IPR2015-00729, Paper No. 34
`IPR2015-00730, Paper No. 32
`May 2, 2016
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`
`Case IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`Technology Center 2600
`
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, March 30, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY; BRYAN F. MOORE; and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`March 30, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`IPR2015-00730, Paper No. 32
`May 2, 2016
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`
`Case IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`Technology Center 2600
`
`Oral Hearing Held: Wednesday, March 30, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY; BRYAN F. MOORE; and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`March 30, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABRAN KEAN, ESQ.
`Erise IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard
`Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
`720-689-5440
`
`ERIC A. BURESH, ESQ.
`CALLIE PENDERGRASS, Senior Technical Advisor
`Erise IP, P.A.
`6201 College Boulevard
`Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`913-777-5600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL MAURIEL, ESQ.
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`15 West 26th Street
`7th Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`212-529-5131
`
`JASON BARTLETT, ESQ.
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`275 Battery Street
`Suite 480
`San Francisco, California 94111
`415-738-6228
`
`SEAN HOGLE, ESQ.
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE MOORE: Good morning. I'm Judge
`Moore. With me are Judges Medley and Chung.
`This is an oral hearing for IPR2015- 729 and
`2015- 730. Before my initial comments maybe we can get
`appearances starting with Petitioner.
`MR. KEAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My
`name is Abe Kean. I represent Petitioner, Sony Computer
`Entertainment America today. And with me from my firm,
`Erise IP, are Eric Buresh and Callie Pendergrass.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`MR. MAURIEL: Hi. I'm Michael Mauriel,
`representing the Patent Owner, Aplix IP Holdings Corp. And
`with me is Jason Bartlett of our firm, Mauriel Kapouytian
`Woods, and Mr. Bartlett will be presenting for our side.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you. Okay. For the
`hearing today the parties will each have one hour for both
`cases. Petitioner has the burden so they will go first. They
`may reserve time for rebuttal if they wish. Patent Owner will
`go second.
`A reminder, if you -- something unusual
`happened. I see demonstratives here. I'm not sure that the
`Board received those.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Were they uploaded?
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`MR. KEAN: Yes, I believe both parties filed
`their demonstratives last Friday, I believe, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: Oh, they are uploaded in the
`case. Okay. All right. That will be fine.
`Since we do have demonstratives, I just remind
`you to, for the record, mention the page that you are
`describing in the demonstrative before you begin speaking
`about a particular demonstrative.
`Also, if there are objections or you have some
`problem with the other side's presentation, hold those
`comments until the end of their presentation and then make
`those comments during your presentation.
`Okay. With that, Petitioner, if you are ready to
`begin. How long do you think you want to reserve?
`MR. KEAN: If I may, I would like to reserve 20
`minutes for rebuttal, Your Honor. And if I may approach the
`Bench before we get started, I was going to hand out hard
`copies of our demonstratives.
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. Thank you.
`MR. KEAN: All right. Good afternoon. Again,
`my name is Abe Kean. I'm with the firm Erise IP and I will
`be presenting on behalf of the Petitioner.
`We're here today to discuss two proceedings.
`The first is involving the patent 7,280,097 and the second is
`involving patent 7,932,892. And we're going to take up both
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`at the same time. There is a lot of issues that overlap. So
`we're going to just step through some of the most important
`issues in the two proceedings and those will apply to both of
`the proceedings.
`A little bit of background. Here is the abstract
`from the '097 patent. The abstract points out that this
`invention as described and claimed is an input accelerator
`device. And we have also highlighted here a concept that the
`Patent Owner has mentioned several times in the briefing,
`this concept of configured to optimize a biomechanical effect
`of a human user's opposing thumb and fingers.
`Now, the Patent Owner has said in the briefing
`that this is really the heart of their invention. And that may
`be but it is not the heart of the claims. And so that's a
`concept that you will only see in three dependent claims.
