throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: June 20, 2016
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56
`and 58–60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313 B2 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56,
`and 58–60 of U.S. Patent No. 7,218,313 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’313 patent”).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Aplix Holdings Corporation, filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of
`the Petition and Preliminary Response, on June 22, 2015, we instituted an
`inter partes review of claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56, and 58–60 pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 11 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”)) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 21
`(“Pet. Reply”)). Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations (Paper 25)
`and Petitioner filed a Response to the Observations (Paper 29). An oral
`hearing was held on January 19, 2016, and a transcript of the hearing is
`included in the record (Paper 31 (“Tr.”)).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The ’313 patent is involved in the following lawsuit: Aplix IP
`Holdings Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-12745
`(MLW) (D. Mass.). Pet. 59–60.
`C. The ’313 Patent
`The ’313 patent relates to hand-held electronic devices, such as cell
`phones, personal digital assistants (“PDAs”), pocket personal computers,
`smart phones, hand-held game devices, bar-code readers, remote controls
`having a keypad or one or more input elements. Ex. 1001, 1:5–11, 7:7–11.
`The hand-held device includes, on one surface, one or more software
`configurable input elements that can be manipulated by a user’s thumb(s) or
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`stylus, and on the other surface, one or more software configurable selection
`elements that can be manipulated by a user’s finger(s). Id. at Abstract.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 21 and 52 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 22–24 and 26–29 directly or indirectly depend either from
`claim 21 and claims 53–56 and 58–60 directly or indirectly depend from
`claim 52.
`Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`21. A method for configuring a human interface and input system
`for use with a hand-held electronic device configured to run a
`plurality of applications, each application associated with a set of
`functions, the method comprising:
`disposing on a first surface a first input assembly having a
`plurality of input elements configured to receive input from a
`human user through manipulation of the plurality of input
`elements, 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;
`disposing on a second surface a second input assembly
`having one or more input elements configured to be manipulated
`by one or more of the human user’s fingers, wherein at least one
`of the input elements of the second input assembly is further
`configured to selectively map to one or more input functions
`associated with the selected application; and
`arranging the plurality of input elements of the first input
`assembly and the one or more input elements of the second input
`assembly to substantially optimize a biomechanical effect of the
`human user’s hand.
`Ex. 1001, 17:50–18:6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 21–24, 26–29, 52–56,
`and 58–60 on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Claims
`21–24, 26, 52–56, and
`58
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff1 and Liebenow2
`
`27
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Armstrong3
`
`28, 29, 59, and 60
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Hedberg4
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Skill of Person in the Art
`We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`890 (mem.) (2016). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`
`1 US 2002/0163504 A1, Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`2 US 2002/0118175 A1, Aug. 29, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`3 US 6,469,691, Oct. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1007).
`4 WO 99/18495, Apr. 15, 1999 (Ex. 1008).
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment
`appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is
`broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`specification”). However, an inventor may provide a meaning for a term
`that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms: “a
`plurality of delineated active areas” (claims 24 and 56) and “substantially
`optimize a biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand” (claims 21 and
`52). Pet. 6–10. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that it was not
`necessary to construe “a plurality of delineated active areas” and
`“substantially optimize a biomechanical effect of the human user’s hand.”
`Dec. 6–7. Neither party has indicated that our determination in that regard
`was improper and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now
`compels any deviation from our initial determination. Additionally, no other
`terms need to be construed explicitly for the purpose of this Decision.
`C. Obviousness Over Pallakoff and Liebenow
`Petitioner asserts that claims 21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Pallakoff and Liebenow. Pet. 37. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`limitation. Id. at 23–36, 40–46. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Gregory F. Welch, who has been retained by Petitioner for the instant
`proceeding. Ex. 1009.
`Pallakoff teaches a handheld electronic device having “face keys” on
`the front surface and “modifier buttons,” which are also referred to as “side-
`buttons,” on the side or back. Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 15, 196, Fig. 1. The
`primary embodiment taught in Pallakoff relates to a cellular telephone;
`however, Pallakoff also teaches that the invention could also be applied to a
`PDA or handheld computer. Id. at Abstract, ¶ 16. The handheld device
`includes a processor that runs email, instant messaging, calculator, and web
`browsing applications. Id. ¶¶ 24, 208.
`Figure 3 of Pallakoff is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3 above and taught in Pallakoff, the user types
`characters or invokes functions by pressing the keys on the front surface
`while simultaneously holding one or more modifier buttons with his or her
`fingers. Ex. 1004 at Abstract. For example, pressing the “2” key alone
`results in a lowercase “a” being input into an application. Id. ¶¶ 17–19, Fig.
