
`narrower definition for the ‘313 Patent’s field of endeavor. Clay limited the field of
`
`endeavor to scope that was explicitly required by the claims and the context of the
`
`specification, and Wang Labs. found no error where the field of endeavor excluded
`
`scope that was explicitly distinguished by the patent. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
`
`657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 863 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993). PO’s proposition here is something different. PO would exclude from the
`
`field of endeavor scope that is explicitly included by the ‘313 Patent. None of the
`
`cases cited by PO supports PO’s view. Rather, these cases support the conclusion that
`
`the field of endeavor should be construed as broadly as the patentee has described and
`
`claimed it to be. See id.; see also In re Singhal, 602 Fed. App’x 826, 830 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`2015). Nearly 20 years after Clay and Wang Labs. the Federal Circuit rejected PO’s
`
`position that courts generally decline to construe analogous art broadly, explaining
`
`that the Supreme Court’s KSR decision “directs us to construe the scope of analogous
`
`art broadly….’” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420); Google Inc. v. Jongerius Panoramic Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00191, Paper 70 at 25-27 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2014); Euro-Pro Operating LLC
`
`v. Acorne Enterprises, LLC, IPR2014-00352, Paper 36 at 30-31 (PTAB Jul. 9, 2015).
`
`1. Willner Is Analogous Art
`
`Willner is within the field of endeavor of the ‘313 Patent, which should be
`
`defined to include hand-held electronic devices with one or more input elements.
`
`Willner describes a game controller (i.e., hand-held electronic device) with several
`
`input elements, on multiple surfaces, associated with game and keyboard controls.
`
`See generally Ex. 1011, Willner. Willner describes the field of its invention as
`
`including “a data entry system which can function as a game controller and as an
`
`ergonomic keyboard.” See, e.g., id. at Col. 1:7-10; Figs. 1-2. The Willner game
`
`controller, and its functionality, are just like the remote control and game controller
`
`embodiments described by the ‘313 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at
`
`5:61-6:4 (describing “the functionality of a high performance game controller” and
`
`“the speed and accuracy of data input that can be obtained with the use of a
`
`conventional standard QWERTY keyboard…..”); see also id. at 3:33-42.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`PO asserts that claim 11 is limited to hand-held electronic devices that are
`
`“integrated,” “portable,” and “stand-alone.” See Paper 15, Response at 9-11. None
`
`of these concepts are required by the claims. See Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claims
`
`1, 11. The claims recite “hand-held electronic device[s],” and even Mr. Lim agrees
`
`that Willner discloses this. See Ex. 1038, 2nd Lim Tr. at 102:1-10; see also id. at
`
`66:25-67:16 (claim 1 could include some game controllers); 62:11-19 (claims “not
`
`necessarily” limited to “smart devices”); 105:7-107:11 (both the ‘313 Patent and
`
`Willner are directed to ergonomic devices).
`
`PO also asserts that “[n]othing about Willner would have [logically
`
`commended] itself to the attention of the ‘313 inventors because they were not
`
`dealing with the problem that Willner was trying to solve.” Paper 15, Response at
`
`13. The record shows otherwise. The file history shows that the inventors of the
`
`‘313 Patent submitted several prior art references during prosecution that involved
`
`peripheral game controllers. See generally Ex. 1002, ‘313 Patent File History at 148-
`
`155. Most relevant for the discussion here, an Information Disclosure Statement on
`
`May 10, 2006, included the following two references: (1) USPN 6,512,511 to Willner
`
`et al. entitled “Hand Grippable Combined Keyboard and Game Controller System”;
`
`and (2) USPN 7,670,013 to Willner et al. entitled “Hand Held Gaming and Data Entry
`
`System.” These two Willner patents submitted during prosecution of the ‘313 Patent
`
`each claim priority to an earlier Willner patent (USPN 6,288,709), which in turn
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`claims priority to the Willner reference included in this proceeding (USPN
`
`5,874,906). Not only would PO exclude from the field of endeavor devices that were
`
`explicitly included in the specification, PO would also exclude from the field of
`
`endeavor prior art that is an ancestor to prior art submitted by the applicants during
`
`prosecution. Even the applicants do not agree with PO’s narrow view.
