Paper _____
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01149
`Patent No. 7,329,970 B2
`________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT E. MORLEY, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01149
`Patent No. 7,329,970 B2
`________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT E. MORLEY, JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`I, Robert E. Morley, Jr. do hereby declare and state that:
`
`
`1. My name is Robert Morley. I am a Professor in the Electrical
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`and Systems Engineering Department at Washington University in St. Louis,
`
`Missouri. I hold the degrees of BS, MS, and D.Sc. all conferred on me by
`
`Washington University in St. Louis in 1973, 1975, and 1977, respectively.
`
`Prior to joining the faculty of Washington University in St. Louis I worked
`
`in the industry addressing electronics and micro-electronics. I have remained
`
`active in industry during my appointment to the faculty of Washington
`
`2.
`
`University in St. Louis.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness by counsel on behalf
`
`of Global Touch Solutions (“GTS”) in connection with a series of Inter
`
`Partes Reviews (“IPR”) of a number of patents held by GTS. These patents
`
`include, in no particular order, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,265,494; 7,994,726;
`
`7,772,781; 7,798,749; 7,329,970; 7,781,980; 8,035,623; and 8,288,952 (“the
`
`GTS Patents”). I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,329,970 (“the ‘970 Patent”). It is my understanding that the other patents
`
`are the subject of related IPRs and that the subject matter specific to each is
`
`considered in each separate Declaration.
`
`- 2
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 2 of 42
`
`
`
`3.
`
`As an example of the interrelationship of the various
`
`proceedings, it is my understanding that the current case involves the
`
`allegation that Claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, 51, and 52 of the ‘970 Patent
`
`(sometimes referred to herein as the “challenged claims”) are unpatentable
`
`as obvious over U.S. Patent 6,125,286 to Jahagirdar, taken in view of U.S.
`
`Patent 4,053,789 to Schultz. At the same time I understand that in a distinct
`
`but related proceeding, IPR2015-01173, the same claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19,
`
`48, 49, 51, and 52 of the same ‘970 Patent are challenged as obvious over
`
`three different references, U.S. Patent 5,898,290 to Beard, taken in view of
`
`U.S. Patent 5,955,869 to Rathmann, and U.S. Patent 5,710,728 to Danielson.
`
`While I have prepared a separate and distinct Declaration for that proceeding
`
`and the other related proceedings as well, it is easy to see that there is a
`
`substantial amount of technical overlap in the subject matter of these
`
`proceedings, and I have considered this family of patents, the GTS patents,
`
`together.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘970 Patent as well as
`
`its prosecution history. I also have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`Petition filed and the Jahagirdar and Schultz patents. I also have reviewed
`
`and am familiar with the Declaration of Dr. Mark N. Horenstein, provided to
`
`me as Ex. 1012. I have also reviewed the decision of the Patent Trial and
`
`- 3
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 3 of 42
`
`
`
`Appeal Board identified as Paper 12, dated November 17, 2015. While it is
`
`the opinion expressed in Paper 12 that the combination of Jahagirdar and
`
`Schultz, as would have been made by one of skill in the art, renders the
`
`challenged claims obvious, in this Declaration, I express the opinion that one
`
`of skill in the art would not have combined those references in the fashion
`
`relied upon, and that the challenged claims are not obvious over that
`
`combination of art as considered by a person of skill in the art around 1998.
`
`As noted above, I am familiar with the type of technology
`
`5.
`
`addressed in the ‘970 Patent as of 1998, which I understand to be the year in
`
`which the patent application from which priority is claimed in the ‘970
`
`Patent was originally filed. I have been asked to provide my technical
`
`review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the assertions in the
`
`Petition concerning the alleged obviousness of the challenged claims of the
`
`‘970 Patent by the Jahagirdar and Schultz Patents. I am being compensated
`
`for my work in connection with the GTS Patents and the several IPRs at my
`
`established rate of $500 per hour. My compensation does not depend on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding.
