`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Nokia Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2015-01149
`Patent 7,329,970
`
`_____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Rule 42.8(b)(1) - Real Party-In-Interest ................................................ 3
`
`Rule 42.8(b)(2) - Related Matters ......................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`This Petition Is Not Redundant of Apple’s IPR Petition
`on the ’970 Patent ....................................................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 5
`
`III. Payment of Fees ................................................................................................ 6
`
`IV. Requirements for Inter Partes Review ............................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rule 42.104(a) - Grounds for Standing ................................................. 6
`
`Rule 42.104 (b) - Challenge and Relief Requested ............................... 7
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(5) — Evidence Relied Upon ........................................ 7
`
`V. Factual Background .......................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’970 Patent .................................................................. 8
`
`Prosecution History of the ’970 patent ................................................ 10
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Construction ................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“does not form a serial link” (claim 1 from which claims 3-5,
`10-14, 19, 48, 49, and 51 ultimately depend) and “is not a serial
`link”(claim 52) .................................................................................... 11
`
`“not connected to a mains supply” (claim 1 from which claims
`3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, and 51 ultimately depend) .............................. 12
`
`VII.Claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, 51, and 52 of the ’970 Patent are
`Unpatentable as Obvious Over Jahagirdar Combined With Schultz .............. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`The Law of Obviousness ..................................................................... 13
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 14
`i
`
`

`

`C. Overview of the Prior art ..................................................................... 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Scope and Content of U.S. Pat. No. 6,125,286
`(“Jahagirdar”) (Exhibit 1004) ................................................... 16
`
`Scope and content of the Touch Sensor References ................. 22
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,053,789 (“Schultz”) (Ex. 1005) ......... 22
`
`Touch Sensors Prevalent in the Prior Art ....................... 23
`
`VIII. Independent Claim 1 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz ............................................................................... 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 1’s preamble ..................... 25
`
`Jahagirdar taught “said switch being a user interface and does
`not form a serial link in a circuit that transfers power from the
`power source to power the load” ......................................................... 27
`
`Jahagirdar taught “and said microchip controlling a luminous
`visible location indicator that is not the load” ..................................... 28
`
`Jahagirdar in combination with Schultz renders obvious “a)
`wherein the visible indicator at least indicates a condition of the
`product upon receiving a signal from the user interface switch,
`and wherein the switch is a touch sensor type switch;” ...................... 30
`
`Jahagirdar taught “b) wherein the visible indicator is activated
`at least to indicate an activation signal from the switch when the
`load is not activated;” .......................................................................... 37
`
`Jahagirdar taught “and c) wherein the visible indicator is also
`used to indicate a power level of the power source when the
`load is switched off and the product is not connected to a mains
`supply.” ................................................................................................ 39
`
`IX. Jahagirdar in combination with Schultz taught that “the user interface
`comprises at least a touch sensor switch.” ...................................................... 41
`
`X.
`
`Jahagirdar disclosed that “the user interface comprises multiple
`switches and/or buttons.” ................................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`XI. Jahagirdar disclosed that “the location indicator is activated only for a
`period of time.” ............................................................................................... 42
`
`XII. Jahagirdar disclosed that “the touch sensor switch user interface is
`implemented to be structurally integral with the product housing.” .............. 44
`
`XIII.Jahagirdar disclosed “the location indicator also indicates a condition
`of the product.” ............................................................................................... 45
`
`XIV.Jahagirdar disclosed that a function “selected by a user interface
`activation signal is automatically shut off after a predetermined period
`of time.” .......................................................................................................... 46
`
`XV. Jahagirdar disclosed that the product “comprises radio frequency (RF)
`circuitry.” ........................................................................................................ 46
`
`XVI.Jahagirdar disclosed that its “power source is a direct current source.” ......... 47
`
`XVII.Jahagirdar in view of Schultz disclosed that “the microchip also
`controls upon receiving a switch activation signal from a touch sensor,
`at least the activation of a function that automatically shuts off a period
`after such activation.” ..................................................................................... 47
`
`XVIII.Jahagirdar in combination with Schultz disclosed “the user interface
`
`comprises at least a touch sensor switch.” ...................................................... 49
`
`XIX.Jahagirdar disclosed that the “indicator, the switch, the power source
`
`
`
`and the load are all enclosed in and/or attached to the product
`housing.” ......................................................................................................... 50
`
`XX. Jahagirdar disclosed a product that “comprises radio frequency
`circuitry (RF).” ................................................................................................ 51
`
`XXI.Independent Claim 52 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`
`combination with Schultz ............................................................................... 52
`A.
`Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 52’s preamble ................... 52
`
`B.
`
`Jahagirdar combined with Schultz renders obvious a step of
`“operating a user interface switch, that is a touch sensor type
`switch which is not a serial link in a circuit from the power
`source to the load to power the load, to control the operation of
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`D.
`
`a microchip” ........................................................................................ 53
`
`Jahagirdar taught “using the microchip to control the
`connection of the power source to the load and the activation of
`the indicator” ....................................................................................... 56
`
`Jahagirdar taught “activate the indicator to show at least one of
`the following when the load is not activated: a condition of the
`product, an activation of the switch, and a power level of the
`power source.” ..................................................................................... 57
`
`XXII.The Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Under the
`Construction of “Energy Consuming Load” Advanced by Apple ................. 59
`
`XXIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Daiicchi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00390 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014) ................................................ 4
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00017 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014) ............................................ 1, 4
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 2:14-cv-00391 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014) ................................................ 4
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00346 (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2014) ................................................. 4
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Vizio, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00347 (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2014) ................................................. 4
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................... 3, 13, 14, 33, 36
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling
`USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 7, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................... 7, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... 3, 7, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 8(b)(1) ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 CPR. § 8(b)(1) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 8(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 CPR. § 8(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`37 CPR. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 CPR. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 CPR. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 6
`37 CPR. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 6
`37 CPR. § 42.15(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 6
`37 CPR. §42.15(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(4) .............................................................................................. 6
`37 CPR. § 42.15(a)(4) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`37 CPR. §42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`37 CPR. § 104(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(5) ................................................................................................. 7
`37 CPR. § 104(b)(5) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970 (filed July 6, 2006) (“’970 patent”)
`
`Prosecution history for the ’970 patent (“’970 prosecution
`history”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,089 (filed Oct. 9, 1998) (“’089 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,125,286 (filed June 5, 1997) (“Jahagirdar”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,053,789 (filed Aug. 27, 1976) (“Schultz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,329,577 (filed Dec. 29, 1992) (“Norimatsu”)
`
`William Buxton et al., Issues and Techniques in Touch-
`Sensitive Tablet Input, 85 PROC. SIGGRAPH CONF. ON
`COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND INTERACTIVE TECHS. 215, 215-24
`(1985) (“Buxton”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,963,793 (filed Mar. 8, 1988) (“DePauli”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,764,708 (filed Dec. 8, 1986) (“Roudeski”)
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Horenstein (“Horenstein Decl.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft”) and Nokia Inc. (“Nokia”) hereby petition for inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, 51, and 52 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,970 (“’970 patent”) (Ex. 1001), currently
`
`assigned to Global Touch Solutions, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’970 patent is one of a family of patents relating to flashlights
`
`containing microchip-controlled touch-sensor switches. Ex. 1001 (’970 patent) at
`
`[63]. The earliest patent in the family had claims that focused on just that —
`
`flashlights containing microchips and touch sensors — and the prior art cited
`
`during prosecution was similarly related to flashlights and lights. See Ex. 1003
`
`(’089 patent) at all claims. The continuation ’970 patent application — the fourth
`
`filing in a chain of continuations and continuations-in-part– however, includes
`
`claims that are broader than those issued in the earliest patent and is alleged to
`
`cover subject matter well beyond flashlights. See Ex. 1001 (’726 patent) at all
`
`claims.
