IPR2015 – 01151
`Exhibit 1014 (Horenstein Declaration)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`
`By: Daniel J. Goettle
`
`John F. Murphy
`
`Sarah C. Dukmen
`
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`Microsoft Corporation and Nokia Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________
`IPR2015 – 01151
`Patent 8,288,952
`
`EXHIBIT 1014
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK N. HORENSTEIN, PH.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`MICROSOFT EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015 – 01151
`Exhibit 1014 (Horenstein Declaration)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction & Qualifications .......................................................................... 5
`I.
`II. Materials Reviewed ......................................................................................... 7
`III. The Law ........................................................................................................... 9
`A. Obviousness Analysis ........................................................................... 9
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10
`C. Objective Considerations .................................................................... 11
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 12
`V.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13
`A.
`“the touch sensor functions” (claim 1, from which claims 2-4, 14, 16,
`17, 19, and 22-24 ultimately depend) and “the touch sensing
`functions” (claim 26, from which claims 27 and 38-40 ultimately
`depend) ................................................................................................ 13
`VI. Obviousness – Overview ............................................................................... 16
`VII. Obviousness - Description of Prior-Art Jahagirdar Patent ............................ 17
`VIII. Obviousness – Description of Prior-Art Touch Sensor References .............. 20
`A.
`Schultz ................................................................................................. 20
`B.
`Touch Sensors in the Prior Art Generally ........................................... 22
`IX. Summary of Obviousness Opinions .............................................................. 24
`X.
`Independent Claim 1 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 25
`A.
`Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 1’s preamble, “A method for
`implementing a user interface of a product, the product comprising a
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015 – 01151
`Exhibit 1014 (Horenstein Declaration)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power source, or a connection for a power source and at least one
`energy consuming load, said method including the step of” .............. 25
`Recitation [a] of claim 1: Jahagirdar combined with Schultz renders
`obvious “using an electronic module comprising an electronic circuit
`including a microchip and a touch sensor. . . said microchip. . .
`implementing the touch sensor functions” .......................................... 27
`Recitation [b] of claim 1: Jahagirdar taught “activating a visible
`indication . . . [to provide] information . . . on at least one… [of]: a
`state or condition of the product, location of the user interface, a
`battery power level indication.” .......................................................... 37
`XI. Dependent Claim 2 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 39
`XII. Dependent Claim 3 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 39
`XIII. Dependent Claim 4 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 40
`XIV. Dependent Claim 14 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 42
`XV. Dependent Claim 16 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 43
`XVI. Dependent Claim 17 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 45
`XVII. Dependent Claim 19 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 46
`XVIII. Dependent Claim 22 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 47
`XIX. Dependent Claim 23 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 49
`XX. Dependent Claim 24 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 49
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015 – 01151
`Exhibit 1014 (Horenstein Declaration)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`XXI. Independent Claim 26 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 51
`A.
`Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 26’s preamble, “An
`electronic module for use with a product, the product comprising a
`power source or a connection for a power source, and at least one
`energy consuming load” ...................................................................... 51
`Limitation [a] of Claim 26: Jahagirdar combined with Schultz renders
`obvious “said module comprising . . . a microchip and a touch sensor .
`. . said microchip . . . implementing the touch sensing functions” ..... 52
`Limitation [b] of Claim 26: Jahagirdar described “activate[s] a visible
`indication . . . [to provide] information . . . on at least one… [of]: a
`state or condition of the product, a location of the user interface, a
`battery power level indication” ........................................................... 61
`XXII. Dependent Claim 27 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 63
`XXIII. Dependent Claim 38 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 64
`XXIV.Dependent Claim 39 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 65
`XXV. Dependent Claim 40 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 66
`XXVI. The Challenged Claims are also invalid even if “the touch sensor functions”
`and “the touch sensing function” mean “functions controlled by the touch
`sensor” ........................................................................................................... 66
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
` Introduction & Qualifications
`I, Mark N. Horenstein, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I understand that Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and Nokia Inc.