`And we just want to emphasize that on the front
`end today because as we step through the claims and look at
`what the claims require, you will not see that concept in any
`of the claims except for claims 5, claim 19 and claim 30.
`So here is an example. Independent claim 1 calls
`out an input accelerator device, and there are three basic
`components with this. There is a communications channel,
`there is an input assembly, and there is an input controller.
`Those are the three basic components.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`And just at a high level, here are the instituted
`grounds that we will be discussing today. Like I said, there
`are several issues that overlap both, different claims in this
`proceeding, and also overlap with the other proceeding. But
`there are three main challenges that the Patent Owner has
`presented to the evidence and the arguments that we've
`presented in our petition.
`And those involve claim construction, analogous
`art, and then they also argue that some of the prior art is
`missing certain limitations.
`Now, the first and the third point there really go
`together. Once you reach the appropriate interpretation of
`the claim language, the application of the prior art in this
`case is really very straightforward. And so that's where
`we're going to focus initially today, is focus on how to
`interpret the claims and how to arrive at the right
`construction.
`What you will see from the Patent Owner is they
`try to read in things from both the intrinsic record and also
`even extrinsic record into the claims.
`Now, we all know from what the Federal Circuit
`has told us and from the Board's own case law that it is not
`appropriate to read interpretations from the specification into
`the claims. You're not supposed to approach claim
`interpretation that way.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`Patent Owner in this case goes even further than
`that. Several of their interpretations they are trying to read
`in things from extrinsic evidence, from expert opinions, and
`read that into the patent and read that into the claims, and
`that's not the right approach.
`And, you know, if the Patent Owner wanted to
`rewrite the patent, or wanted to rewrite the claims in this
`case, there was a mechanism for doing so, and that
`mechanism is a Motion to Amend and they did not amend the
`claims here and it is not proper to rewrite the claims based
`on extrinsic evidence.
`And I will show you what I mean by that. The
`first one -- thank you, and this is DX 5, Your Honor, for the
`record on the demonstrative exhibits -- and what we have
`here is the term hand- held host device. And this is the first
`example where the Patent Owner is attempting to read things
`in from the extrinsic evidence into the claim as drafted.
`And what they are trying to do here is they are
`trying to read in an exclusion. They are trying to exclude
`laptops from the definition of hand- held host device. Now,
`why are they doing that? Let's look at the context.
`The reason they are doing that is we have a prior
`art reference called Shima, and the Shima reference discloses
`an input accelerator device and it has a couple different
`embodiments, but in the primary embodiment there is no
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`doubt that it is communicating with the laptop. And so the
`Patent Owner is attempting to carve out the concept of laptop
`in order to attempt to establish some daylight between the
`claimed invention and the prior art.
`Now, why is that wrong? Why is that wrong?
`Here that is wrong because the patent, the intrinsic record,
`explicitly includes a laptop as a hand- held host device. This
`is right out of the intrinsic record at column 14, lines 36
`through 42.
`This is a definition where the Patent Owner, the
`Patentee, has defined hand- held host devices including a
`laptop. Now, before we move on there is one other point to
`make here.
`When you look at the Shima reference, the Shima
`reference certainly includes a laptop as the primary
`embodiment, but there is also an embodiment, and one
`example of this is at paragraph 8 in the Shima reference.
`That embodiment discloses hand- held personal computers.
`So there is basically two ways to get to the right
`answer here. The Patent Owner's claim construction is
`wrong. It would be wrong to exclude laptops from hand- held
`host devices in the '097 patent. But even if you were
`inclined to do that, there still is no doubt that Shima actually
`teaches explicitly a hand- held personal computer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`Now, I've mentioned this one example from the
`intrinsic record where they have defined the hand- held host
`device to include the laptop. There is another example
`actually in the claims. The Patentee here has actually
`claimed a laptop to be included within the scope of a
`hand- held host device.