`
`In forming the opinions and beliefs expressed herein, I have
`
`relied on my own experience and knowledge, my review of the ‘970 Patent
`
`and its file history, and the Jahagirdar and Schultz patents. Although the
`
`- 4
`
`6.
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`other IPRs directed at the GTS patents and the art cited therein from a
`
`backdrop for my opinions, if I have relied on art other than that cited in this
`
`proceeding for my opinions in a specific or selective way, it is specifically
`
`7. My experience relied on in arriving at the opinions expressed in
`
`mentioned in my Declaration.
`
`this Declaration includes my work as a Professor of Electrical Engineering,
`
`my work in industry including the development of various micro-processor
`
`based technologies, and my research in the area of computer architecture and
`
`magnetic media. My experience and education is spelled out more fully in
`
`my curriculum vitae, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2001. My own personal
`
`experience in assisting other lawyers in the prosecution of patent
`
`applications and the enforcement of U.S. Patents has, over the years, allowed
`
`me to develop a fundamental understanding of the concepts underlying
`
`obviousness.
`
`i.
`
`8.
`
`Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`As noted above, I have had significant involvement in the
`
`preparation and prosecution of United States Patents and patent applications
`
`as well as the enforcement of Untied States Patents, including 17 naming me
`
`as inventor. Obviousness of claims over the prior art is a question I have
`
`- 5
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`addressed in fields and technologies both related to and distinct from those
`
`presented in the above-captioned IPR.
`
`9.
`
`I have previously served as an expert witness in litigation
`
`matters and as a consultant to companies involved in research and
`
`development of electrical devices, particularly in conjunction with the
`
`development of microprocessor-based systems. As noted above, my
`
`relevant experience.
`
`curriculum vitae includes a compilation of my publications and patents and
`
`II. THE ‘970 PATENT
`10. The referenced Petition seeks invalidation of certain claims of
`
`the ‘970 Patent. The subject matter of this patent is generally directed to
`
`products and devices powered by electricity, and specifically including a
`
`microchip to control electrical switching of power to a load. By reliance on a
`
`microchip or integrated circuit based switching system, multiple functions
`
`can be combined into one device, and power savings and other advantageous
`
`features may be realized.
`
`11. The innovation specifically addressed in the ‘970 Patent is
`
`putting microchip control between the exhaustible power supply and the
`
`load that consumes that power supply. As indicated in the Abstract of the
`
`‘970 Patent, “An electronic circuit for use with an exhaustible power source
`
`- 6
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`and load such as a light bulb, a radio or motor, includes a microchip with an
`
`input that transmits a signal to the microchip when the load is activated or
`
`deactivated. The input does not form a serial link between the power source
`
`and the load. The power switch, by on/off switching, controls energy flow
`
`from the power source to the load. … The input to the microchip acts as an
`
`activation/deactivation user interface.” The microchip controls the
`
`activation and deactivation of the energy consuming function of the device,
`
`referred to throughout the ‘970 Patent as the “energy consuming load.”
`
`12. The invention of the ‘970 Patent is most often illustrated as a
`
`flashlight with the consumption of the exhaustible power supply (battery) by
`
`the “energy consuming load” (bulb) under the control of the microchip, as
`
`well as other functions associated with the flashlight. While the terms of the
`
`patent are applied directly to a flashlight, such that the bulb of the flashlight
`
`constitutes the electrical “load” of the device, in fact the patent makes it
`
`clear that this is for purposes of illustration only and in no way limiting of its
`
`application. For example, at Col. 6, ll. 40-45, the ‘970 Patent makes it clear
`
`that the application of the invention to a flashlight is for purposes of
`
`illustration, and the invention is applicable to many other devices by using
`
`the ‘970 Patent’s electrical switching design.