`
`2.
`
`Hedberg Is Analogous Art
`
`Hedberg is also within the field of endeavor of the ‘313 Patent at least because
`
`Hedberg describes and illustrates a hand-held device with several input elements. See
`
`Ex. 1012, Hedberg at p. 3:6-11; Fig. 5; see also, e.g., Ex. 1040, 1st MacLean Tr. at
`
`120:8-121:22 (“[Hedberg] teaches the use of a handheld data entry device for a
`
`different purpose.”). According to PO’s own expert, a PHOSITA would have
`
`recognized that the device described in Hedberg could be used for data entry and that
`
`embodiments in the ‘313 Patent could include a display. See Ex. 1040, 1st MacLean
`
`Tr. at 86:16-87:1, 88:7-21; 120:8-121:22; see also, e.g., Ex. 1012, Hedberg at p. 3:6-
`
`11, Fig. 5; Ex.1001, ‘313 Patent at Fig. 3a. Indeed, the examples from Hedberg
`
`identified by Dr. MacLean as being repurposed to implement the Hedberg invention
`
`are explicitly included in the written description of the ‘313 Patent. See Ex. 1040, 1st
`
`MacLean Tr. at 120:8-121:22; compare Ex. 1012, Hedberg at p. 3:20-25 with
`
`Ex.1001, ‘313 Patent at 1:5-11. Put simply, Hedberg and the ‘313 Patent involve the
`
`very same type of devices.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`PO’s argument should also be rejected because PO and its expert conflate the
`
`two separate analogous art inquiries, and assert that Hedberg must be outside the field
`
`of endeavor because of the problems that it allegedly addresses. See Ex. 1040, 1st
`
`MacLean Tr. at 119:14-23. This is irrelevant to the field of endeavor inquiry. See, e.g.,
`
`Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. PO has not identified any evidence or any reason why the
`
`field of endeavor here should be defined narrowly, or why Hedberg should not be
`
`included. See Paper 15, Response at 5-14; see also Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1327.
`
`In short, PO has not identified any support in the law or in the record for
`
`narrowly defining the field of endeavor to exclude Willner or Hedberg. The Board
`
`should define the field of endeavor to include hand-held electronic devices with one
`
`or more input elements, and find that Willner and Hedberg are within that definition.
`
`B. All Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
`Like in the copending proceedings, PO’s arguments misapply three legal
`
`principles. First, PO focuses on alleged problems encountered when incorporating
`
`features of a secondary reference into the physical structure of a primary reference,
`
`which is the wrong analysis. MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Dec. 2, 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)); see also, e.g.,
`
`Customplay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc., IPR2014-00339, Paper 27 at 21 (PTAB Jul. 21,
`
`2015). Second, PO improperly assumes that prior art teaches away from concepts that
`
`are not disclosed, and that alleged inferiority of a combined device bars obviousness.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also DePuy Spine, Inc.
`
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re
`
`Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Third, PO’s improperly reads
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988
`
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from
`
`the specification.”); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372-73
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also, e.g., EMC Corp. v. Clouding Corp., IPR2014-01217, Paper
`
`37 at 11, 16 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2015); Apple Inc. v. Arendi, IPR2014-00206, Paper 32 at
`
`11 (PTAB Jun 9, 2015).
`
`1.
`
`Pallakoff, Ishihara, and Martin Are Properly Combinable1
`
`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Pallakoff, Ishihara,
`
`and Martin in the manner proposed in the Petition, and even PO’s expert agrees
`
`that this combination would have yielded predictable results. See Ex. 1037, 2nd
`
`
`1 PO has submitted its own translation of Ishihara, but PO does not rely on that
`
`document, and PO’s experts based their opinions on the version submitted by Petitioner.