`1. Similarly, pressing the “2” key in addition to the “Shift” modifier button
`101 results in an uppercase “A,” pressing the “2” key in addition to the “2nd
`Letter” modifier button 102 results in a lowercase “b,” etc. Id.
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`Additionally, Pallakoff teaches that the user holds the device in one
`hand and manipulates the modifier buttons with the fingers of the hand
`holding the device. Id. at Abstract, ¶ 193. In one arrangement, fingers of
`the other hand manipulate the face keys. Id. However, Pallakoff also
`suggests that the user may use the thumb or fingers to manipulate the input
`elements to enable one-handed operation. Id. ¶ 193.
`Pallakoff teaches that specific keys may be mapped to more than one
`function of a particular application. Id. ¶ 322. For example, Pallakoff
`teaches that the “a” face key on the front surface may be mapped to up to
`eight different functions of an e-mail application. Id.
`Liebenow teaches an electronic hand-held information appliance
`having a display disposed on a first surface and an input device disposed on
`a second surface opposed to the first surface for inputting information. Ex.
`1005, Abstract. Figure 1 of Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Liebenow, digital information appliance 100
`is sized and shaped to be held by a user in both hands. Housing 102 includes
`front surface 104 and back surface 106. Id. ¶ 25. One or more function keys
`such as 150, 152, and 154 may be mounted on front surface 104 and may be
`manipulated by a user’s thumb. Display 116 may be a touch-screen for
`touch or pen input of information and data. Id. ¶¶ 26, 33. Figure 5 of
`Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 5, back surface may be comprised of one or more
`touch sensitive panels 140. Id. ¶¶ 13, 36. Areas of panel 140 may be
`defined as keys of a keyboard (emulated as an electromechanical keyboard
`seen in Figure 2) so that a user touching the panel (with the user’s fingers,
`for example) within such an area would accomplish actuation of a key. Id.
`In particular, panel 140 may be divided into left and right key ranges 142
`and 144, such that fingers of a user’s left and right hands may be positioned
`over the touch sensitive panel to be in position for typing. Various key
`configurations may be defined as desired by the user or as required by the
`applications executed by the digital information appliance. Id.
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Liebenow further teaches, in connection with the hand-held device, a
`processing system 502 that includes a central processing unit such as a
`microprocessor or microcontroller for executing programs, performing data
`manipulations, and controlling tasks of the hand-held device. Id. ¶¶ 21, 56;
`Fig. 13.
`Claim 21
`Claim 21 recites “disposing on a first surface a first input assembly
`having a plurality of input elements configured to receive input from a
`human user through manipulation of the plurality of input elements, 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.” For these limitations, Petitioner
`contends that Pallakoff teaches a first surface with a plurality of face keys.
`Pet. 28; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15, 199, Figs. 1–4. As pointed out by Petitioner,
`Pallakoff teaches a processor that runs email, instant messaging, calculator,
`and web browsing applications. Pet. 26, 29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 22, 187, 208,
`322, Figs. 1–4. Petitioner further contends that each application is mapped
`to a set of functions. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing, and adopt it as our own, that Pallakoff teaches “disposing on a first
`surface a first input assembly having a plurality of input elements configured
`to receive input from a human user through manipulation of the plurality of
`input elements, 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.”
`Claim 21 further recites “disposing on a second surface a second input
`assembly having one or more input elements configured to be manipulated
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`by one or more of the human user’s fingers, wherein at least one of the input
`elements of the second input assembly is further configured to selectively
`map to one or more of the input functions associated with the selected
`application.” For these limitations, Petitioner contends that Pallakoff
`teaches a second surface (e.g., the side or back surface) with a plurality of
`modifier buttons. Pet. 32; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 196, Figs. 1– 4. As pointed out by
`Petitioner, Pallakoff teaches a processor that runs email, instant messaging,
`calculator, and web browsing applications. Pet. 29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 22, 187,
`208, 322, Figs. 1–4. Petitioner further contends that each application is
`mapped selectively to a set of functions. See, e.g., Pet. 32–34. We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Pallakoff
`teaches “disposing on a second surface a second input assembly having one
`or more input elements configured to be manipulated by one or more of the
`human user’s fingers, wherein at least one of the input elements of the
`second input assembly is further configured to selectively map to one or
`more of the input functions associated with the selected application.”