`
`- 7
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 7 of 42
`
`
`
`13. Many other devices may be envisioned. Many devices have
`
`multiple modules that require energy. Those in the ‘970 Patent referred to as
`
`“energy consuming load” are the modules that are under the on/off control
`
`of the microchip. A load placed under the control of the microchip to limit
`
`diminishing the power supply is referred to throughout the claims of the
`
`14. This emphasis on the advancement reflected in the invention,
`
`‘970 patent as an “energy consuming load.”
`
`putting draw on the exhaustible power supply by the “energy consuming
`
`load” under the control of the microchip is reflected throughout the
`
`specification. See for example Col. 1, lines 18 - 20 and the reference to
`
`“microchip controlled electrical current switching devices” as well as Col. 4,
`
`lines 13 – 14, which refers to the invention as featuring “a microchip for
`
`controlling the on/off function and at least one other function of the
`
`15. The nature of the invention can be further confirmed by
`
`flashlight.”
`
`reference to the Figures. Although many of the Figures illustrate related
`
`aspects of the same invention, the invention may be clearly viewed by
`
`reference to Figure 5. As can be clearly seen the load (indicated at 105) that
`
`draws on the battery is able to do so only through the control circuit
`
`provided by the microchip. This is most clearly set forth in text at Col. 7,
`
`- 8
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
`lines 8 – 14 which provides: “It is important to recognize, however, that it is
`
`control circuit 201 which activates current switch 202 upon acting on an
`
`input from MMI switch 102. Unlike heretofore known prior art devices,
`
`activating switch 102 does not conduct current to load 105, but is only a
`
`command input mechanism which can, according to the invention, operate
`
`on very low current.” Clearly, control over significant draws on the
`
`exhaustible power supply – in the words of the ‘970 Patent “energy
`
`consuming loads” – is through the microchip.
`
`16. Further, Figure 11, provided below, illustrates an embodiment
`
`of the ‘970 Patent in which luminous visible location indicator is controlled
`
`by the microchip to indicate a location of the device in the dark. Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:51-67.
`
`17. The location indicator device 1104 may be realized as an LED
`
`
`
`that is illuminated in this embodiment when the microchip 1113 sets the pin
`
`- 9
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`connected to the line 1114, which is also connected to the switch 1111, to a
`
`high output state. Id. at 9:52-57. Microchip 1113 can activate the LED 1104
`
`for a short time, for example, every 100 milliseconds or every 10 seconds.
`
`Id. at 9:60-63. This indication will enable fast location of the device in the
`
`dark, e.g. in times of emergency. Id. at 9:63-66. In other embodiments, the
`
`pin controlling the indicator 1104 may be a different pin than the pin
`
`connected to the switch 1111. Id. at 9:50-52 As indicated in still other
`
`embodiments, the microchip 201 may be programmed to operation the load
`
`105 to indicate an emergency situation, for example, by generating an S.O.S.
`
`signal. Id. at 7:44-51. .Accordingly, the microchip 1113 can control the
`
`operating the load 105.
`
`visible indicator 1104 to be activated independently of activating or
`
`18. Claim 1 of the ‘970 patent recites three principal elements of
`
`the claimed electronic device. As noted, this device could be a flashlight, or
`
`any type of electrical device that benefits from a microchip/microprocessor
`
`based electrical switching and control system. The three principal elements
`
`of the electronic module are the microchip itself, a switch, and a luminous
`
`visible location indicator controlled by the microchip.
`
`19. Claim 1 of the ‘970 patent further indicates that the switch is “a
`
`user interface and does not form a serial link in a circuit that transfers power
`
`- 10
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`from the power source to power the load…”. For example, in FIG. 2, the
`
`switch 102 does not conduct current to the load 105. Instead, the microchip
`
`103 of FIG. 2 controls and conducts current to the load 105 through switch
`
`ll.10-14.
