throbber
trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00229 Paper No. 35
`IPR2015-00230 Paper No. 37
`IPR2015-00396 Paper No. 31
`IPR2015-00476 Paper No. 31
`IPR2015-00533 Paper No. 31
`March 2, 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.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-00229 (Patent 7,667,692 B2)
`IPR2015-00230 (Patent 7,463,245 B2)
`IPR2015-00396 (Patent 7,218,313 B2)
`IPR2015-00476 (Patent 7,218,313 B2)
`IPR2015-00533 (Patent 7,218,313 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: January 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`January 19, 2016, commencing at 1:02 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC A. BURESH, ESQUIRE
`ABRAN KEAN, ESQUIRE
`Erise IP, PA
`6201 College Boulevard
`Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT J. GILBERTSON, ESQUIRE
`Greene Espel PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street
`Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`and
`
`MICHAEL MAURIEL, ESQUIRE
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`15 West 26th Street
`Seventh Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. Please be seated.
`Sorry. I'm having a little technical difficulties here. It sounds
`like the fan on my computer is acting up, so hopefully it will calm
`down in a minute or so or I will figure out if we need to do
`something about it, but I think it's going to settle itself in a minute
`here.
`
`Good morning. This is the oral hearing in IPR's
`2015-229, -230, -396, -476, and -533. Sony Computer
`Entertainment America versus Aplix IP Holdings. And please
`excuse me if I mispronounce that.
`The parties in this hearing will have 90 minutes of
`total time to present their arguments. Petitioner will proceed first
`with its case. Afterwards the Patent Owner will proceed with its
`case, and the Petitioner may reserve time for argument after that.
`Starting with Petitioner, can you state who you
`
`have here.
`
`MR. BURESH: Your Honor, thank you. My name
`is Eric Buresh. I'm lead counsel on behalf of Sony Computer
`Entertainment America. With me is Abe Kean, my co-counsel,
`and a representative from Sony, Mike Edelman.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`MR. MAURIEL: Hi. My name is Mike Mauriel.
`I'm lead counsel for Aplix IP Holdings Corp, and I'm with my
`co-counsel, Robert Gilbertson.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`All right. I also want to remind the parties as far as
`referring to demonstrative exhibits and evidence, especially if
`you're going to use the -- I'm not sure if we have the ELMO, but
`if you are going to use the ELMO, please be specific for the
`record on what page number and what part of the record you're on
`in your remarks so that the transcript will be clear and easy to
`follow.
`
`MR. BURESH: Your Honor, if you could give us
`just one moment. We're trying to find the right feed for the slide
`presentation.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Sure.
`Off the record.
`(A discussion was held off the record.)
`JUDGE MOORE: Back on the record.
`MR. BURESH: I'm approaching with hard copies.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Thanks.
`MR. BURESH: Thank you.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. It looks like you're
`having a little bit of trouble here.
`Does it make sense that we start with hard copy?
`We've got everyone local.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`MR. BURESH: I am perfectly fine with that, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`go here.
`
`the delay.
`
`the Board --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: That might be the best way to
`
`MR. BURESH: Absolutely. And my apologies for
`
`JUDGE MOORE: No problem.
`MR. BURESH: I'm going to cover, just to orient
`
`JUDGE MOORE: And before you start, would you
`like to reserve time?
`MR. BURESH: Yes, Your Honor.
`We are going to cover in our direct portion all of
`the proceedings. We plan to take about 60 minutes for that and
`reserve approximately 30 minutes for rebuttal.
`To orient the Board, I'm going to be discussing the
`'692 patent proceeding, which is 00229, as well as the '245 patent
`proceeding. My colleague, Mr. Kean, will cover the three
`proceedings related to the '313 patent.
`If I could refer the Board to DX-2, I'm going to
`begin by discussing at a high level the '692 patent. What I've
`provided on DX-2 is the abstract of the '692 patent which
`discusses the basic concepts of that patent. And what we'll see is
`that the patent in the '692 really recognized the simple idea that
`the human hand works in opposing function -- in other words, we
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`have opposable thumbs and fingers -- and that there is a
`biomechanical effect that can be derived from that. And what the
`'692 patent discusses in the abstract is the idea that in an
`electronic device with inputs, it would be benefited by making
`use of that opposable orientation of the thumb and fingers. And
`that is fundamentally the concept of the '692 patent in its broadest
`claims.
`
`Turning to DX-3, we see the primary figures from
`the '692 patent, which is 3a. And then I've also provided 3d on
`Slide DX-3. Figure 3a shows the front face with hard key inputs.