`Claim 21 further recites “arranging the plurality of input elements of
`the first input assembly and the one or more input elements of the second
`input assembly to substantially optimize a biomechanical effect of the
`human user’s hand.” For these limitations, Petitioner contends that Pallakoff
`teaches face keys on the front of the device and modifier buttons on the side
`and/or back of the device and includes a thumb wheel to take advantage of
`the user’s thumb. Pet. 34. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and
`adopt it as our own, that Pallakoff teaches “arranging the plurality of input
`elements of the first input assembly and the one or more input elements of
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`the second input assembly to substantially optimize a biomechanical effect
`of the human user’s hand.”
`Claim 52
`Independent claim 52 is similar in scope to independent claim 21.
`Petitioner argues these claims collectively, choosing claim 21 as
`representative. See, e.g., Pet. 35–36. Petitioner relies on Pallakoff to meet
`the limitations of claim 52. Accordingly, the discussion above with respect
`to claim 21 equally applies to claim 52. Thus, based on the record before us,
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Pallakoff
`teaches the limitations of claim 52.
`Claims 22–24, 26, 53–56, and 585
`For claims 22–24, 26, 53–56, and 58, each of which directly or
`indirectly depends either from claims 21 or 52, Petitioner relies on the
`combinations of Pallakoff and Liebenow to meet the additional limitations
`of claims 22–24, 26, 53–56, and 58. We agree with Petitioner’s showing,
`which we adopt as our own, that the combination of Pallakoff and Liebenow
`
`
`5 Patent Owner argues that we should not rely on Petitioner’s anticipation
`arguments to evaluate obviousness, but that we should observe that no
`evidence has been presented about how any proposed combination of prior
`art references renders obvious claims 21, 22, 52, 53, and 54. PO Resp. 3–5.
`We decline to do so. Although Petitioner alleges these claims are
`unpatentable as obvious, yet appears to present a case of anticipation, we
`determine that such a presentation is not a basis for dismissing the petition.
`It is axiomatic patent law that a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 also may render the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because
`anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
`1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that ‘anticipation is the
`epitome of obviousness.’”) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
`F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`teaches the additional limitations of claims 22–24, 26, 53–56, and 58. Patent
`Owner does not argue that any limitations are not met by the prior art. PO
`Resp. 17.Rationale for the Combination of Pallakoff and Liebenow
`Patent Owner does not make arguments, that the prior art does not
`meet the limitations of claims 21–24, 26, 52–56, and 58. Patent Owner
`focuses on the combinability of Pallakoff and Liebenow. Thus, we now
`address Petitioner’s reasons for combining Pallakoff, and Liebenow (Pet.
`40–41) and Patent Owner’s arguments that the references should not be
`combined. PO Resp. 17–25.
`As to claims 28, 29, 59, and 60, Patent Owner initially argues in
`conclusory fashion that Pallakoff and Liebenow should not be combined.
`PO Resp. 15–17. Patent Owner argues that its declarants were more
`judicious in determining which combinations should be combined and that
`Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Welch took extreme positions and could not
`remember many things. PO Resp. 16. We have considered this argument.
`We find Dr. Welch to be credible, thus, Patent Owner’s argument is not
`persuasive.
`
`Petitioner provides reasons for combining Pallakoff and Liebenow by
`explaining that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would have incorporated Liebenow’s input/output system 516
`having one or more controllers into Pallakoff’s handheld device to improve
`similar devices in the same way. Pet. 40; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 50–55. In support of
`that assertion, Dr. Welch testifies that a skilled artisan would have
`recognized that Liebenow would have improved the Pallakoff handheld
`device in that positions of modifier buttons on the back surface touch panel
`could be more easily customized. Ex. 1009 ¶ 51.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner further provides reasons for combining Pallakoff with
`Liebenow by explaining that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention would have recognized that including a network
`adapter (for claim 58) would have been obvious as a matter of design choice.
`Pet. 41; Ex. 1009 ¶ 55.