`
`Armed with these broader claims, Patent Owner now alleges in related
`
`lawsuits that the claims cover state-of-the-art tablet computers and mobile phones
`
`even though the patent nowhere mentions either type of device. See Global Touch
`
`Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00017 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`2014). In contrast, during prosecution of the ’970 application, the applicant did not
`
`submit computer or telephone prior art, and the examiner did not cite any. Ex.
`
`1001 (’970 patent) at [56]; see generally Ex. 1002 (’970 prosecution history). And
`
`the art that the examiner relied on was virtually the same art cited during
`
`prosecution of the three parent applications to which the ’970 patent claims priority
`
`as a continuation. See generally Ex. 1002 (’970 prosecution history). Moreover,
`
`the examiner did not issue a substantive rejection before allowing the ’970 patent.
`
`See generally id.
`
`However, microchip-controlled user interfaces and touch sensors were well
`
`known in numerous applications, including computer and telephone prior art, at the
`
`time of the earliest possible priority date — October 9, 1998. Ex. 1012
`
`(Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 29. As discussed in detail below, the 1997 Jahagirdar
`
`reference disclosed a mobile phone with a microchip-controlled user interface and
`
`mechanical push-button switches. Id. at ¶ 31. And, well before the October 9,
`
`1998 priority date, touch sensor technology was commonplace and widely
`
`recognized as a useful alternative to mechanical push buttons. See id. at ¶ 44. For
`
`example, Schultz, which granted in 1977, disclosed an improved touch sensor. Id.
`
`at ¶ 41. Thus, and as Dr. Horenstein demonstrates in his declaration (Ex. 1012), a
`
`skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’970 patent would have had reason
`
`and motivation to combine Jahagirdar, which disclosed a microchip-controlled user
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`interface, with Schultz, which taught touch sensor technology, the combination of
`
`which satisfies each of the challenged claims. Id. at ¶ 51. Doing so would have
`
`yielded the benefits of touch-sensor technology and would have been a mere
`
`routine and trivial design choice. See id.
`
`Highly analogous to the patent at issue are the facts of KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007), where the Supreme Court reversed a
`
`Federal Circuit finding of nonobviousness because all of the elements of the claim
`
`at issue were known and worked in combination as would have been expected. Id.
`
`at 417 (“[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the
`
`same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would
`
`expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (internal quotations
`
`omitted)).
`
`Microsoft and Nokia therefore respectfully request review and cancellation
`
`of the Challenged Claims because, as shown below, and in light of the supporting
`
`Declaration of Dr. Horenstein, there is more than a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`A. Rule 42.8(b)(1) - Real Party-In-Interest
`Microsoft Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`B. Rule 42.8(b)(2) - Related Matters
`The ’970 Patent is the subject of a pending patent-infringement action
`
`brought by Global Touch Solutions, LLC (“Patent Owner”) against Petitioner,
`
`captioned Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00017
`
`(E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014). In the same action, Patent Owner also asserts U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,265,494; 7,498,749; 7,772,781; 7,781,980; 7,994,726; 8,035,623;
`
`and 8,288,952.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner currently asserts the ’970 patent in four other
`
`lawsuits against other entities. See Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Vizio, Inc., No.
`
`2:14-cv-00347 (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2014); Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00390 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014); Global Touch Solutions,
`
`LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00391 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 1, 2014);
`
`and Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Toshiba Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00346 (E.D. Va.
`
`filed July 9, 2014).
`
`Additionally, filed by Petitioner concurrently with this Petition are four Inter
`
`Partes Review petitions directed to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,288,952; 7,498,749;
`
`7,781,980; and 7,994,726, respectively. Petitions directed to U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,265,494, 7,772,781, and 8,035,623, respectively, were also filed on April 10,
`
`2015.
`
`
`
`Finally, filed by Apple Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC, and Toshiba America
`
`4
`
`

`

`Information Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Apple”) on May 11, 2015 is an Inter
`
`Partes Review petition directed to the ’970 patent. Four petitions directed to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,498,749; 7,994,726; 7,781,980; and 8,288,952, respectively, were
`
`also filed on that date.