`
`See generally Paper 15, Response; see also Ex. 1038, 2nd Lim Tr. at 255:18-256:19;
`
`Ex. 1037, 2nd MacLean Tr. at 181:14-183:17. Further, Dr. Welch has reviewed both
`
`translations, and explained that there are no differences that are material to the
`
`obviousness inquiry in this proceeding. See Ex. 1042, Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`MacLean Tr. at 150:6-16. As outlined in the Petition, this combination simply
`
`takes the touchpad like the one disclosed on the back of the device in Ishihara, and
`
`includes that concept into hand-held devices like embodiments in Pallakoff. The
`
`addition of Martin adds an explicit teaching of a D-Pad for claim 6, and tactile
`
`feedback for claims 8 and 9. PO’s challenges to this combination are based on
`
`flawed premises and focus on physically adding the pieces of the secondary
`
`references to the bodily structure of Pallakoff.
`
`First, PO asserts that there is no motivation in the record to combine
`
`Pallakoff, Ishihara, and Martin. See Paper 15, Response at 20-21. This assertion is
`
`not accurate. The Petition explains the specific combination of Pallakoff and
`
`Ishihara in detail, and also separately explains the addition of Martin. See Paper 2,
`
`Petition at 29-44, 47-50. Dr. Welch also provides extensive direct testimony about
`
`this combination, including an explanation of why a PHOSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine the references in the manner proposed. See Ex. 1013, Welch
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 50-56, 63-65 (explaining, inter alia, how the combination would
`
`improve Pallakoff by allowing for software configuration of buttons and also
`
`discussing Martin’s D-Pad and tactile feedback).
`
`Second, PO asserts that Pallakoff teaches away from the combination
`
`because the reference discloses “modifier buttons on the side only.” Paper 15,
`
`Response at 21 (emphasis in original). The claims do not require anything on the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`front, back, or sides of a device. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claim 1. The
`
`claims just require input elements on a first surface and input elements on a second
`
`surface, and even PO cannot contest that both Pallakoff and Ishihara teach this. See
`
`id.; see also Paper 15, Response at 21-23; see also Paper 2, Petition at 29-44.
`
`Moreover, PO’s characterizations of Pallakoff are not accurate. Despite PO’s
`
`insistence that modifier buttons are only on the side, Pallakoff states that “[a]s with
`
`every other face-key or side-button described in this patent, the exact position and
`
`names of the face-keys or side-buttons can vary.” Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at [0200]
`
`(emphasis added). In that same paragraph, Pallakoff notes that one place for keys is
`
`“on the back of the device where the user could operate them using one or more
`
`fingers.” See id. PO attempts to dismiss this teaching with textualism. Paper 15,
`
`Response at 21-23. But PO’s improperly narrow view overlooks what the context
`
`of the discussion would teach a PHOSITA, and also ignores other disclosures in
`
`Pallakoff. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at [0196] (“buttons can be added to the
`
`face (or even the back) of the phone to allow users to switch between functions”);
`
`[0323] (“[t]he modifier buttons can be placed in any appropriate location.”). Even
`
`Dr. MacLean agrees that Pallakoff discloses modifier buttons that can be on
`
`surfaces other than on the side. See Ex. 1037, 2nd MacLean Tr. at 125:6-25. PO’s
`
`reasoning is flawed because the existence of a preferred embodiment should not be
`
`understood to teach away from all other possible embodiments. See, e.g., Fulton,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`391 F.3d at 1201. Furthermore, Pallakoff need not expressly identify modifier buttons
`
`on the back in order for the combination with Ishihara to render the claimed invention
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA. See, e.g., MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10.
`
`Third, PO asserts that the combination of Pallakoff and Ishihara would not
`
`work because Pallakoff discloses pressing two or more modifier buttons at once. See
`
`Paper 15, Response at 23-24. Notably, the claims in the ‘313 Patent have nothing to
`
`do with pressing two modifier buttons at once. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at
`
`Claim 1. PO is simply criticizing the bodily incorporation of non-claimed features
`
`from Ishihara into the structure of Pallakoff, which is once again precisely the type of
`
`analysis that the Federal Circuit has rejected. See, e.g., MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL
`
`7755665, at *9-10. Moreover, the whole premise of PO’s argument here—that multi-
`
`touch was unknown to PHOSITAs in October 2003—is completely wrong. See Ex.