`Figure 3d shows the back face of the hand-held electronic device
`that has soft key or what the patent refers to as delineated active
`areas. And we will see those same concepts of opposition
`between the front face and the back face of the hand-held device
`in the claims of the '692 patent.
`If we look at Exemplary Claim 1, which is
`provided on DX-4, we see we have a first input assembly and the
`first primary limitation. We have a second input assembly. And
`then that third limitation picks up the key concept, "Selectively
`arranging the first input assembly and the second input assembly
`in substantial opposition to each other." That really, for the
`purposes of the '692 patent, was a point of novelty. The problem
`is that that point of novelty was replete in the prior art, and we
`have provided specific examples to demonstrate that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`Starting on DX-5, we see the primary reference in
`this proceeding Liebenow. Liebenow Figure 1, which is provided
`on DX-5, provides an example of a hand-held electronic device
`that has hard key inputs on the front face that would be actuated
`by the user's thumbs, and a soft key or emulated key input
`assembly on the back face, which would be actuated by the user's
`fingers in substantial opposition to each other.
`Another figure provided by Liebenow to further
`demonstrate that the input assemblies are in opposition to each
`other is provided in DX-6, which is Figure 3. Figure 3
`provides -- you'll see the thumb on the top surface actuating the
`input assemblies and the fingers on the bottom surface actuating
`the input assemblies. And depicted in Figure 3, the back, or the
`bottom portion in this orientation, of the device has hard key
`inputs, but Liebenow specifically at paragraph 48 provides that
`the back surface input assembly can be either a hard key or an
`emulated key touch pad input assembly.
`Slide DX-7 is provided simply to orient the Board
`to the grounds of rejection that were instituted with respect to the
`'692 patent. We have Liebenow and Armstrong and Liebenow
`and Hedberg as the combinations that will be addressed in this
`proceeding.
`
`I would note that the Patent Owner does not dispute
`on substance the independent -- that Independent Claims 1 and 12
`are satisfied by the prior art. The primary arguments are on the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`dependent claims from a substantive perspective, and I will
`address those dependent claims next.
`JUDGE MOORE: And you base that statement on
`their lack of argument in the -- the Patent Owner response there's
`no agreement between the parties as to the independent claims; is
`that correct?
`MR. BURESH: That's correct. Under the Board's
`precedent as the briefing confines the issues of the case, since
`there is no argument in the Patent Owner's response as to the
`substance of the independent claims, those arguments are waived.
`With respect to Claim 3, however, there are
`arguments. Claim 3 is dependent from Claim 1. And I'm on
`DX-8 now. Claim 3 speaks of the second input assembly, so to
`orient the Board, we are talking about the back surface of the
`hand-held electronic device. And the back surface of the
`electronic device needs "to include a sensor pad comprising a
`selectively configurable sensing surface that provides more than
`one delineated active area based on the selected application."
`So we need a touch pad on the back surface, and
`the touch pad needs to have delineated active areas that can act as
`inputs for the user when actuated by the fingers, and it needs to
`be based on -- those delineated active areas need to be based on
`the selected application.
`Now, from the petition through all the briefing,
`Petitioner has taken the position that "based on the selected
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`application" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The
`Board did not construe this term in its institution decision, and we
`continue to contend that it should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Patent Owner also did not offer a construction, but
`has been implicitly construing these claim terms through its
`constraining arguments applying to prior art.
`Before we get to Patent Owner's arguments,
`however, I want to refresh the Board's recollection on the
`teachings from Liebenow that satisfy this claim limitation. So
`turning to DX-9 -- and, again, we've seen the figures in Liebenow
`that show the back surface touch panel. Referring to those
`figures, the specification in Liebenow or the written disclosure
`provided on DX-9 notes that the "areas of the touch sensitive
`panel may be defined to provide a variety of key configurations
`such as, for example, configurations that are application specific
`or are defined by a user."
`So we see there the concept in Liebenow that the
`active areas on the back surface touch pad are application
`specific, so we have based on the application explicitly taught in
`Liebenow.
`
`We also see on DX-10, which is referring to
`paragraph 69 of Liebenow, that the key configurations of the
`emulated keypad may, for example, utilize keys having functions
`that are unique to the application. So again we see that the inputs
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`that can be provided by the emulated touch pad on the back of
`Liebenow can provide application specific functions.
`And we see that in visual terms on DX-11. DX-11
`provides Figure 15 and Figure 16 from Liebenow where we see
`two exemplary embodiments that provide for a word processing
`application and a calculator application. And you'll note that the
`delineated active areas in the back of Liebenow are distinct
`between the two applications and they provide for differing inputs
`based on the application.