`
`(“Nokia”) are petitioning the Patent Office for an inter partes review of claims 1-4,
`
`14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40 of U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (“’952
`
`patent”). I have been retained by the Petitioners, Microsoft and Nokia, to offer
`
`technical opinions relating to the ’952 patent and certain prior-art references
`
`relating to its subject matter. I understand that an inter partes (“between the
`
`parties”) review begins with a petition for review made by third parties like
`
`Microsoft and Nokia and responded to by the owner of the patent.
`
`2.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University, where I have been a
`
`faculty member since 1979. I also have held various other positions at Boston
`
`University, including the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Research for
`
`the College of Engineering (1999-2007), Associate Chair for Undergraduate
`
`Programs for the ECE Department (1990 – 1998 and 2012 – present), as well as
`
`appointments at the rank of Associate Professor (1985-2000) and Assistant
`
`Professor (1979-1985).
`
`3.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (MIT), which I earned in 1978 while working in the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Electric Power Systems Engineering Laboratory. I also hold an M.S. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley (1975), and
`
`an S.B. degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT (1973).
`
`4.
`
`I have a number of professional affiliations: I am a Senior Member of
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the Editor-in-Chief of
`
`the Journal of Electrostatics, an ESD Engineer certified by the National
`
`Association of Telecommunications and Radio Engineers, and a Registered
`
`Professional Engineer (Electrical) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In
`
`2013, I was named an International Fellow by the Industrial Electrostatics Group
`
`of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering (EFCE).
`
`5. My primary areas of research are in applied electromagnetics,
`
`electronic circuits, electrostatics, and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS).
`
`These disciplines include the topics of capacitive and photonic (e.g., infrared)
`
`sensors, micro-actuators and accelerometers, deformable MEMS mirrors for light-
`
`wave communication and image processing, and methods for making self-
`
`cleaning solar panels.
`
`6.
`
`I am the author of two textbooks, Microelectronic Circuits and
`
`Devices (Prentice-Hall, 2d. ed. 1996) and Design Concepts for Engineers (Pearson
`
`Education, 5th ed. 2015). I have authored book chapters in two reference books
`
`related to electromagnetics, and I have authored or co-authored over 50 journal
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`articles on a variety of topics in my fields of expertise, and approximately 100
`
`conference papers. I have advised five Ph.D. students performing research in these
`
`fields; they have gone on to hold various positions in both industry and academia.
`
`I am a named inventor on five patents relating to the areas of my expertise.
`
`7.
`
`I have taught approximately ten different courses (numerous times) in
`
`the above subject areas over the past 34 years, to over 3,000 undergraduate and
`
`graduate students. The subject matter of these courses includes circuits and
`
`electronics, static and dynamic electromagnetics, antennas, waveguides, rf
`
`communications, robotics, and engineering design. I have been named “Teacher
`
`of the Year” in Engineering at Boston University three times.
`
`8.
`
`In the area of sensors and detectors, I have designed several capacitive
`
`sensors, MEMS sensors, and infrared detection systems as part of various research
`
`projects. I 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.
`
`9. My curriculum vitae, enclosed as Attachment B, contains a more
`
`detailed description of my background.
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated at a consulting rate of $275 per hour for my
`
`technical analysis in this matter.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following:
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (filed July 25, 2011) (“’952 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001);
`
`b. Prosecution history for the ’952 patent (“’952 prosecution history”)
`
`(Ex. 1002);
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 6,249,089 (filed Oct. 9, 1998) (“’089 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1003);
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 6,125,286 (filed June 5, 1997) (“Jahagirdar”) (Ex.
`
`1004);
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 4,053,789 (filed Aug. 27, 1976) (“Schultz”) (Ex.
`
`1005);
`
`f. U.S. Patent No. 5,329,577 (filed Dec. 29, 1992) (“Norimatsu”) (Ex.
`
`1006);
`
`g. 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”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`h. U.S. Patent No. 4,963,793 (filed Mar. 8, 1988) (“DePauli”) (Ex.