`
`202 in accordance with a signal from the user interface switch 102. Col. 7,
`
`20. Claim 1 of the ‘970 indicates that the luminous visible location
`
`indicator is not the load of the product. In terms of the exemplary flashlight,
`
`the luminous visible location indicator would indicate a location of the
`
`flashlight, for example, in an emergency situation, and would not be the bulb
`
`21. Claim 1 of the ‘970 patent further indicates that the microchip
`
`of the flashlight. Col. 9, ll. 47-67.
`
`controls the luminous visible location indicator according to at least one
`
`configuration of (1) upon receiving a signal from the user interface switch,
`
`the visible indicator at least indicates a condition of the product, and the
`
`switch is a touch sensor type switch, (2) when the load is not on, the
`
`luminous visible location indicator is activated to indicate an activation
`
`signal from the switch, and (3) when the load is off and the device is not
`
`connected to a mains power supply, the luminous visible location indicator
`
`also indicates a power level of the power source of the device.
`
`- 11
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`22. With respect to the first alternative (1), the switch is required to
`
`be a touch sensor type switch that, when operated, provides a signal to the
`
`microchip to control the luminous visible location indicator to indicate a
`
`condition of the product. In terms of the exemplary flashlight, the luminous
`
`visible location indicator may flash to indicate that the battery is in a good or
`
`23. With respect to the second alternative (2), the luminous visible
`
`bad condition. Col. 9, ll. 60-67.
`
`location indicator is activated at least to indicate an activation signal from
`
`the switch when the load is not activated. For example, the microchip turns
`
`on the luminous visible location indicator in response to a signal from the
`
`switch while the load is not activated. ‘970 Abstract.
`
`24. With respect to the third alternative (3), the luminous visible
`
`location indicator is operated to indicate a power level of the power source
`
`when the load is off and the product is not connected to a mains supply. In
`
`the exemplary flashlight, the luminous visible indicator may be operated to
`
`indicate the condition of the battery of the flashlight. Col. 9, ll. 47-49.
`
`25. Each of claims 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, and 51 of the challenged
`
`claims depends from Claim 1, and to my understanding, accordingly
`
`requires the elements discussed above, in addition to those recited in the
`
`dependent claim. Thus, for illustrative purposes, Claim 3 has all the
`
`- 12
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 12 of 42
`
`
`
`limitations discussed above, but wherein the second alternative (2) recited in
`
`claim 1 must be met, that is, where the luminous visible location indicator is
`
`activated to indicate an activation signal from the switch when the load is
`
`touch sensor switch.
`
`not on. Claim 3 additionally requires that the user interface include at least a
`
`26. Unlike device Claims 1 – 51, Claim 52 of the ‘970 patent is a
`
`method claim, which specifies three steps in the context of the microchip-
`
`based switching system of the devices disclosed in the ‘970 patent. Claim 52
`
`requires (1) the user interface switch is a touch sensor type switch that is
`
`operated to control operation of the microchip and not a serial link in a
`
`circuit that powers the load between the power source and the load, (2) the
`
`microchip is used to control the connection of the power source to the load
`
`and the activation of the indicator, and (3) the indicator is activated when the
`
`load is not on to indicate at least one of (a) a condition of the product, (b)
`
`and activation of the switch, and (c) a power level of the power source of the
`
`27. As discussed above in the context of the challenged product
`
`product.
`
`claims, the ‘970 Patent illustrates each of these steps.
`
`- 13
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED IN FORMULATING
`28.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered all of the
`
`MY OPINION
`
`following documents:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description and Designation
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970,
`IPR2015-01149, Paper 1 (“Petition”)
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970
`1002
`File history for U.S. Patent 7,329,970
`1004 U.S. Patent 6,125,286 “Jahagirdar”
`1005 U.S. Patent 4,053,789 “Schultz”
`1012 Declaration of Mark. N. Horenstein, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Decision of the PTAB to Institute (Paper 12)
`2001 Robert E. Morley, Jr., curriculum vitae
`2002 U.S. Patent 3,879,593
`2003 U.S. Patent 4,391,845
`2004 U.S. Patent 4,602,135
`2005 Deposition Transcript of Mark N. Horenstein regarding
`IPR2015-01147, IPR2015-01148, IPR2015-01149,
`IPR2015-01150, and IPR2015-01151, dated February
`16, 2016
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`29.