`
`1.
`
`This Petition Is Not Redundant of Apple’s IPR
`Petition on the ’970 Patent
`
`On May 11, 2015, Apple filed IPR Petition No. 2015-01173, seeking
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48-49, and 51-52 of the ’970 patent.
`
`Apple’s petition is not redundant of Microsoft’s petition on this patent. First, the
`
`parties are different. Apple is not a party to Microsoft’s petition, and Microsoft is
`
`not a party to Apple’s petition. Second, the asserted prior art is different — indeed
`
`there is no prior art in common between the two petitions. Microsoft’s petition is
`
`based primarily on the Jahagirdar reference, which is directed to a portable
`
`telephone with two display screens. In contrast, Apple’s petition is based primarily
`
`on U.S. Patent No. 5,898,290 (filed Sept. 6, 1996), which is directed to an
`
`intelligent battery pack. Likewise, the supporting expert witnesses are different —
`
`Microsoft’s expert is Mark Horenstein, and Apple’s expert is Paul Beard.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`Petitioner submits herewith a power of attorney and designates the following
`
`counsel pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.10(a) and §42.10(b). Service
`
`information is also shown in this chart:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Daniel J. Goettle, No. 50,983
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.568.3100
`F 215.568.3439
`e-mail: dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`John F. Murphy, No. 54,329
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.568.3100
`F 215.568.3439
`e-mail: johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com
`
`Sarah C. Dukmen, No. 64,899
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.568.3100
`F 215.568.3439
`e-mail: MSFT-GT@bakerlaw.com
`
`Petitioner agrees to accept service by email.
`III. Payment of Fees
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $23,000 to Deposit Account
`
`No. 233050 for review of the fourteen challenged claims ($9,000 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a)(1) and (3), and $14,000 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) and (4)). The
`
`undersigned further authorizes the Office to charge this Deposit Account for any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`IV. Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Rule 42.104(a) - Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’970 patent is available for, and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting, inter partes review of any claim of the ’970
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`B. Rule 42.104 (b) - Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests that the Challenged Claims (claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48,
`
`49, 51, and 52) of the ’970 patent be found unpatentable on the ground set forth
`
`below. The proposed ground presents art that was not previously considered
`
`during the prosecution of the ’970 patent.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,125,286 (“Jahagirdar”) was filed on June 5, 1997,
`
`issued on September 26, 2000, and is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at [22], [45].
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,053,789 (“Schultz”) issued on October 11, 1977 and is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1005 (Schultz) at [45].
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`1
`1, 3-5, 10-14, 19,
`
`Statutory Basis for Challenge
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Jahagirdar
`
`48, 49, 51, and 52
`
`in combination with Schultz.
`
`C. Rule 42.104(b)(5) — Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the foregoing-listed prior-art references and the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Mark Horenstein (Ex. 1012). Exhibit 1012 includes Attachment
`
`A which provides a helpful summary of Dr. Horenstein’s opinions in claim chart
`
`form which are explained in detail in the declaration.
`
`Dr. Horenstein holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from MIT, and is a
`
`Professor of Electrical Engineering at Boston University where he has been a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`faculty member since 1979. Ex. 1012 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶¶ 2-3. Dr. Horenstein
`
`has authored two textbooks and two book chapters, and authored or co-authored
`
`over 50 journal articles and approximately 100 conference papers on topics in his
`
`fields of expertise, which include applied electromagnetics, electronic circuits,
`
`electrostatics, and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS). Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. These
`
`disciplines include, e.g., the topics of capacitive and photonic (e.g., infrared)
`
`sensors, as well as micro-actuators and accelerometers, among others. Id. at ¶ 5.
`
`Dr. Horenstein has designed capacitive sensors, MEMS sensors, and infrared
`
`detection systems as part of various research projects. Id. at ¶ 8. He also
`
`developed the curriculum for a graduate course in power electronics in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University, which
`
`includes detailed lectures and extensive laboratory experiments. Id.
`
`V.
`
`Factual Background
`A.