`Patent Owner points out that Pallakoff is a small device with a small
`keypad for typing on the front surface and Liebenow is a large device with a
`full size keyboard on the read surface. PO Resp. 18. Additionally, Patent
`Owner points out that Pallakoff’s buttons are on the side and designed to be
`used in combination, while Liebenow’s modifier buttons are on a different
`surface than the touch pad (the touch pad is only on the rear not the side) and
`are not used in combination with the touch pad. Id. at 18, 21. Patent Owner
`argues that the “[P]etition’s proposed combination would require a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to take Pallakoff and Liebenow, with all these
`differences, and make a complicated combination to teach ’313 claims 24
`and 56. PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner also argues that Pallakoff teaches away
`from implementing modifier buttons on the back of the hand held device for
`the reasons stated above. Id. at 20–21. A reference does not teach away if it
`merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the
`invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
`have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to which we are
`directed and determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that
`Pallakoff criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages implementing the
`modifier buttons on any surface of the handheld device, including the back
`surface. Moreover, Pallakoff teaches that the location of the face-keys and
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`side-buttons may be arranged in different locations, including on the sides or
`back of the handheld device. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 196, 200, 323.
`Patent Owner next argues “[i]t would not be possible to implement the
`proposed new, back-located modifier buttons implemented on a smooth
`touch panel such as Liebenow’s.” PO Resp. 21. Grasp stability would be
`reduced, and it would be harder for the user to find the modifier buttons
`without any tactile clues as to their location or identity. Id. at 22. We
`disagree because Patent Owner does not argue that the combined teachings
`would not result in a working device, or that the combination would be
`beyond the skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, it is
`of no moment that the combination would, in some aspects, be inferior.
`Patent Owner next argues that Liebenow’s touchpad could not be
`substituted for Pallakoff’s modifier buttons and be able to perform the
`operations required in Pallakoff because Liebenow’s touchpad would not
`recognize two different areas being pressed simultaneously. PO Resp. 22.
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence are based on incorporating
`physically all technicalities of Ishihara with all technicalities of Pallakoff.
`The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
`would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether
`one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another
`reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981). For example, Patent
`Owner and Dr. MacLean are of the apparent impression that the operation of
`pressing two modifier buttons simultaneously as taught in Pallakoff need be
`maintained when combining Pallakoff with Liebenow. See, e.g., PO Resp.
`22; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 81–90. But that is not what the law requires, and in any
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`event, none of the claims require how input elements are selected or
`operated by the user.
`Patent Owner argues that locating Pallokoff’s modifier buttons on the
`back of the handheld device using a touchpad as suggested by Liebenow
`would defeat Pallakoff’s ergonomic requirements because it would be hard
`to find the buttons and re-adjust one’s grip and would, thus, the combination
`would not achieve the claimed advantage. PO Resp. 22–23. Patent Owner’s
`arguments are not persuasive. Patent Owner does not argue that the
`combined teachings would not result in a working device, or that the
`combination would be beyond the skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. It is of no moment that the combination would, in some aspects, be
`inferior.
`Patent Owner finally argues that at the time of the invention, mobile
`phone handsets typically did not include an input controller, but rather input
`elements connected directly to a processor. PO Resp. 23–25. Patent Owner
`contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`would not have looked at the PC-type hardware architecture of Liebenow’s
`handheld device and been motivated to add such hardware to Pallakoff’s
`mobile handset device. Id.
`We are not persuaded by these arguments because the claims are not
`limited to a mobile phone device. Rather the claims are directed to handheld
`devices in general. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have considered the relevant teachings for all types of handheld devices.
`Moreover, we are not persuaded by the arguments because the arguments are
`again narrowly focused on combining the technicalities of the features of
`one piece of prior art with the technicalities of another prior art reference.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`In summary, we have considered all of Patent Owner’s arguments and
`are not persuaded by any of Patent Owner’s arguments that it would not
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention to combine Pallakoff and Liebenow. Pallakoff describes a hand-
`held device with input elements and an application as claimed. Liebenow
`describes a touchpad on the back side and controllers. We are persuaded by
`a preponderance of the evidence that modifying the Pallakoff hand-held
`device to include specifically a touchpad on the back side and controllers
`would have been within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Moreover, as explained by Petitioner, adding such features to the Pallakoff
`device would have increased the functionality and desirability of the hand
`held device. A person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
`creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550
`U.S. at 420–21.
`D. Obviousness Over Pallakoff and Armstrong
`Petitioner contends that claim 27 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Pallakoff and Armstrong. Pet. 52. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping limitations of
`claim 27 to structures described by Pallakoff and Armstrong. Id. at 52–55.
`Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Welch (Ex. 1009) to
`support its position.