`
`1038, 2nd Lim Tr. at 267:16-269:19 (multi-touch at least available in research
`
`environments and demonstrations in Oct. 2003); Ex. 1037, 2nd MacLean Tr. at 250:4-
`
`18 (declaration statement about availability of multi-touch was inaccurate), 262:14-21
`
`(multi-touch sensing in handheld devices has been known since at least 1985); Ex.
`
`1042, Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 2-16. As Dr. Welch explains, PO’s expert conflates
`
`hardware’s ability to detect simultaneous touches with software’s ability to interpret
`
`complex gestures. See id. Multi-touch sensing was known at least as early as the mid-
`
`1980’s, and several references already of record show that this was well known at the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`time of the ‘313 Patent. See id. (discussing Exs. 1004, 1008, and 1021). This basic
`
`technology would have been well within the background knowledge of a PHOSITA,
`
`and there would have been no difficulties in enabling Pallakoff to detect multiple
`
`simultaneous touches using existing touch pad technology. See id.
`
`Fourth, PO asserts that it “would not work well” to combine the touch panel
`
`described in Ishihara with the Pallakoff device. See Paper 15, Response at 24-26.
`
`Again, this argument ignores the claims of the ‘313 Patent and ignores what the
`
`combination of Pallakoff and Ishihara would teach a PHOSITA. See id. Instead, PO is
`
`searching to identify problems with including a feature from Ishihara into the structure
`
`of Pallakoff, and this argument has no applicability to a proper obviousness analysis.
`
`See, e.g., MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10. Indeed, the ‘313 Patent does
`
`not claim any “fast typing purpose” or typing using “three fingers of the hand,” and it
`
`is irrelevant whether Ishihara would “work well” to enable such purposes.
`
`Fifth, PO asserts that there is no “evidence or explanation” in the record to
`
`support a finding of obviousness for claim 6. See Paper 15, Response at 26-28. This
`
`is not accurate. The Petition and Dr. Welch’s direct testimony explain that placing a d-
`
`pad on the front, back, or side surface of a handheld device would be an obvious
`
`design variation for a PHOSITA. See, e.g., Paper 2, Petition at 47-48; Ex. 1013,
`
`Welch Decl. at ¶¶ 60-63. One basis for Dr. Welch’s opinion is that, during
`
`prosecution, the applicants responded to a restriction requirement and emphasized that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`any input element (including a d-pad) could be placed on the second surface, or
`
`backside, of a device. See id; see also Ex. 1002, ‘313 FH at 140. The examiner found
`
`that the claim that issued as claim 6 included “obvious differences, or variations of the
`
`input elements disposed on the first and second assembly of the human interface
`
`device of Figures 3a-3d, as admitted by applicant.” Ex. 1002, ‘313 FH at 115-16
`
`(emphasis added). Petitioner and Dr. Welch agree with the examiner’s analysis. See,
`
`e.g., Paper 2, Petition at 47-48; Ex. 1013, Welch Decl. at ¶¶ 60-63. PO takes the
`
`opposite position to the applicants, and suggests there would be problems with a d-
`
`pad on the back of a device. See Paper 15, Response at 26-28. But the observation
`
`that Pallakoff teaches a preferred embodiment with cursor control on the front of a
`
`device does not mean it would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA to include a d-
`
`pad on the back, as the applicants admitted. See, e.g., Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1200-01;
`
`MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10.
`
`2.
`
`Pallakoff-Ishihara-Martin Renders Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, and
`12 Obvious
`
`This combination renders these claims obvious as explained in detail in the
`
`Petition. PO attempts to get around this straightforward application of the prior art
`
`to the claims by asserting that the claims require more than what they say.