`At a high level of generality, the ’970 patent describes “microchip controlled
`
`Summary of the ’970 Patent
`
`electrical current switching devices.” Ex. 1001 (’970 patent) at col. 1 ll. 19-20.
`
`More particularly, the ’970 patent indicates that its “invention relates to intelligent
`
`hand-held flashlights having microchip controlled switches wherein said switches
`
`can be programmed to perform a variety of functions including, for example,
`
`turning the flashlight off after a pre-determined time interval, blinking, or
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`dimming, etc.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 29-33.
`
`The ’970 patent explains several disadvantages of prior-art mechanical
`
`switches, particularly in relation to flashlights. See id. at col. 1 l. 40-col. 3 l. 37.
`
`For example, the ’970 patent describes that, “[i]n the typical flashlight, the
`
`effective life of the battery is only a few hours at most. Should the operator, after
`
`using the flashlight to find his/her way in the dark or for any other purpose, then
`
`fail to turn it off, the batteries will, in a very short time, become exhausted.” Id. at
`
`col. 1 ll. 44-49. The ’970 patent further describes that certain prior art switches
`
`were prone to wear and tear: “[m]ost conventional flashlights, like those described
`
`above, are actuated by mechanical push or slide button-type switches requiring, of
`
`course, mechanical implementation by an operator. Over time, the switch suffers
`
`‘wear and tear’ which impairs operation of the flashlight.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 62-66.
`
`The ’970 patent purports to address these problems by describing “a
`
`microchip controlled switch to manage both the current conducting functions and
`
`the MMI [man-machine-interface] functions in an electronic device, such as a
`
`flashlight, on a low current basis i.e. without the MMI device having to conduct or
`
`switch high current.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 42-46. The ’970 patent explains that its
`
`microchip can be inserted into a flashlight “so that many functions, including …
`
`delayed switching, dimming, automatic shut off, and intermittent activation may be
`
`inexpensively realized in an existing (non intelligent) product, for example a prior
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`art flashlight.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 63-67. Further, “the MMI functions are controlled
`
`by very low current signals, using touch pads, or carbon coated membrane type
`
`switches” that minimize mechanical wear. Id. at col. 3 ll. 46-48.
`
`However, as demonstrated below, all of the elements of the claimed
`
`invention of the ’970 patent were known before October 9, 1998, the earliest
`
`priority date arguable for the claims of the ’970 patent, and based on the teachings
`
`of the prior art, the combinations of those elements in the Challenged claims would
`
`have been obvious. Ex. 1012 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 29.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’970 patent
`
`B.
`As filed on July 6, 2006, the ’970 patent application claimed priority to three
`
`earlier filed applications, the earliest of which was filed on October 9, 1998. Ex.
`
`1001 (’970 patent) at [63]. While earlier applications in the ’970 patent family
`
`issued with claims directed to flashlights, the as-filed claims of the ’970 patent
`
`were drafted more broadly than their parents’ claims and were directed to an
`
`“electronic module” and associated methods. See, e.g., id. at claim 1. For
`
`example, in contrast to the ’970 patent, each claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,089
`
`(“’089 patent”), the earliest parent, is directed to a “hand held flashlight.” Ex.
`
`1003 (’089 patent) at claims 1-15.
`
`The application that resulted in the ’970 patent included 52 claims, with
`
`claims 1 and 52 in independent form. Ex. 1002 (’970 prosecution history) at as-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`filed application dtd. July 6, 2006. None of the claims were rejected over prior art
`
`and 55 claims, along with three new dependent claims, issued. See generally Ex.
`
`1002 (’970 prosecution history).
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner apparently did not consider either of
`
`Jahagirdar or Schultz in relation to the Challenged Claims. See generally id.
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`Pursuant to Office rules, the claim terms of the ’970 patent are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention, consistent with the specification. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Thus, solely for the purposes of this proceeding and not for any
`
`litigation where a different claim-construction standard applies, the following
`
`discussion proposes constructions of terms and phrases used in the claims. Any
`
`claim ter