`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