`
`
`
`I am informed that it is permissible to determine the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art from a review of relevant prior art references. For
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I am relying on the 1998 priority date listed on
`
`the face of the ’970 Patent to establish the appropriate level of ordinary skill.
`
`- 14
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In my view, the level of ordinary skill relevant to the ‘970
`
`Patent is evident from a review of the prior art references cited in the
`
`Petition and related art. These and other contemporaneous references invoke
`
`a limited body of knowledge in electronics and microchip controlled
`
`circuitry and related art. A student of electrical engineering with an
`
`undergraduate degree electronics, electrical circuitry or equivalent degree, is
`
`representative of the person of skill in this art. Such an individual would be
`
`familiar with the design and application of low-level circuitry and switching
`
`functions, and have a working knowledge of microchip-based systems
`
`31. A degree alone does not confer on an individual real world
`
`design and operation.
`
`knowledge and understanding of how circuits and electronics are designed
`
`and implemented. Thus, the undergraduate degree would be augmented, in
`
`someone of ordinary skill in the art, with a year or so of work in the field
`
`(such as laboratory work for hire by a private corporation or postgraduate
`
`study) preferably in the design, construction and implementation of
`
`32. A person of ordinary skill in this art would have experience
`
`microchip-based electronic circuitry.
`
`with or knowledge of microprocessor-based software design, as well as an
`
`understanding of then available microchips and their application.
`
`- 15
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 15 of 42
`
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`33.
`
`I have not been asked to offer an opinion on the law; however, I
`
`understand that I am obliged to follow existing law. I have therefore been
`
`asked to apply the following legal principles to my analysis, and I have done
`
`so.
`
`A. Anticipation
`34.
`
`I understand that to be valid, a patent claim must be “novel,”
`
`and is invalid if “anticipated” by a single prior art reference. I further
`
`understand a reference anticipates if it discloses each and every element as
`
`arranged in the claim, so as to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`I understand that the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`of a prior art reference may be relied upon when analyzing anticipation.
`
`However, I understand the fact that a certain result or characteristic may
`
`occur or may be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the
`
`inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`I also understand the disclosure in an allegedly anticipating
`
`reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter.
`
`The considerations I evaluated in assessing whether a reference sets forth the
`
`elements of a claim in a sufficient manner such that a person of ordinary
`
`- 16
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
`skill in the art could have readily made and used the claimed invention
`
`without undue experimentation include: the breadth of the claim, the nature
`
`of the invention, the state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill,
`
`the level of predictability in the art, the amount of direction provided by the
`
`reference, the existence of working examples, and the quantity of
`
`experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of
`
`the disclosure.
`
`B. Obviousness
`37.
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still
`
`38.
`
`invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole in my view would not have been
`
`innovative at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art.
`
`I understand a person having ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a
`
`PHOSITA) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`relevant art at the time of the invention was made. I understand the
`
`requirement “at the time the invention was made” is to avoid impermissible
`
`hindsight. I also understand an expert is to analyze the prior art from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art and not simply provide his
`
`own personal conclusions.
`
`- 17
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 17 of 42
`
`
`
`39.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes
`
`several factual inquiries, including (1) determining the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`and (4) taking into consideration any secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`40.
`
`I am informed that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may
`
`include (1) a long felt but unsolved need that was satisfied by the claimed
`
`invention; (2) commercial success attributable to the claimed invention; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; praise by experts of
`
`the claimed invention with factual support; (4) taking of licenses under the
`
`patent by others for reasons related to the alleged nonobviousness of the
`
`claimed invention; and (5) evidence that competitors in the marketplace are
`
`copying the invention instead of using the prior art. I also understand that
`
`there must be a relationship, or nexus, between any such secondary indicia
`
`and the claimed invention, i.e., objective evidence of nonobviousness must
`
`be attributable to the claimed invention. I further understand that near
`
`simultaneous invention by two or more equally talented inventors working
`
`independently may or may not be an indication of obviousness when
`
`considered in light of all the circumstances.