`Petitioner relies on Armstrong for its description of positioning an
`input element with a “resilient dome cap(s) for providing tactile feedback to
`the finger depressing the depressible surface” on a hand-held electronic
`device. Pet. 54; Ex. 1007, 3:16–31, 4:51–62. Specifically, Petitioner relies
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`on Armstrong’s input elements that provide tactile feedback to meet the
`limitation of claim 27 to “a palpable detent with at least one input
`element . . . so as to provide tactile feedback when manipulated by the
`human user.” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have recognized that the hand-held device of Pallakoff’s input
`elements could be replaced with input elements that provide tactile feedback,
`like Armstrong’s input elements, as a simple substitution of one known
`element for another known element. Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 68–69.6 Based
`on the record before us, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence, and adopt that showing as our own, that the combination of
`Pallakoff and Armstrong describe “a palpable detent with at least one input
`element of the first input assembly or the second input assembly so as to
`provide tactile feedback when manipulated by the human use.”
`E. Obviousness Over Pallakoff and Hedberg
`Petitioner contends that claims 28, 29, 59, and 60 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Pallakoff and Hedberg. Pet. 57. To support
`its contentions, Petitioner provides a detailed showing mapping limitations
`of claims 28, 29, 59, and 60 to structures described by Liebenow and
`Hedberg. Id. at 57–59. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr.
`Welch (Ex. 1009) to support its position.
`Hedberg describes a hand-held display device that includes control
`buttons 3 on the display connected to control circuits and a gyroscope 6
`incorporated in the display device and connected to the control circuits.
`
`
`6 The Petition contains a typographical error in the cited portion. The
`Petitioner refers to Griffin instead of Pallakoff. We read that portion as if it
`refers to Pallakoff.
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1008, Abstract. The display device is responsive to movements in the
`space for displaying an image in different magnification and/or in different
`parts. Id. Hedberg describes that an equilibrium of force accelerometer may
`be used in place of the gyroscope. Id. at 3:26–32.
`Each of claims 28 and 29 depends directly from claim 21. Each of
`claims 59 and 60 depends directly from independent claim 52.
`Analogous Art
`We first address whether Hedberg is analogous art. Patent Owner
`argues that Hedberg is not analogous art because it is neither in the same
`field of endeavor as the ’313 patent nor reasonably pertinent to the particular
`problem addressed by the ’313 inventors. PO Resp. 6–14. We have
`considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive.
`The test for determining whether a prior art reference constitutes
`analogous art to the claimed invention is: (1) whether the prior art is from
`the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the
`reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
`reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
`the inventor is involved. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`Patent Owner conflates the two prong analogous art test. In defining
`the field of invention of the ’313 patent, Patent Owner looks to the problems
`solved by the inventors and argues that the field of endeavor of the ’313
`patent is ergonomic and versatile data input on a hand-held device. PO
`Resp. 13–14. Such a showing is insufficient to establish the field of
`endeavor.
`
`20
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In determining the field of endeavor, we look to the ’313 patent’s
`written description and claims, including the structure and function of the
`invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. And, we agree with Petitioner that in
`defining the field of invention, and in determining the relevance of Hedberg
`to the obviousness inquiry, here a broad approach should be taken. Pet.
`Reply 6–7. Indeed, the Supreme Court provided guidance in determining
`the applicability of a reference’s teachings in an obviousness inquiry. In
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Court explained that if a feature has been
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have recognized that it would improve a similar device in that field or
`another, implementing that feature on the similar device is likely obvious.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
`Here, the appropriate scope of the field of endeavor is hand-held
`devices with one or more input elements. Ex. 1001, 1:12–29, claim 21.
`Patent Owner characterizes Hedberg as being in the field of viewing or
`displaying systems. PO Resp. 12–14. But in arriving at that description,
`Patent Owner too narrowly characterizes the Hedberg invention. Hedberg is
`within the field of endeavor because it describes hand-held electronic
`devices, with one or more input elements. Ex. 1008, Title, 6:34–7:7, 7:15–
`20, Fig. 5.
`Because we find that Hedberg is within the same field of endeavor as
`the claimed invention, we need not consider Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding whether Hedberg is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`with which the inventors are involved. PO Resp. 14–15.
`
`21
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00476
`Patent 7,218,313 B2
`
`
`Claim 28, 29, 59, and 60
`Claims 28 and 59 recite that the hand-held device includes an
`accelerometer. Claims 29 and 60 recite that the hand-held device includes a
`gyroscope. Petitioner relies on Hedberg for its description of a gyroscope or
`accelerometer included in a hand-held device. Pet. 55–59. Petitioner
`concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have

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