`So what we have here is claim 38 from the '097
`patent -- and this is on Petitioner's Demonstrative DX 6 --
`claim 38 depends from claim 27 so we've included claim 27
`there just to illustrate the antecedent basis, but the point is
`claim 38 explicitly calls out a laptop as one of the types of
`hand- held host devices in the claims. What does the Patent
`Owner say about this?
`JUDGE MOORE: Excuse me.
`MR. KEAN: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE MOORE: I just want to be clear. Before
`you mentioned that paragraph 8 and the reference in Shima,
`and is that something that you cited in the petition?
`MR. KEAN: Yes, Your Honor, we cited to
`several portions of Shima in the petition.
`JUDGE MOORE: But that particular portion that
`you mentioned in your argument?
`MR. KEAN: I will double-check and confirm on
`rebuttal, Your Honor, but I do believe there are portions of
`that cited in the petition, yes.
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. Thank you.
`MR. KEAN: So what does the Patent Owner say
`about the hand- held host device and the definition in the
`intrinsic record? They say it is a typo. They say we should
`ignore what the Patentee said because it is a typo, they
`accidentally included it.
`One, that's speculation and it is improper
`speculation because where the claims can be reasonably
`interpreted to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect
`to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment. That's
`straightforward case law.
`Another example, the Federal Circuit en banc in
`Phillips said "a court should discount any expert testimony
`that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated
`by the claims themselves, the written description and the
`prosecution history."
`That's exactly what is going on here. We have
`the expert opinion that is directly at odds with the intrinsic
`record. So the Board should reject that expert opinion,
`should look to the intrinsic record to construe and interpret
`the claims, and should interpret the claims to include a
`laptop.
`
`The next example we have is input controller.
`And here once, again, the Patent Owner is attempting to read
`in limitations from the extrinsic record into this claim
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`limitation. What are they doing? They are trying to suggest
`that the input controller in the claims needs to interpret input
`signals before sending them on to a host device. That's the
`Patent Owner's position.
`Now, why are they offering that position? Well,
`we have a prior art reference called Mollinari, and Mollinari
`teaches an input controller. It teaches an input controller
`that monitors the state of various input elements.
`And when the state changes or a status update is
`necessary, the input controller in Mollinari takes that
`information, generates a command statement, and sends that
`command statement on to the host device.
`So in Mollinari the host device does the
`interpretation. So the Patentee here, the Patent Owner is
`attempting to say that Mollinari doesn't satisfy the claims
`because the interpretation is done at the host device rather
`than at the input controller. That's the dispute here.
`Why is the Patent Owner wrong? Well, once
`again if you look at what the claims actually say, the claims
`just require the input controller to generate and relay an
`input signal.
`The claims require an input controller can be
`configured to generate an input signal upon actuation of at
`least one of the plurality of input elements, and further
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`configured to relay the input signal to a communications
`channel for transmission to the hand- held host device.
`The claims don't say anything about interpreting
`the input signal. They don't require or restrict the
`interpretation of the input signal to be done either at the
`input controller or at the hand- held host device.
`And I'm turning next to DX 9 in our exhibits.
`And the purpose of this slide is to illustrate the contrast
`between the Patent Owner's position and what the intrinsic
`record actually says.
`So up top we have the Patent Owner's position
`here and that says an "input controller must interpret input
`data and convert it to an input signal ready to be mapped to
`control functions of a software application."
`Now, once again that was nowhere in claim 1 that
`we just looked at. And it is not consistent with the intrinsic
`record either. If you look at the specification to see how the
`Patentee has explained this concept of interpreting an input
`signal, they provide some examples, and we have highlighted
`one example here.
`This is in the record at column 11, lines 41
`through 46, and in this example it says that the hand- held
`host device interprets the input signal. Now, that's the
`primary embodiment in the patent. The hand- held host
`device is interpreting the input signal.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`Now, if we look to a couple of other examples,
`another example is at column 11, about line 54, if you have
`the patent in front of you I can just kind of highlight what
`they are saying there, and at column 11, lines 54 through
`about 60, once again the Patentee is discussing input signals
`which are in a form suitable to be received and interpreted by
`the hand- held host device.
`So the hand- held host device receives and
`interprets the input signal, that's the primary embodiment
`described in the '097 patent.
`There is another example at column 12, at about
`lines 49 through 55. And once again, in that portion of the
`specification the Patentee is explaining that whether it is
`done by an input controller or on a processor, the hand- held
`host device is the thing that is interpreting the input signals.
`And so you've got input signals described various
`ways in the patent, but in these examples they are interpreted
`by the hand- held host device.
`Now, to be clear, there is an alternative example,
`and that's what we've highlighted here. There is an
`alternative. And, alternatively, in the second sentence on the
`portion that we've illustrated in DX 9, it says: Alternatively,
`the input accelerator device may interpret the input signals
`using software stored in the storage unit.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`That's the alternative. The input controller may
`do it in some instances, the input accelerator and the input
`controller. But the claims, the independent claims, and with
`the exception of one claim I'll mention here in a minute, do
`not limit the interpreting to either the host device or the
`input control. There is no restrictions whatsoever in the
`claims.
`
`Now, there is one exception to that. But the
`exception proves our point. If you turn briefly to claim 12,
`claim 12 is an input accelerator device of claim 10. And if
`you go to claim 10, claim 10 claims its antecedent basis back
`to claim 1.
`It is an input accelerator device further
`comprising, and then it goes on to say a processor configured
`to interpret the input signal and execute the one or more
`instructions. So in claim 12 there is a restriction. There is a
`requirement in claim 12 that that be done at the input
`accelerator device, unlike claim 1.
`But importantly for claim 12, we recognize this
`and that's why we presented the Kerr and the Lum
`combination prior art. We recognize that this is a different
`requirement. It is a different claim. And the Kerr reference,
`as we've outlined in our documents, satisfies this limitation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`But the point here is that it would be improper to
`move up this limitation from dependent claim 12 and make
`this a requirement of all of the other claims.
`The next example we have here is input element
`on a surface. And once again the Patent Owner is trying to
`read things into the claims that just aren't there. And what
`are they doing here? They are trying to say that the input
`elements must be limited to only input elements that are
`directly manipulatable by a user's fingers or thumbs.
`Why are they doing that? Well, again, we've got
`the Shima reference for several of the claims. The Shima
`reference discloses a device that has buttons on the sides, and
`buttons on the front surface. So those are input elements that
`are directly manipulatable.
`But on the rear surface the Shima reference
`discloses a trackball or an optical mouse, but a mouse-type
`functionality. And so taking the trackball, for instance, I
`mean, it is certainly something you could directly manipulate
`with your finger or your thumb, but there is no question that
`in the ordinary use of that device, you know, you move it
`around with your hand and that's how you provide input with
`a device like a trackball and a device like the one disclosed
`in Shima.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`So that's what the Patent Owner is trying to do.
`They are trying to say that input elements are so narrow that
`it would exclude a trackball or exclude an optical mouse.
`Why is the Patent Owner wrong about that?
`Well, once again, if you look at the intrinsic record -- this is
`DX 10, and this is at column 18, lines 27 through 31 -- here
`is the definition of the input element provided in the intrinsic
`record, and the Patentee says it may be any input or selection
`type known to one of skill in the art. That's incredibly
`broad. And recall that the time frame that we're looking at
`here is 2005.
`And so there is no question that a mouse,
`trackball or optical sensor is an input element that is known
`to one of skill in the art in 2005.
`So what is the Patent Owner's position? Again,
`on slide DX 11, the reason we're providing it this way is to
`contrast what the Patent Owner says as compared to what is
`in the intrinsic record.