`
`- 18
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 18 of 42
`
`
`
`I understand a conclusion of obviousness can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that exemplary
`
`rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`41.
`(A)
`(B)
`(C)
`(D)
`(E)
`(F)
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results;
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results;
`
`Use of known technique to improve similar devices
`
`(methods, or products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success;
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different
`
`one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`
`variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
`
`that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the
`
`- 19
`
`(G)
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 19 of 42
`
`
`
`prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes
`
`that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives design
`
`42.
`43.
`
`trends.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`44.
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense
`
`45.
`
`considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further
`
`understand that applying common sense does not require a “specific hint or
`
`suggestion in a particular reference,” only a reasoned explanation that avoids
`
`conclusory generalizations.
`
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art addressing a
`
`problem will often be able to fit the teachings of multiple publications
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle. In this regard, I understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`- 20
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 20 of 42
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I understand a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example,
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and/or
`
`there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason
`
`to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I understand
`
`that if this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the result not of innovation
`
`but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`known methods is likely obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. When work is known in one field of endeavor, it may
`
`prompt variations of that work for use in either the same field or a different
`
`one, based on design incentives and other market forces. If a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, it is likely unpatentable.
`
`It is further my understanding that to be proper for use in an
`
`obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention. Accordingly, I understand that under the correct analysis, any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention
`
`- 21
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 21 of 42
`
`
`
`and addressed by the claimed invention can provide a reason for combining
`
`49.
`
`the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`I understand a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the
`
`claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be
`
`supplied by the common sense of one of skill in the art. For example,
`
`combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art
`
`patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`I understand a claimed invention may be obvious if it involves
`
`50.
`
`merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results. I understand further that the prior art need not be like
`
`two puzzle pieces that must fit together perfectly. For example, a claimed
`
`invention may be found obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`view rearrangement as an obvious matter of design choice.
`
`51. Finally, I have been informed and understand that the
`VI. JAHAGIRDAR AND SCHULTZ
`52.
`
`obviousness analysis requires a comparison of the properly construed claim
`
`language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`In seeking to invalidate claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 48,
`
`and 49, the Petition relies on the combination of two references - U.S. Patent
`
`- 22
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`Exhibit 2006
`Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`IPR2015-01149
`Page 22 of 42
`
`
`
`6,125,286 to Jahagirdar, taken in view of U.S. Patent 4,053,789 to Schultz.
`
`The Decision to Institute, Paper 12, refers to these references by the last
`
`name of the first named inventor, and I shall refer to them in the same
`
`fashion in this Declaration.
`
`53.
`
`Jahagirdar’s mobile station 102 of Fig. 1 is what would now be
`
`recognized as a “flip-phone”, i.e., a cell phone where the keys of the keypad
`
`used to dial the phone, to input data, etc., are uncovered by “opening” the
`
`flap (movable housing portion 114 of Fig. 1) of the phone that covers the
`
`keypad and internal display. The specific improvement addressed in
`
`Jahagirdar is the provision of a secondary external display panel at the “top”
`
`edge or joint of the phone so that it need not be opened to read pertinent
`
`information, such as the number of the calling party.
`
`54. The activations of Jahagirdar’s external (516 in Fig. 5) and
`
`internal (520) displays are mutually exclusive. When the flap 114 of phone
`
`is closed external display 516 is turned on and internal display 520 is turned
`
`off. Conversely, when the flap 114 of the phone is moved to the open
`
`position the internal display is activated and the external display is turned
`
`off. The position of the flap is all that controls which display is activated.
`
`There is no user interface key that affects the activati
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