`
`First, PO asserts that Pallakoff fails to teach application-specific functions of
`
`the second surface input elements. See Paper 15, Response at 28-30. But the
`
`claims do not require application-specific functions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`Patent at Claim 1. Instead, the claims just require functions that are “corresponding
`
`to the selected one of the plurality of applications.” See id. The modifier buttons in
`
`Pallakoff plainly correspond to applications. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at
`
`[0022] (discussing typing and a database application). Even assuming for argument
`
`that application-specific functions are required, Pallakoff teaches that too. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at [0178] (“a device’s software can change the interpretation of the pressing and
`
`releasing of keys, modifier buttons and controls based on context.”), [0187]
`
`(discussing examples “of changing the interpretation of keys and buttons to fit the
`
`context,” and mentioning phone calls, email, text messaging, etc.), Claim 128.
`
`The Pallakoff disclosure is such a straightforward fit with the claims (even
`
`using PO’s improper interpretation) that it is difficult to imagine a distinction. The
`
`rest of PO’s argument is confusing, and it is not clear what would satisfy PO that
`
`its view of the claim requirements has been met. See Paper 15, Response at 28-30.
`
`PO apparently believes that functions cannot “operate the same way across
`
`applications.” See id. But this requirement is nowhere in the claims. Further,
`
`Pallakoff discloses that functions can operate different ways across applications
`
`(e.g., the keystrokes perform one function for email, and another function for other
`
`text applications). See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at [0017]-[0019], [0322], Claim
`
`128. Confronted with this, PO takes the remarkable position that this entire
`
`teaching is useless because there are allegedly two different embodiments
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`involved. See Paper 15, Response at 28-30. This makes no sense. This disclosure
`
`of different functions for different applications is precisely what PO seems to think
`
`is required. See Paper 15, Response at 28-30. In any event, application-specific
`
`functions are not required in the first place, so PO’s entire premise is flawed, and
`
`none of PO’s analysis says anything about what Pallakoff would teach a PHOSITA
`
`about the claimed invention. See, e.g., MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10;
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
`
`Second, PO asserts that claim 1 requires “different shapes and sizes of areas
`
`[that] can be configured in software.” See Paper 15, Response at 30-31. PO does
`
`not even attempt to identify any evidence or reasoning to support this position. See
`
`id. The declaration statement from Dr. MacLean cited by PO says that there are
`
`two interpretations of “selectively represent,” in her view. See Ex. 2007, MacLean
`
`Decl. at ¶ 117. Neither of them requires different shapes and sizes. See id. PO’s
`
`claim interpretation is wrong and should be rejected, similar to PO’s interpretation
`
`offered in the copending ‘245 and ‘692 proceedings.
`
`Third, PO asserts that Pallakoff cannot satisfy claim 3. See Paper 15,
`
`Response at 31-32. This claim just requires that the processor receive signals
`
`generated by the input elements. See Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claim 3. Pallakoff
`
`discloses that “[w]hen a user presses any given button or key … then firmware on
`
`the device sends a unique code corresponding to that button or key being pressed.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at [0023]-[0024]. Pallakoff further explains that software
`
`running on the processor receives and interprets these signals. See id. Apparently,
`
`PO seems to think that sending signals to software running on a processor is
`
`insufficient. See Paper 15, Response at 31-32. But there is no logical or technical
`
`distinction between sending things to software running on a processor versus
`
`sending things to a processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1038, 2nd Lim Tr. at 215:24-218:1
`
`(claim 3 could include processor receiving signals “however way you want to
`
`connect them.”). PO also seems to think that firmware operating between physical
`
`buttons and a processor is unusual, but of course the fact that firmware may be
`
`involved in sending the signals does not change that it is the input elements that
`
`initiate them. See id. There is nothing in the intrinsic record that would support
`
`PO’s view that claim 3 requires a processor operating without software, and input
`
`elements operating without firmware. See id.; see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent
`
`at 5:24-30 (sensing circuitry may receive signals generated by input assemblies to
`
`convert the signals into a form suitable for a processor running software).
`
`Fourth, PO asserts that the thumb-wheel in Pallakoff cannot be “on the back
`
`surface, as required by claim 5.” See Paper 15, Response at 32-33. Of course,
`
`claim 5 does not require anything on a back surface and, instead, only mentions a
`
`“second input assembly” See Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claim 5. PO’s entire
`
`argument here is premised on the assertion that, in the Petition, the second surface
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`can only be understood as the back of a device. See Paper 15, Response at 32-33.