`So the Patent Owner says: Input elements must
`be limited to structures designed to be interacted with by way
`of direct contact with the thumb or the finger. And if you
`look at, just by way of example, claim 2, that concept is no
`where in the claims.
`Claim 2 requires input elements being located on
`a front surface and input elements being located on a rear
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`surface. That's it. The claims say nothing about the thumb
`or a finger or direct contact.
`And you won't see that concept in independent
`claim 1 either. And stepping through some other claims you
`won't see that concept in dependent claim 3. The first time
`there is any notion of contact with a finger or a thumb is in
`claim 5.
`
`If we just take a second and look at what claim 5
`specifically says, all right, claim 5 depends from claim 3
`which depends back to claim 1. And it is, once again, it is
`further configured -- so it is adding a new limitation in claim
`5 -- it is further configured to optimize, a biomechanical
`effect of the human user's thumb or finger.
`And so we're going to get to that concept next but
`the point for the present purposes is input elements are not
`limited to that. That's just in claim 5, and claim 19 and 30.
`But the point --
`JUDGE MOORE: Excuse me, counselor.
`MR. KEAN: Yes.
`JUDGE MOORE: Patent Owner seems to argue
`that every embodiment in the spec is related to manipulation
`by the finger, and by extension they are arguing that the
`context of the invention has to do with manipulation by the
`fingers, and so what they are doing is construing it within the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`words of the claim but also within the context of the
`invention.
`
`How do you respond to that present argument?
`MR. KEAN: Thank you, Your Honor. It's
`improper because what they are trying to do is they are trying
`to read limitations from the specification into the claims,
`which is exactly what you're not supposed to do. And if we
`need any insight into what the Patentee thought the input
`element should be, I will refer us back to slide DX 10.
`The Patentees in the intrinsic record emphasized
`that it could be any input or selection type known to one of
`skill in the art. Now, they aren't saying here that it is limited
`to just the ones we list in the intrinsic record. They are
`saying that it can be any input or selection type known.
`So generally it is improper to limit claim terms to
`examples in the specification. That's a general proposition.
`But that's even more true here because we have explicit
`evidence in the intrinsic record where the Patentees are
`expressly saying our invention is not so limited. Our
`invention is not limited to just the examples that we've
`provided. They are saying that their invention includes any
`input or selection type.
`So the next concept we have is the one I
`mentioned just a moment ago that appears in dependent
`claims 5 and 19 and 30. And this is configured to optimize a
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`biomechanical effect. And I think unlike the other, the first
`three disputed terms that we discussed today, I think this one
`there is general agreement I believe between the Patent
`Owner and the Petitioner, and there is good reason for that.
`This concept is explicitly defined in the
`specification. So this is from the abstract at DX 12. The
`abstract defines this concept of configured to optimize a
`biomechanical effect of a human user's opposing thumb and
`fingers. And it says exactly how to do that in the context of
`this patent.
`You do it by including on one surface one or
`more software configurable input elements, manipulatable by
`the user's thumbs or finger, and on another surface one or
`more software configurable selection elements manipulatable
`by a user's fingers.
`Now, what does this mean in the context of the
`'097 patent? The Patentee explained it with some examples,
`and I would refer to figure 5A as one example. This is figure
`5A in the '097 patent. Now, this is one example where the
`device that is described and claimed in the '097 patent is
`configured to optimize a biomechanical effect of the human
`user's thumb and fingers.
`Now, how do they do it here? As you can see in
`figure 5A, there is input elements on the front surface, and
`there is input elements on a side surface. So if I were to
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`gesture how you would use it, this optimizes the fact that
`humans have opposable thumbs because you can manipulate
`input elements on the front surface and you can also -- with
`your fingers -- and also manipulate input elements on the
`side surface with your thumb.
`And so that's exactly the way that the Patentees
`have defined the concept and that's illustrated here in 5A.
`Now, there is another example of this in figure
`5B. So 5B is slightly different but it is still configured to
`optimize a biomechanical effect of the human user's
`opposable thumb and fingers. 5B takes advantage of the rear
`surface in this example.
`And I think it is important to look at what the
`Patentees actually said about figure 5B. They have described
`this and how the optimization occurs in column 15 at about
`lines 17 through 21 or so. And what they describe there is
`5B includes a rear input assembly that is disposed on the
`back surface of the device.
`And then they go on to say that in this
`implementation the front input assembly is disposed relative
`to the rear input assembly to take advantage of the opposition
`of the human thumb and finger. And so there are a couple of
`different examples.
`One example, you've got input elements on the
`front surface and on the side surface, so you are able to
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`manipulate both the front and the side surface because we
`have opposable thumbs.
`Another example, you have input elements on the
`front surface and the rear surface. So likewise you are able
`to manipulate the input elements on both surfaces because we
`have an opposable thumb and fingers, either this way or this
`way. And so that's the point.
`The way the Patentee has described this, the way
`to optimize or configure a device to optimize a
`biomechanical effect with the opposition of the human user's
`thumb and finger is to include on the one surface input
`elements that are manipulatable, and on another surface input
`elements that are manipulatable.
`And when you look at the prior art and what
`we've presented as meeting this limitation, Shima and the
`device disclosed in Shima looks just like figure 5A.
`Figure 5A illustrates a device that has input
`elements on the front and input elements on the side. That's
`exactly what Shima describes. So Shima, just like figure 5A,
`in the context of the '097 patent, is configured to optimize a
`biomechanical effect of the human user's opposing thumb and
`finger.
`
`You know, at some point in the briefing the
`Patent Owner had mentioned this concept of pinching or
`squeezing. I don't know if they have backed off of that or
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`abandoned that argument, but we would just point out that
`the concepts of pinching or squeezing are not in the intrinsic
`record. If they are standing by that position it is, again, an
`example of reading something into the claims that is just not
`there.
`
`And, you know, the claim interpretation points,
`or the points we really wanted to emphasize today, like I said
`at the outset, if you get to the right answer on interpreting
`the claims, the application of the prior art is very
`straightforward in this case.
`And so we've discussed quite a bit of the prior art
`as we've stepped through the claim interpretation and why the
`interpretations matter to the prior art. And so unless there
`are any questions about analogous art or any specific
`applications of the art, I would like to reserve my time for
`rebuttal, please.
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, maybe you could -- one
`argument that they do make is that you haven't said enough
`about the reason to combine the references. Maybe you could
`just speak briefly on that issue.
`MR. KEAN: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor. So
`the most significant combination or, stated a different way,
`the combination that applies to the most claims is the
`combination of Mollinari and Nishiumi.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00729 (Patent 7,280,097)
`Case No. IPR2015-00730 (Patent 7,932,892)
`
`
`And so here is an example of Mollinari. This is
`DX 14 and this was at figure 1A. And so what you have with
`Mollinari is you have this input accelerator device
`communicating with the host. And that's what is illustrated
`there.
`
`Nishiumi is a game controller. So Nishiumi --
`it's a Nintendo game controller, if anyone is familiar with
`those devices. But one of the important features for the
`purposes of this analysis is the game controller disclosed in
`Nishiumi has that button on the back at 407 as illustrated in
`DX 15, and those are figures 7 and 8 out of the Nishiumi
`reference.
`And so the motivation to combine this reference,
`what we're saying is it would have been obvious for a person
`of skill in the art to modify the device in Mollinari to include
`input elements on additional surfaces, on a rear surface.
`This would just be a simple design choice taking
`well known elements in the game controller context at the
`time of the invention. And so that's the motivation to
`combine Mollinari and Nishiumi.
`Another third reference that we have combined
`with those two for just a couple of the claims, the claims
`involve text acceleration. And so for that concept we've
`added the reference Tu, T-u, is the way to spell it, and the Tu
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`1
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