`So whether we're looking at the inputs that are
`being mapped which are unique and targeted to the application or
`the orientation of the delineated active areas, both are designed
`and based on the specific applications that they are serving.
`Slide DX-12, I mentioned the Patent Owner
`disputes this limitation. In DX-12 we see the Patent Owner's
`response, and it focuses almost wholly on the disclosure in the
`'692 patent at Column 9 starting at lines 24 and following. In that
`section the '692 patent states that "the pressure sensor pad 354
`may be configured in software to represent one or more
`delineated active areas corresponding to different programmable
`functions depending on the application."
`Now, Patent Owner's expert has stated that -- and
`this is at the bottom of Slide DX-12 -- "one skilled in the art
`would understand that 'in software'" -- that's referring to the
`portion -- the statement in the specification that I just noted -- "'in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`software' in the context of the rest of the '692 specification means
`that the delineations themselves are defined, i.e., drawn, at the
`application level."
`So what Patent Owner is essentially contending is
`that the claim language we just looked at, based on the
`application, requires that the application itself at a code level
`draws its own delineated active areas and that selection of a
`predefined delineated active area, such as a keypad for a word
`processing system or a calculator input for a calculator
`application, would not suffice. Those are preprogrammed
`delineated active areas and, therefore, they don't count to satisfy
`this claim limitation.
`The claim limitation nowhere has these limitations.
`There is nothing on the face of the claim to suggest that the
`delineations must be drawn at the application level. That is
`certainly an amendment that could have been added in this
`proceeding or attempted in this proceeding, but it is not an
`amendment that the Patent Owner has been willing to make and it
`does not find any anchor in the claim limitations itself.
`When we talked to Patent Owner's expert, and
`specifically Dr. MacLean, about this issue, she agreed with us.
`She understood that the claims could include the drawing of an
`application specific delineated active area by the application
`itself. She also understood that an application could select a
`delineated active area and that that would also satisfy the claim.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`If we look at Slide DX-13, these are two sets of
`questions and answers from Dr. MacLean. First, the first box is
`directed to whether the application could select some type of
`keyboard that already existed in the operating system. And her
`answer is -- her answer is: "I think this claim language doesn't
`limit it to that, but that is within the space of what it can do." In
`other words, it would be within the claim.
`The second box on DX-13, we were asking
`questions about uniqueness. Does the input assembly on the back
`surface, the delineated active areas, need to be unique? And her
`answer: "My reading of Claim 3 is it's broad enough to cover
`both unique and non-unique delineations just reading Claim 3."
`DX-14 continues with the transcript from Dr.
`
`McLean:
`
`"Would you agree that Claim 3 does not require a
`custom layout on a key-by-key basis?"
`And her answer is: "It does not require that." It
`could cover it, but it would not require that, speaking of the
`claims.
`
`The next question --
`JUDGE MOORE: Can I ask you a question here?
`MR. BURESH: Yes.
`JUDGE MOORE: The claim language here
`"selectively configureable sensing surface," does that have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`anything to do with whether or not software -- the software needs
`to create a delineated area for the selected application?
`MR. BURESH: The idea that the delineated active
`areas are selectively configurable doesn't specify in any way
`whether it needs to be drawn by the application or whether the
`delineated active areas can be selected from an operating system
`provided delineated active areas. That distinction is not drawn
`out in any way, shape, or form by the fact that it needs to be a
`selectively configurable delineated active area.
`If we look at Liebenow, you'll see that they are
`selectively configurable. You have one set of delineated active
`areas for a word processing application. You have another set of
`delineated active areas for a calculator application. Those are
`selectively configurable based on the application.
`And Liebenow goes further to say outside of those
`two examples that any delineated active area can be application
`specific. In other words, whatever delineated active area you
`want for your application on Liebenow, you can provide that.
`That's the very nature of a emulated keypad. And if you look at
`the benefits described in Liebenow for a delineated active area,
`it's exactly that; they're configurable.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: When is it configurable? Is it
`something that the user does? Or is it something that's static?
`Like, are those two different embodiments, the two figures you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`showed us? Or is that something you can swap between like
`the --
`
`MR. BURESH: You would --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- calculator mode and the --
`MR. BURESH: Yeah, you can.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. BURESH: And in those specific examples,
`those applications are loaded on Liebenow, so if you engage the
`word processing application on Liebenow, it will configure the
`keypad to work for that word processing embodiment. If you
`turn on the calculator embodiment in Liebenow, it would give
`you a different selectively configurable delineated active area.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So that's selected by the user?
`MR. BURESH: The application would be selected
`by the user. The delineated active area would result from the
`selection of the application.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
`MR. BURESH: So turning back to DX-14, just to
`finalize that, there's this concept of the QWERTY keypad and/or
`the word processing keypad in Liebenow isn't unconventional; it's
`a standard keypad, and so is a calculator keypad. So we ask the
`question at the bottom of DX-14: "Is it your opinion that Claim 3
`does not require unconventional keyboards or unconventional
`delineated active areas?"
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`And Dr. MacLean, Patent Owner's expert, said: "I
`believe it does not require unconventional."
`So the idea that we must have the application itself
`drawing delineated active areas has no anchor in the claims and
`when analyzed further by Patent Owner's expert, it is not
`supported even by the testimony of one skilled in the art.
`DX-15, to wrap this issue up, Patent Owner
`characterizes Liebenow as follows. And this is from their
`response at page 20. "Liebenow teaches different emulated
`keyboards provided by the system and selected by an
`application."
`If you look at the claim language, "selectively
`configurable based on a selected application," that's all the claim
`language requires -- is that the keyboards be provided by the
`system and selected by the application.
`Based upon the Patent Owner's own
`characterization of Liebenow, the prior art teaches the claim
`limitation.
`
`I'm going to move on now to Claim 11, unless there
`are further questions on that issue.
`Moving on, DX-16 provides Claim 11. This
`dependent claim also depends from Claim 1 and specifies that the
`device or system further includes at least one of the gyroscope or
`an accelerometer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`Now, Hedberg -- and I provided the abstract on the
`top of DX-17 -- specifically provides in the third line down "a
`gyroscope (6) is incorporated in said display device." Now,
`Patent Owner agrees with us on this particular claim limitation
`that Hedberg teaches an accelerometer, so we're not really taking
`about the gyroscope here. It's agreed that it teaches an
`accelerometer.
`With this -- excuse me. With this particular claim,
`Patent Owner is contending that Hedberg doesn't -- there is not a
`motivation to combine Hedberg and Liebenow and that Hedberg
`is not analogous art. So I'm going to focus for the next couple of
`minutes on those two issues.
`First, with respect to the motivation to combine, to
`the second box on Slide DX-17 which was taken from Column 3,
`lines 6 through 11, of Hedberg, we see Hedberg describing one of
`the benefits of having these inertial orientation devices within the
`hand-held device, which is that you can provide either a
`landscape or a portrait presentation on the display, so that's
`something we're all familiar with. You can move your hand-held
`electronic device and based upon how you're holding it, the
`screen will orient to facilitate the display of the information.
`Hedberg described that as a benefit of having these inertial
`sensors.
`
`Our expert, Petitioner's expert, Dr. Welch, has
`explained that a "person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`appreciated the inertial sensors taught by Hedberg could enable
`the information appliance of Liebenow to detect whether or not it
`was being held in a portrait or landscape position." Taking that
`express teaching from Hedberg and applying it to Liebenow, we
`have the motivation to combine.
`Turning next to the field of endeavor, and I'm on
`DX-18 now -- I'm sorry -- to the analogous art argument which
`is -- one of the two ways to show analogous art, as the Board is
`well familiar, is to demonstrate that the prior art and the
`challenged patent are in the same field of endeavor. We have --
`when you do the field of endeavor test, you go to the patent in
`question, here the '692 patent; you read it as a whole, the claims
`and the specification; and you derive -- and the Federal Circuit
`has instructed us to derive broadly -- the field of endeavor that is
`provided by the '692 patent here. Doing that, we provide one cite.
`We have provided others in our briefing.
`But if you look at the general description of the art
`that's provided in the '692 patent, it's cited here on DX-18. And
`we see it describes it generally as a human interface and an input
`system, so that's what we're talking about. A "human interface
`and input systems for electronic devices, particularly hand-held
`electronic devices, such as cell phones, PDAs, pocket personal
`computers, smart phones, hand-held game devices, bar-code
`readers, remote controls, and other similar input devices having a
`keypad or one or more input elements."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`From that and other similar descriptions in the '692,
`we defined in the petition and throughout the briefing that the
`field of endeavor of the '692 patent is at least -- would at least
`include hand-held electronic devices with one or more input
`elements.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Does Hedberg teach anything
`about inputs? Does it teach about buttons or inputs specifically?
`MR. BURESH: It absolutely does. Now, that is
`one of the arguments that has been raised by the Patent Owner, is
`that Hedberg is predominantly a display device, focused -- the
`disclosure is focused on how to display information.
`But if you look at Hedberg and specifically page 3
`of Hedberg, it further states that the display device includes a data
`input device and speaks to that disclosure as well. It is both. It is
`a display device and it is an input device. But to satisfy the field
`of endeavor test, all we really need is that Hedberg is a hand-held
`device that provides the user the opportunity to input, and
`Hedberg satisfies that test in spades.
`JUDGE MOORE: Now, but Hedberg does not tie
`the change from landscape to portrait to any key? That's not --
`certainly the change is enabled by the gyroscope, right? But is
`there a key involved to implement that? I believe there is not. So
`it's just the movement of the device would cause the change in the
`screen, but that wouldn't necessarily involve the keys? Do you
`see where I'm going with this?
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`
`MR. BURESH: Well, I totally agree with that.
`JUDGE MOORE: Right.
`MR. BURESH: Hedberg, the orientation of the
`screen, be it portrait or landscape, is driven by an inertial sensor,
`a gyroscope or an accelerometer. But let's be very careful here
`because Claim 11 simply requires that the system include at least
`one of a gyroscope or accelerometer. That's it. Hedberg has both
`a gyroscope and an accelerometer. It satisfies the claim
`limitation.
`
`The argument that Patent Owner is raising is: Is
`Hedberg analogous art or not?
`And Patent Owner hasn't even defined the field of
`endeavor of the '692 patent. Review the briefing. There's not a
`single time where the Patent Owner says, Here is the field of
`endeavor of the '692 patent.
`We are the only ones that have done that. We are
`the only ones that have offered a definition in order to satisfy that
`the field of endeavor test is satisfied. And the field of endeavor
`being a handhold electronic device with inputs.
`We're asking a different question; not whether the
`inputs are used to function as a gyroscope. They're not. We're
`asking the question of whether one skilled in the art would look
`to Hedberg to gain some of the benefits of Hedberg when looking
`at the Liebenow system. That's the analogous/non-analogous art
`inquiry. And one of skill would because Hedberg is a hand-held
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`electronic device that provides for inputs. And so the idea out of
`Hedberg that you would include a gyroscope in there, which isn't
`specifically disclosed in Liebenow, comport between the two.
`That's the function of the analogous art test and it's fully satisfied
`here.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counselor, it's my
`understanding, at least in the '313 patent, that Patent Owner is
`defining the field as displaying on an electronic device a
`complete or determined part of the screen image?
`MR. BURESH: That's a field of endeavor?
`JUDGE CHUNG: Or they say that that's the
`field -- or Hedberg limits the scope of its field to a rotatory
`particular scenario for displaying on an electronic device a
`complete or indeterminate part of a screen image.
`MR. BURESH: Yes. And watch what's happening
`here, okay, because here's the source of confusion there. And it's
`the confusion that is -- has been advanced by the briefing of the
`Patent Owner. There are two inquiries for analogous art.
`The first inquiry is whether the field of endeavor is
`the same. If it is, you stop; the analysis is done, analogous art
`inquiry is satisfied.
`If it is not, you then go to a second question and
`say: Is the prior art reasonably pertinent to a particular problem
`being solved by the challenged patent, here the '692 patent. And
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00229, Patent 7,667,692B2; IPR2015-00230, Patent 7,463,245 B2;
`IPR2015-00396, Patent 7,218,313B2;IPR2015-00476, Patent 7,218,313B2;
`IPR2015-00533, Patent 7,218,313B2
`
`that is where the arguments that Patent Owner is advancing have
`focused, but they meld the two together. Okay?
`Now, the point of what Patent Owner is trying to
`say is that Hedberg principally talks about display. How to
`display information, that's the principal thrust of Hedberg. Okay?
`And I don't disagree with that. That is the principal thrust.
`So the particular problem that Hedberg is
`attempting to solve might be different than the particular problem
`that the '692 patent was attempting to solve. It doesn't matter.
`That is a separate inquiry that does not matter, because if the field
`of endeavor is the same, the analogous art inquiry is satisfied. So
`you need to be careful to separate those two.
`And when the Patent Owner is talking about, Hey,
`the main thrust of what Hedberg was trying to get across was how
`to display, that goes to the problem that Hedberg was trying to
`solve. But that's a very different issue than whether they are
`within the same field of endeavor, and those need to be kept
`separate.
`
`Have I answered your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE CHUNG: Yes.
`MR. BURESH: That is the last issue I was going
`to talk about from the '692 proceeding in our opening. If there
`are further questions on that proceeding, I am happy to answer
`them now or will proceed with the '245 proceeding.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`

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