`
`PO’s premise is flawed. See id. In fact, the Petition identifies the “second surface”
`
`as “the side or back of the device.” See Paper 2, Petition at 38 (emphasis added).
`
`Even PO does not disagree that Pallakoff teaches a rotary sensor on the side of the
`
`device, and the side of the device can be the place for the “second input assembly”
`
`required by claim 5. See id.; see also Ex. 1006, Pallakoff at [0196], [0200] (the
`
`various buttons can be on the back of the device); see also supra (d-pad).
`
`Fifth, PO asserts that claim 12 requires communication “over a local
`
`network to a host electronic device.” See Paper 15, Response at 34. But claim 12
`
`just says “host electronic device,” and says nothing about a “local” host or
`
`connecting over a local network. See Ex. 1001, ‘313 Patent at Claim 5. And even
`
`PO’s expert agrees that “host” is broader than “local host,” and that a server is an
`
`electronic device. Ex. 1037, 2nd MacLean Tr. at 142:10-14; see also Ex. 1001,
`
`‘313 Patent at 13:66-14:24 (describing Internet).
`
`3.
`
`Pallakoff-Ishihara-Liebenow Renders Claim 4 Obvious
`
`
`PO asserts that it would not have been obvious to include an input controller
`
`into Pallakoff or Ishihara. See Paper 15, Response at 35-36. One flaw in PO’s
`
`reasoning is that, once again, PO is focused on including functionality from a
`
`secondary reference into the physical structure of a primary reference. As above,
`
`this is improper. See, e.g., MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *9-10. Another
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`flaw in PO’s reasoning is that the premise that Liebenow is limited to PC-type
`
`architecture is simply untrue. Liebenow explicitly teaches exemplary embodiments
`
`including “electronic books, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and portable
`
`information handing systems.” Ex. 1008, Liebenow at [0002]; see also Ex. 1042,
`
`Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 17-18. Even Mr. Lim agrees that these devices would not
`
`be limited to PC-type architecture and that input controllers were common with
`
`input assemblies. See Ex. 1038, 2nd Lim Tr. at 283:15-284:8 (PDAs could include
`
`other architecture), 226:13-228:5 (“most common way” for an input assembly to
`
`communicate would be to “have a signal that can [be] receive[d] by [an] input
`
`controller….”), 238:2-11 (Pallakoff firmware could be executed on an input
`
`controller); see also Ex. 1042, Welch Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 19-21 (processors
`
`supported input controllers for handheld devices for years prior to the ‘313 Patent,
`
`and the input controller of Liebenow would have been compatible with the devices
`
`described in Pallakoff and Ishihara). Focusing the obviousness inquiry on the right
`
`analysis, it would have been obvious to combine Liebenow’s input controller into
`
`the teachings of Pallakoff and Ishihara, and a PHOSITA would have been
`
`motivated to do so. Ex. 1013, Welch Decl. at ¶ 59.
`
`4.
`
`Pallakoff-Ishihara-Armstrong Renders Claim 7 Obvious
`
`
`Claim 7 is obvious for the reasons set forth in the Petition and supporting
`
`evidence, and also as laid out supra at II.B.1-2.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Pallakoff-Ishihara-Willner Renders Claim 11 Obvious
`
`IPR2015-00396
`U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313
`
`
`5.
`
`
`PO asserts that it would have been improper to combine Pallakoff, Ishihara,
`
`and Willner, and that the combination would not have disclosed claim 11. PO’s
`
`analysis misrepresents the facts, misapplies the law, and should be rejected.
`
`First, PO asserts that Pallakoff and Willner teach interfaces for different
`
`types of devices. See Paper 15, Response at 37-40. PO focuses on form factors,
`
`size constraints, and design issues. See id. Claim 11 has no such requirements, and
`
`just adds a game application to the inputs on the first and seco

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket