UNITEDSTATESPATENTANDTRADEMARKOFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORETHEPATENTTRIALANDAPPEALBOARD
`________________________
`SONYCOMPUTERENTERTAINMENTAMERICALLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`APLIXIPHOLDINGSCORPORATION
`PatentOwner
`________________________
`CaseNo.IPR2015-00533
`PatentNo.7,218,313
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`MailstopPATENTBOARD
`PatentTrialandAppealBoard
`U.S.Patent&TrademarkOffice
`P.O.Box1450
`Alexandra,VA22313-145
`
`
`_________________________
`BEFORETHEPATENTTRIALANDAPPEALBOARD
`________________________
`SONYCOMPUTERENTERTAINMENTAMERICALLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`APLIXIPHOLDINGSCORPORATION
`PatentOwner
`________________________
`CaseNo.IPR2015-00533
`PatentNo.7,218,313
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`MailstopPATENTBOARD
`PatentTrialandAppealBoard
`U.S.Patent&TrademarkOffice
`P.O.Box1450
`Alexandra,VA22313-145
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Page
`TABLEOFAUTHORITIES.............................................................................iii
`EXHIBITLIST .................................................................................................v
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
`I.
`II.
`OVERVIEWOFTHE’313PATENT......................................................2
`III.
`THEPETITIONFAILSTOSETFORTHANYEVIDENCE
`SUPPORTINGMULTIPLEGROUNDS ..................................................5
`IV.
`THEPETITION’SREDUNDANTGROUNDSARENOT
`ENTITLEDTOCONSIDERATION ........................................................7
`V.
`THEPETITIONIMPROPERLYRELIESONARGUMENTS
`PRESENTEDINANEXPERTDECLARATIONAND
`CLAIMCHARTS ................................................................................. 15
`VI.
`CLAIMCONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 20
`VII. APLIXRESERVESALLRIGHTSTORESPOND
`FURTHER........................................................................................... 30
`VIII. CONCLUSIONANDSTATEMENTOFPRECISE
`RELIEFREQUESTED......................................................................... 30
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`IPR2015-00533
`Page
`
`BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheeta Omni, LLC
`IPR2013-00175............................................................................. 15, 17
`
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. C-Cation Techs.
`IPR2014-00454............................................................................. 15, 17
`
`Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC
`IPR2014-00347......................................................................................5
`
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.
`IPR2014-01338.................................................................................. 17
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
`CBM2012-00003........................................................ 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14
`
`IPR2015-00033................................................................................. 21
`
`Masterimage 3D v. Reald Inc.
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC
`IPR2013-00075................................................................................... 10
`
`Petroleum Geo-Servs., Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC
`IPR2014-00689................................................................................... 21
`
`Raymarine, Inc. v. Navico Holding AS
`IPR2013-00355......................................................................................8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC
`IPR2014-00740................................................................................... 21
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commcn’s, Inc.
`IPR2013-00288............................................................................... 8, 14
`
`VMware, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.
`IPR 2014-00901.................................................................................. 18
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`
`IPR2015-00533
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.
`IPR2013-00054......................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326................................................................................................7
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1...............................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6............................................................................................ 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22.............................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104...........................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107...........................................................................................1
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`(SELECTED)
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Exhibit1001
`U.S.Patent7,218,313
`Exhibit1002
`FileHistoryofU.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Exhibit1008
`ExpertDeclarationofDr.GregoryFrancisWelch
`Exhibit2005
`AmendedComplaintin Aplix IP Holdings Corporation v.
`Entertainment America LLC,CaseNo.1:14-cv-12745
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Computer
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`PatentOwnerAplixIPHoldingsCorporation(“Aplix”)submitsthis
`preliminaryresponse,under37C.F.R.§42.107,toPetitionerSony
`ComputerEntertainmentAmericaLLC’s(“Petitioner’s”)petitionfor inter
`partesreview.
`Petitionerhasfailedtomeetitsburdenofdemonstratingthattrialis
`requiredoneachofthemultiplegroundsitraisesperclaim.Infact,for
`severalproposedgrounds,Petitionerfailstosupportitsassertionswith
`anyreferencetothecitedpriorart.Aplixrespectfullysuggeststhatthe
`Boardshouldnotinstituteareviewofthemanyredundantand
`unsupportedgroundsofferedinthepetitionorpursuanttoimproper
`argumentsassertedinPetitioner’sclaimchartsandincorporatedviathe
`expertdeclarationsubmittedwiththepetition.Finally,andinthe
`alternative,totheextentthattheBoardinstitutesanyreviewofU.S.Patent
`No.7,218,313(“the’313patent”)itshoulddeclinetoconstruetheclaim
`limitationsthatPetitionerproposesforconstruction.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’313 PATENT
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Beginningin2003,agroupofMassachusettsinventorsledbyDr.
`BethMarcusdevelopedinteractive-designtechnologiesforimprovingdata
`entry,control,andgame-playonhand-helddevicesandhostdevices.1
`Amongotheradvancements,Dr.Marcusandherteamdeployed
`configurableinputsystemsandelementsonmultiplesurfacesofahand-
`helddevice,implementinguniquecombinationsofandapplicationsfor
`particulartypesofinputelements.2Theteamalsodesignedhand-held
`accessorydevicesthatwouldenableuserstoremotelyoperate(andplay
`videogameson)cellphonesandtabletdevices.3
`Marcusandherteamappliedforpatentsontheirinventions,and,
`afterathoroughreview,theUnitedStatesPatent&TrademarkOffice
`(“USPTO”)awardedthemseveralpatents,including,onMay15,2007,the
`’313patent,titled“HumanInterfaceSystem.”4The’313patentclaimsa
`hand-heldelectronicdeviceaswellasmethodsforprovidinganinterface
`Ex.2005at¶2.
`1
`Ex.2005at¶2.
`2
`Ex.2005at¶2.
`3
`Ex.2005at¶12.
`4
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`forusewithsuchadevice.Theclaimsrecitearrangementsthat
`substantiallyoptimizeabiomechanicaleffectofahumanuser’shand.5In
`someoftheclaimedembodiments,inputelementsareconfiguredtobe
`selectivelymappedtooneormoreinputfunctionsofaselectedoneofa
`pluralityofapplications.6Someoftheclaimedembodimentscanbe
`configuredsothatmanipulationofasecond-surfaceinputelementcauses
`aninputfunctionmappedtoafirst-surfaceinputelementtochange.7In
`someoftheclaimedembodiments,afirst-surfaceinputelementis
`configuredtobemappedtomorethanonefunctionofaselected
`application.8
`TheUSPTOconsidered144referencesduringexaminationofthe
`applicationforthe’313patent.InitsOctober5,2006officeaction,the
`USPTOdiscussedtheLiebenowreferenceindetailandfoundthatneitherit
`northeotherconsideredreferences,aloneorincombination,disclosed
`“whereinatleastoneoftheinputelementsofthesecondinputassemblyis
`Ex.1001atclaims1,15,21,30,35,37,and52.
`5
`See, e.g.,Ex.1001atclaim1.
`6
`See, e.g.,Ex.1001atclaim1.
`7
`See, e.g.,Ex.1001atclaim21.
`8
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`aselectivelyconfigurablesensingsurfacesoastoprovideapluralityof
`delineatedactiveareas,furtherwhereinoneormoreofthedelineated
`activeareasismappedtooneormorefunctionsassociatedwiththe
`selectedapplication.”9 IntheMarch1,2007NoticeofAllowance,the
`USPTOfoundthatseveralotherclaimedlimitationswerealsomissingfrom
`thepriorart,including,interalia,that“atleastoneoftheinputelementsof
`thefirstinputassemblyisfurtherconfiguredtomaptomorethanone
`inputfunctionassociatedwithaselectedoneofthepluralityof
`applications.”10
`ThispatentwasassignedtoDr.Marcus’company,Zeemote,Inc.,a
`Boston-areastart-up,whichsoughttocommercializethetechnology.11
`Aplix,aJapaneseoperatingcompany,lateracquiredZeemote’sassets,
`includingthe’313patent.12
`
`Ex.1002at116.
`Ex.1002at44.
`Ex.2005at¶2.
`Ex.2005at¶2.
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`4
`
`
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
`MULTIPLE GROUNDS
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Atthethreshold,Petitionerfailstosetforthevidenceorargument
`commensuratewithitsassertions.Inparticular,severalproposedgrounds
`arenotsupportedbyanyevidenceinthepetition’sclaimcharts.Inthis
`manner,PetitionerimproperlyplacestheburdenontheBoardandAplixto
`guesshowassertedreferencesarebeingappliedbyPetitionerineach
`ground. See37C.F.R.§42.104(b)(2)(4); Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347,Paper9at24-25; Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054,Paper12at10-11.
`ThisproblempervadesthePetitioner’sclaimcharts.Forexample,the
`petitionassertsthatPallakoffinviewofIshiharainfurtherviewof
`Liebenowrendersclaims15,20,37,and49obvious.13Thepetition,
`however,doesnotmapanypartofLiebenowtotheseclaims.Rather,it
`simplyasksthatevidencefromPallakoffand/orIshiharaalonebeusedto
`rejecttheseclaims.14Thereareseveralotherinstancesofsimilarly
`unsupportedcombinations:
`PaperNo.2(petition)at43.
`13
`PaperNo.2(petition)at43-48.
`14
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofIshihararenders
`claims37-39and49obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofLiebenowtotheseclaims.15
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofArmstrong
`rendersclaims37-39and49obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofArmstrongtotheseclaims.16
` ThepetitionassertsthatLiebenowinviewofHedbergrenders
`claims37-39and49obvious,butpresentsnoevidence
`mappinganypartofHedbergtotheseclaims.17
`Makingtheseassertionswithoutevidenceorexplanation
`improperlyshiftsPetitioner’sburdenontoAplixtoguesshowtheasserted
`referencesarebeingappliedbyPetitioner.Butevenbeyondthis
`dispositivefailuretopresentevidence,Petitioner’sapproachhighlightsthe
`petition’sextensiveredundancies,detailedinthenextsection.
`
`PaperNo.2(petition)at48-50.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at50-55.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at56-59.
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`6
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION’S REDUNDANT GROUNDS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
`CONSIDERATION
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`CongresshasdirectedtheBoardtoconsider“theefficient
`administrationoftheOffice,andtheabilityoftheOfficetotimelycomplete
`proceedings....”35U.S.C.§326(b).Pursuanttothiscongressional
`mandate,andtopromoteefficiency,theBoardhaspromulgated
`regulations,oneofwhichrequirespetitionerstoprovide“[a]fullstatement
`ofthereasonsforthereliefrequested,includingadetailedexplanationof
`thesignificanceoftheevidenceincludingmaterialfacts,andthegoverning
`law,rules,andprecedent.”37C.F.R.§42.22(a)(2).
`Here,PetitioneraskstheBoardtoreview17claimspursuantto50
`distinctgrounds,raisingasmanyassevenseparategroundsperclaim.Yet
`Petitionerfailstodischargeitsobligationtoexplain,withdetailed
`argument,whythe“just,speedy,andinexpensiveresolution”ofthis
`proceedingrequirestrialoneachoftheseveralgroundsitraisesperclaim,
`asrequiredby37C.F.R.§42.1(b).
`TheBoardhasconcludedthat“multiplegrounds,whichare
`presentedinaredundantmannerbyapetitionerwhomakesno
`meaningfuldistinctionbetweenthem,arecontrarytotheregulatoryand
`statutorymandates,andthereforearenotallentitledtoconsideration.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,CBM2012-00003,Paper7at
`2.Toassessthisissue,theBoardhasemphasizedthat“[t]heproperfocus
`ofaredundancydesignationisonwhetherPetitionerarticulatesa
`meaningfuldistinctionintermsofrelativestrengthsandweaknesseswith
`respecttotheapplicationofthepriorartdisclosurestooneormoreclaim
`limitations,” Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4,and“notonwhethertheappliedpriorartdisclosureshave
`differences,foritisrarelythecasethatthedisclosuresofdifferentpriorart
`referenceswillbeliterallyidentical,” Raymarine, Inc. v. Navico Holding AS,
`IPR2013-00355,Paper21at3(emphasisadded).Applyingthese
`principles,theBoardhasrefusedtoconsidergroundswhenapetitioner
`failstoexplain“whythegroundsofunpatentabilitybased,inwholeorin
`part,”ononepieceofpriorartare“strongerorweakerthanthegroundsof
`unpatentabilityon”otherpieces. Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,Paper23
`at4. TheBoardhasidentifiedtwotypesofredundancies,bothofwhich
`areimproperandbothofwhicharepresentinthepetition.Thefirst
`type—verticalredundancy—involvesmorethanonepieceofpriorart
`appliedbothinpartialcombinationandinfullcombinationtoinvalidatea
`claim,whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Liberty Mut.,
`
`8
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The petition improperly presents vertically redundant
`grounds.
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3.Thesecond—horizontalredundancy—
`“involvesapluralityofpriorartreferencesappliednotincombinationto
`complementeachotherbutasdistinctandseparatealternatives,”again
`whenasinglepieceofpriorartwouldbesufficient. Id.Petitioner’s
`proposedgroundsareredundantinbothways.
`Petitionerassertsatleast20verticallyredundantgroundsfor
`review.Verticalredundancyexistswhenadditionalreferencesareadded
`toabasereferenceorcombinationofreferenceswithoutanyapparentor
`explainedneedfortheaddition(i.e.,thebasereferenceorcombinationof
`referencesisalreadyallegedtodiscloseallelementsoftheclaim,andno
`weaknessesareidentifiedforthebasereferenceorcombinationof
`references). See, e.g., Liberty Mut.,CBM2012-00003,PaperNo.7at12.
`Whenapetitionassertsverticallyredundantgrounds,itmustexplain“why
`therelianceinpartmaybethestrongerassertionasappliedincertain
`circumstances andwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethestronger
`assertioninotherinstances.” Id.at3(emphasisinoriginal).
`TheBoardhasspecificallyruledthatwhenbothanticipationand
`obviousnessgroundsarealleged,theobviousnessgroundisredundantand
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Base Reference
`
`Additional References added to
`Base Reference
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`shouldbedismissed. See, e.g., Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,IPR2013-
`00075,Paper8at13-14(findingthatobviousnessgroundsinvolvingthe
`combinationoftheSchilitreferencewithoneormoreadditionalreferences
`wereredundantinviewofanticipationgroundsbasedontheSchilit
`referencealone).
`Thepetitionallegesverticallyredundantgroundsasreflectedinthe
`chartbelow:
`Liebenow
`Pallakoffinviewof
`Ishihara
`
`LiebenowinviewofIshihara;
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;and
`LiebenowinviewofHedberg.
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharainfurther
`viewofLiebenow;and
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharainfurther
`viewofHedburg.
`Ifthepetitionisgoingtoclaim,forexample,thatLiebenow
`anticipatesclaim37andthatLiebenowinviewofIshihararendersclaim
`37obvious,Petitionermustexplain,“whytherelianceinpartmaybethe
`
`37-39,
`49
`
`15, 20,
`37, 49
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`strongerassertionasappliedincertaincircumstances andwhythe
`relianceinwholemayalsobethestrongerassertioninotherinstances.”
`Liberty Mut.,CBM2012-00003,PaperNo.7at3(emphasisinoriginal).This
`thepetitiondoesnotdo.Instead,Petitionertacitlyconcedesthe
`redundancyofitsarguments,incorporatingpriorobviousnessarguments
`intoeachofgroundsC,D,E,andF.18Inotherwords,Petitionerprovidesno
`reasonfortheBoardtoconsidereachabove-identifiedground
`independentlyforallclaims.Forthisreason,theBoardshoulddeclineto
`considergroundsC,D,E,andF19withrespecttotheseclaims.
`Petitioner’sclaimedgroundsarehorizontallyredundantwithrespect
`toclaims37-42,46,and49-51.Horizontalredundancyoccurswhen
`multiplereferencesarerelieduponto“provideessentiallythesame
`teachingtomeetthesameclaimlimitation,andtheassociatedarguments
`donotexplainwhyonereferencemorecloselysatisfiestheclaimlimitation
`PaperNo.2(petition)at48(arguingthatLiebenowinviewof
`18
`Ishihararendersclaims37-39and49obvious,butalsonotingthat“[a]s
`discussedabove,LiebenowaloneanticipatesClaims37-39and49”).
`PaperNo.2(petition)at43-59(sectionsIV.C-IV.F).
`19
`
`The petition improperly presents horizontally redundant
`grounds.
`
`B.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`atissueinsomerespectsthananotherreference, andviceversa.” Liberty
`Mut.,CBM2012-00003,Paper7at3(emphasisinoriginal).TheBoard’s
`instructionsareclear—ifonealternativegroundisbetterfromall
`perspectives,thenthepetitionshouldnotburdenthepatentownerandthe
`Boardwiththeweakerground.Andifthereisnodifferenceinthe
`grounds,thepetitionshouldassertonlyoneofthegrounds. Id.at12.
`“OnlyifthePetitionerreasonablyarticulateswhyeachgroundhasstrength
`andweaknessrelativetotheothershouldbothgroundsbeassertedfor
`consideration.” Id.
`Here,Petitionerproposestherejectionofclaims37-42,46,and49-
`51undermultiplesetsofreferences:
`i)
`usingLiebenowastheprimarybasereference;and
`ii)
`usingPallakoffinviewofIshiharaastheprimarybase
`reference.
`Thechartbelowdemonstratesthisoverlap:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view of Ishihara as
`the primary base reference)
`
`IPR2015-00533
`PallakoffinviewofIshihara;
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`furtherviewofLiebenow;and
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`furtherviewofHedburg.
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`furtherviewofLiebenow.
`
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`furtherviewofLiebenow.
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`furtherviewofLiebenow.
`
`Claim
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the primary base
`reference)
`
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`37, 49Liebenow;
`LiebenowinviewofIshihara;
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`andLiebenowinviewofHedberg.
`38, 39Liebenow;
`LiebenowinviewofIshihara;
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong;
`andLiebenowinviewofHedberg.
`LiebenowinviewofIshihara;and
`LiebenowinviewofArmstrong.
`42 LiebenowinviewofIshihara.
`
`40, 41,
`46
`
`13
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Ground
`(Pallakoff in view of Ishihara as
`the primary base reference)
`
`Ground
`(Liebenow as the primary base
`reference)
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`PallakoffinviewofIshiharain
`50, 51LiebenowinviewofHedberg.
`furtherviewofHedburg.
`Thepetitiondoesnotexplain“therelativestrengthsorweaknesses
`betweentheappliedpriorartreferences.” Ultratec, Inc.,IPR2013-00288,
`Paper23at4.Nordoesthepetitionexplainwhyanyofthemultiple
`referencesisa“betterreferencethantheothertworeferences.” Liberty
`Mut.,CBM2012-00003,at9.Infact,Petitionermakesnoattemptto
`distinguishanyredundanciesbetweenthetwoprimarybasereferencesin
`itsargumentsrelatingtoanyclaims.Petitionerdoesnotevenacknowledge
`havingpreviouslyassertedthatLiebenowanticipatesclaims37and49
`whenassertingthatPallakoffinviewofIshiharaalsorendersclaims37
`and49obvious.20AddingHedbergtobothLiebenowandPallakoffinview
`ofIshiharaaddsstilladditionallayersofrepetition.Inthese
`circumstances,Petitionerhasnotmetitsburdentodistinguishoverlapping
`prior-artreferences.Tothecontrary,Petitionerreliesonthesame
`PaperNo.2(petition)at25-28.
`20
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`justificationstoassertseparateanddistinctgrounds.Forthesereasons,
`theBoardshoulddeclinetoconsiderthepetition’shorizontallyredundant
`grounds.21
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION IMPROPERLY RELIES ON ARGUMENTS
`PRESENTED IN AN EXPERT DECLARATION AND CLAIM CHARTS
`
`A.
`
`The petition improperly relies on arguments presented in
`an expert declaration.
`
`Itisimpropertoincorporatebyreferenceargumentsfromone
`documentintoanotherdocument.37C.F.R.§42.6(a)(3).Forthisreason,
`theBoardhasclarifiedthat“apartymaynotmakeitscasewithinthe
`declarationofanexpert”and“[i]tisimproperforanyargumenttobefully
`developedandpresented,notintheparty’spaperitself,butinthe
`declarationofanexpert.” BAE Sys. Info. and Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v.
`Cheeta Omni, LLC,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at23; see also Cisco Sys. Inc. v.
`C-Cation Techs.,IPR2014-00454,Paper12at8(emphasizingthatthe
`practiceofcitingto“largeportionsofanotherdocument,withoutsufficient
`explanationofthoseportions,amountstoincorporationbyreference”).
`Ignoringthesedirectives,thepetitionrepeatedlylimitsitsargumentto
`conclusorystatementsparrotingconceptsfromcaselawand,ratherthan
`PaperNo.2(petition)at13-59(SectionsIV.A-IV.F).
`21
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`explainingwhythoseconceptsapplytotheassertedpriorartandclaims,
`insteadincorporatesthedeclarationofPetitioner’sprofferedexpert,Dr.
`GregoryWelch,byreferenceanddirectstheBoardtodeclaration
`paragraphspresentingtheactualexplanationandargument.
`Forexample,thepetitionassertsthatitwouldhavebeenobviousto
`oneofskillinthearttocombinePallakoffandIshiharaanddedicatesa
`singleparagraphtothisargument.22Thatparagraph,however,doeslittle
`morethanstateconclusionsaboutwhatapersonofordinaryskill“would
`haveappreciated”whencombiningthetworeferences.23Thepetitiondoes
`notexplain whyapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavethoughtto
`combinethereferencesthepetitionsuggests.24
`Thatparagraph,however,incorporatesfiveparagraphsfromDr.
`Welch’sdeclaration,paragraphs47-50and53.25Thesefiveparagraphs
`spilloverfivepages,andreferencethedeclaration’seight-page
`PaperNo.2(petition)at26-27.
`22
`PaperNo.2(petition)at26-27.
`23
`PaperNo.2(petition)at26-27.
`24
`PaperNo.2(petition)at26-27.
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`“BackgroundoftheTechnology,”section.26Thusforaone-paragraph
`treatmentlackinganyexplanationoftheallegedobviousnessofmodifying
`PallakoffwithIshihara,thepetitionincorporates13pagesofdiscussion
`fromtheexpert’sdeclaration.27Asin Cisco,this“amountstoincorporation
`byreference.” Cisco,IPR2014-00454,Paper12at8.
`Thepetitionmirrorsthisapproachthroughout.28Plainly,the
`argumentis“fullydevelopedandpresented,notintheparty’spaperitself,
`butinthedeclarationofanexpert,”whichtheBoard’s BAEdecision
`recognizedisimproper.Insuchcircumstances,theBoardhasnothesitated
`tofindthatapetitionerhasfailedtomeetitsburdeninanappropriate
`manner. See, e.g., BAE Sys. Info.,IPR2013-00175,Paper45at24.
`TheBoardhasclarifiedthat“[c]laimchartsshouldonlybeusedto
`provideanelement-by-elementshowingastohowthepriorartteachesthe
`limitationsofaclaim.” Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.,IPR2014-
`01338,PaperNo.3at2.Tothisend,claimcharts“maynotinclude
`Ex.1008(WelchDecl.)at27-29and31-32.
`26
`PaperNo.2(petition)at26-27(citingWelchDec¶¶47-50,53).
`27
`See, e.g.,PaperNo.2(petition)at44,45,49,51-52,and57-58.
`28
`
`The Petitioner improperly relies on arguments presented
`in claim charts.
`
`B.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`arguments,claimconstruction,statementsofthelaw,ordetailed
`explanationsastowhyaclaimlimitationistaughtorrenderedobviousby
`thepriorart.” Id.“Explanations,characterizations,conclusions,or
`inferencesdrawnfromthereferencesareimproperinaclaimchart.”
`VMware, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.,IPR2014-00901,Paper
`No.7at2.“Ifthereis anyneedtoexplainhowareferencedisclosesor
`teachesalimitation,thatexplanationmustbeelsewhereinthepetition—
`notinaclaimchart.” Id.at2-3(emphasisinoriginal).
`Petitioner’sclaimchartsviolatethesedirectives,includingrepeated
`characterizations,conclusions,andinferencesdrawnfromthecitedprior
`art.Indeed,Petitionerfrequentlyasserts,asevidence,theveryconclusions
`thatPetitioneraskstheBoardtodrawfromitsevidence.Forexample,
`Petitioner’sclaimchartassertsthat:
`ThehandhelddeviceofPallakoffincludesstorage
`systems (i.e.,
`“memory”) configured to store
`softwareprocesses(i.e.,“applications”)including
`email,
`instant messaging, calculator, and web
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Each application is
`browsing applications.
`associatedwithasetoffunctions.29
`Thisassertioncontainsnocitation,buttautologicallyparrotsthe
`limitationsofthe’313patent’sclaim15.Asanotherexample,oneof
`Petitioner’schartsforclaim37states,regardingIshihara:
`Thesensingsurfaceisconfigureddifferentlyfor
`differentapplications.Inacontactlistapplication,for
`example,thedelineatedactiveareasonthetouch
`panelareconfiguredbasedonthetelephonenumbers
`displayedonthedisplay.Likewise,thedelineated
`activeareasareconfiguredtoturnaracecarleftand
`rightinaracinggameapplication.30
`ThisassertionlikewisecontainsnocitationsandsimplyoffersPetitioner’s
`interpretationofthereferenceusingexactclaimlanguage(“delineated
`activeareas”)orclosevariantsoftheclaimlanguage(“sensingsurfaceis
`configureddifferentlyfordifferentapplications”)topresentitsarguments
`intheclaimchartratherthaninthetext.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at28.
`29
`PaperNo.2(petition)at40.
`30
`
`19
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Thisapproachismaintainedthroughout,withthepetitionattemptingtofill
`intheblanksbetweenthereferencesandtheclaimlanguagebyoffering
`summariesandotherself-servinginterpretationsofcitedpriorartinthe
`claimcharts.31Petitioner’sattempttocircumventtheBoard’spagelimits
`byusingclaimchartstoinsertargumentsthatitfailstodevelopinthetext
`shouldnotberewarded.Inthesecircumstances,Petitionerfailstomeetits
`burdenforinstitutionoftrial.
`TheBoardshoulddeclinetoconstruetheclaimlimitationsthat
`Petitionerproposesforconstruction.
`PaperNo.2(petition)at15,17,18,19,22,23,24(“Liebenow
`31
`discloses....”);30,31,33,34,36(“Pallakoffdiscloses....”);29
`(“Pallakoff’shand-helddeviceincludesaprocessorthatexecutes
`applicationssuchasthewebbrowsingapplication.”);37(“Theinput
`functionsofthekeysonthefrontsurfacearemappeddependingonthe
`selectedapplication”);31,38,39,41,42,45,46,47,48(“Ishiharadiscloses.
`...”);52,53,54,55(“Armstrong’802discloses....”);55(“Armstrong’804
`discloses....”);58and59(“Hedbergdiscloses....”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The petition fails to explain why any terms should be
`construed.
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Petitionerfailstoexplainthenecessityoreventherelevanceofits
`proposedconstructions.TheBoardwillnotconsiderproposed
`constructionswithoutsufficientexplanation. See, e.g., Petroleum Geo-Servs.,
`Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,IPR2014-00689,PaperNo.32at10(“Petitioner
`doesnotexplainsufficientlywhytheterm‘controlsystem’requiresan
`expressconstructiononthisrecord.Noexpressconstructionof‘control
`system’isneededforthisDecision.”); see also Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black
`Hills Media, LLC,IPR2014-00740,PaperNo.7at10(“Wedeterminethat,
`forpurposesofthisdecision,noneoftheothertermsinthechallenged
`claimsrequiresexpressconstructionatthistimeandshouldbegiventheir
`ordinaryandcustomarymeaning.”); Masterimage 3D v. Reald Inc.,
`IPR2015-00033,PaperNo.12at6(“AlthoughPetitionerpresents
`constructionsforseveralclaimterms,notermsrequireexpress
`constructionforpurposesofthisDecision”).
`Here,Petitionerfirstrequestsconstructionofthephrase
`“substantiallyoptimizeabiomechanicaleffectofthehumanuser’shand.”
`Asaninitialmatter,Petitionermisleadinglyassertsthatbothclaims15and
`37“requiretheinputelementsonthefirstandsecondsurfacesbe
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`arrangedsoasto‘substantiallyoptimizeabiomechanicaleffectofthe
`humanuser’shand.’”32Thissummaryisafaironeforclaim15,butnotfor
`claim37.Claim37doesnotrecitearrangementoftheinputelementson
`firstand/orsecondsurfacestooptimizeabiomechanicaleffect.Rather,it
`simplyrecites“asecondinputassemblydisposedonasecondsurfacesoas
`tosubstantiallyoptimizeabiomechanicaleffectofahumanuser’shand.”33
`Thepetitionfailstoexplainwhyconstructionofthephrasematters
`totheanalysisoftheseclaims.Rather,Petitionerfocusesonadifferent
`point,itsallegationthat“[d]uringprosecutionofthe’313Patent,
`Applicantstookpositionsinconsistentwiththepatent’sspecificationinan
`attempttodistinguish”theLiebenowprior-artreference.34Thepetition,
`however,doesnotrelyon,orevenmention,Liebenowforthe
`“substantiallyoptimize”limitationinclaim15.35Withrespecttoclaim37,
`thepetitiondoesrelyonLiebenowandallegesthatthefilehistoryisin
`conflictwithcertainspecificationquotesthatPetitionertakesoutof
`PaperNo.2(petition)at7.
`32
`Ex.1001,atclaim37.
`33
`PaperNo.2(petition)at8.
`34
`PaperNo.2(petition)at34-36.
`35
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`context,36butthisisnotrelevanttoclaim37.Atthetimethefile-history
`argumentscitedbyPetitionerweremade,37thesubjectmatterofclaim37
`hadalreadybeenallowed.38Moreover,theclaimsthatwerebeing
`addressedinthosefile-historyarguments,claims12and17ofthepending
`application,recitedarrangementofinputelements,39notsimplydisposalof
`thesecondinputassembly(whichisanentirecollectionofoneormore
`inputelements)onasecondsurfaceasrecitedinclaim37.
`Otherthanusinganallegedclaim-constructionissueasan
`opportunityforPetitionertoreferenceitsintentiontoargueindefiniteness
`inanotherforum,40itisunclearwhyPetitionerisinvitingtheBoardto
`analyzePetitioner’sperceivedconflictbetweenthefilehistoryandthe
`specificationandconstruethisphrase.Thepetitiondoesnotevensuggest
`PaperNo.2(petition)at8,18-19.
`36
`SeeEx.1002(filehistory)at50-75(replyisdated2-2-07).
`37
`SeeEx.1002(filehistory)at109(allowingclaim29on10-5-
`38
`06)andat47(renumberingallowedclaim29asclaim37forissuance).
`SeeEx.1002(filehistory)at54(claim12),55-56(claim17),
`39
`and70-72(argumentsdistinguishingLiebenow).
`SeePaperNo.2(petition)at7n.1.
`40
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`areasonwhyitsproposedclaimconstructionisrelevanttotheanalysisof
`particularreferencesandindividualclaims.Accordingly,thepetitionfails
`todemonstratewhyconstructionofthephrase“substantiallyoptimizea
`biomechanicaleffectofthehumanuser’shand”isnecessary.TheBoard
`shoulddeclinetoconstruethisterm.
`Second,Petitionersimilarlyoffersnoexplanationforitsproposed
`constructionof“delineatedactiveareas”—includingwhyconstructionis
`necessaryorrelevanttotheprior-artpositionsadvanced.Tellingly,
`Petitioner’s“delineatedactiveareas”constructionisrelevant,ifatall,only
`tonon-infringementargumentsitmayadvanceinlitigationagainstAplix.
`Petitioner’sinfringingdevicesmakeextensiveuseofdelineatedactive
`areas.Aplix’sinfringementpositionsdonotrelyongraphicalortactile
`depictionofthoseareastotheuseronPetitioner’sdevicesbecausesuch
`reliancewouldimplyaninterpretationthatiscontrarytothespecification.
`Byseekinganinterpretationthatrequiressomethingbeyondthe
`delineationofthoseareasinsoftware,Petitionerisimproperlyusingthis
`forumtotrytonarrowtheclaimsandaiditsnon-infringementdefensein
`thedistrictcourt.TheBoardshouldnotencouragethistacticandshould
`insteaddeclinetoconstrue“delineatedactiveareas”atthistime.
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Finally,thepetitionfailstoidentifyanyreasonforconstruingthe
`terms“agamefunctionthatissubstantiallyoptimizedforactuationbythe
`humanuser’sthumb”and“agamefunctionthatissubstantiallyoptimized
`foractuationbyoneormoreofthehumanuser’sfingers”atthistime.
`Whilethepetitionnotesthatthesetermsareusedinthe’313patent’s
`claims44and46,itdoesnotexplainwhytheproposedconstructionsare
`necessaryforitsargument.Indeed,thepetitionskipsthiscrucialstep,
`providingonlyargumentsastowhatthe“broadestreasonable
`construction”“mustinclude”andignoringwhyconstructionisneededat
`all.41Accordingly,toavoidissuinganadvisoryconstruction,theBoard
`shoulddeclinetoconstruethetermsatthistime.
`AddressingthesubstanceofPetitioner’sproposedconstruction,
`Petitionercontendsthat“delineatedactiveareas”shouldbeconstruedto
`mean“areasthataredifferentiatedfromeachothereitherphysicallyor
`tactilelytoassisttheuserinlocatingthepositiononthesensorpadofthe
`PaperNo.2(petition)at12.
`41
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “delineated active
`areas” adds limitations that are irrelevant to this
`proceeding.
`
`B.
`
`25
`
`
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`activeareas.”42Neithertheclaimlanguagenortherestofthe’313patent’s
`specificationsupportsPetitioner’sinterpretation.
`Regarding“physically,”Petitionergivestwoexamplesfromthe’313
`patentofwhatPetitionerreferstoas“physicallydepictingtheareastothe
`user”:
`“Inoneexample,delineatedactiveareasincludeoblongshaped
`buttons.”43
`“Alternatively,theactiveareascanbephysicallydepictedon
`thedisplayofthehandhelddeviceinordertoassisttheuserin
`locatingthedifferentactiveareasofthepad.”44
`Regarding“tactilely,”Petitioneridentifiesaportionofthe
`specificationthatdescribesuseofashape-changingmediato“allow‘the
`usertotactilelydiscriminatebetweentheoneormoredelineatedactive
`areas....’”45
`PaperNo.2(petition)at11.
`42
`PaperNo.2(petition)at10(citingEx.1001,9:24-40and
`43
`Figure3d’selements372ofFig.3d,labeled1-5).
`PaperNo.2(petition)at10(citingEx.1001,10:3-8).
`44
`PaperNo.2(petition)at10-11(citingEx.1001,9:63-10:3)
`45
`(internalquotationmarksadded).
`
`26
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00533
`U.S.PatentNo.7,218,313
`Petitionerusestheaboveexamplestoconflate“delineation”ofan
`activeareawithoptionaltechniquesforhelpingtheuserlocatea
`delineatedactivearea.Butthe’313specificationnowheresuggeststhat
`theseoptionaltechniquesarenecessaryforcreatingadelineatedactive
`area.Infact,the’313specificationrepeatedlyclarifiesthatdepictingthe
`delineatedactiveareastotheuserisdistinctfromactuallycreatingthe
`delineatedactiveareas.
`Fromtheoutset,thepetitioncreatesconfusionbyusingtheword
`“buttons”toreferenceelements372ofFigure3d,perhapsinaneffortto
`implythatthoseareasaredescribedinthespecificationasnecessarily
`beingphysicallydepictedtotheuser.However,thespecificationrefersto
`elements372onlyas“oblongshapedactiveareas,”notas“buttons.”46
`Moreover,Figure3doutlineselements3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