`
`1008); and
`
`i. U.S. Patent No. 4,764,708 (filed Dec. 8, 1986) (“Roudeski”) (Ex.
`
`1009).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`III. The Law
`12.
`I am not an attorney and do not purport to provide any expert opinions
`
`on the law. I have, however, been advised of certain basic legal principles
`
`applicable to the analysis set forth in this report. I have assumed these principles
`
`to be correct and applicable for purposes of my analysis. I set forth those
`
`principles below.
`
`A. Obviousness Analysis
`13.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the differences
`
`between the patented subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`14.
`
`I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle. I understand that the obviousness analysis is flexible, taking
`
`into account the interrelated teachings of several patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that the
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`15.
`
`I have been instructed that an obviousness inquiry requires a four-step
`
`analysis involving the so called Graham factors:
`
`(1) determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`(3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`(4) evaluating objective considerations.
`
`16. Once these determinations have been made, I understand that one
`
`must decide, in view of the evidence regarding these four factors, whether or not
`
`the invention, considered as a whole, would have been obvious to one having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time that the alleged invention was made.
`
`17.
`
`I am told that one must keep in mind that it is not permissible to use
`
`hindsight in assessing whether or not the claimed invention is actually invalid for
`
`obviousness. One cannot look at the invention knowing what persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art know today. Rather, one must place oneself in the shoes of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent at the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`18. To determine the level of ordinary skill in field of art, I’ve been
`
`instructed that there are no exhaustive factors that may be considered, and I’ve
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`been instructed to consider the following, to the extent that I can, in opining on the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the field of art pertaining to the ’952 patent:
`
`(1) The educational level of the inventor;
`
`(2) Types of problems encountered in the art;
`
`(3) Prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(4) Rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(5) Sophistication of the technology; and
`
`(6) Educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`C. Objective Considerations
`19. Regarding the fourth step in the four-step process for assessing
`
`obviousness, specifically the step involving “objective considerations,” I have been
`
`told that some of the factors that may be considered are those of copying, a long
`
`felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial success, unexpected results
`
`created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties of the claimed invention,
`
`licenses showing industry respect for the invention, and skepticism of skilled
`
`artisans before the invention was made. I have no reason to believe that any of
`
`these factors apply to the challenged claims of the ’952 patent.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`20.
`I understand that in an inter partes review at the patent office, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`21.
`In reviewing and evaluating the ’952 patent to determine the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have arrived at my opinion that the “art” found in the
`
`’952 patent pertains primarily to electronic circuitry. The art also includes some
`
`degree of what the patent calls an “MMI” (man-machine interface), although only
`
`at a rudimentary level necessary to appreciate the different types of inputs one
`
`might use for the type of devices discussed in the ’952 patent.
`
`22. The discussions in the ’952 patent about microchips and their role in
`
`controlling remote switches are topics that would have been well known to a
`
`student midway through a bachelor’s degree curriculum in electrical or computer
`
`engineering (EE or CE) in the 2011 time frame (the year of filing of the ’952
`
`patent) and also the 1998/1999 time frame (the earliest claimed priority dates for
`
`the ’952 patent). In either time frame, these topics would have been routine and
`
`well within the scope of a student at this level of education. Likewise, timers,
`
`control circuits, and solid-state switches (e.g., transistors), and especially
`
`flashlights-- all relevant to the ’952 patent-- were features of minimal electronic
`
`sophistication that would have been routine subject matter for an upper-class EE or
`
`CE student.
`
`23. A few of the concepts described in the ’952 specification, for example
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`those of series-connected microchips and floating grounds, may have required the
`
`skilled person to have had some additional experience beyond an undergraduate
`
`EE or CE degree. Based on all these factors, it is thus my opinion that an artisan of
`
`ordinary skill in this area at the time of the invention would have a B.S. in
`
`electrical engineering or commensurate degree such as computer engineering, or
`
`alternatively, some coursework comparable in the area of circuit design, in
`
`combination with a year or two of practical experience with products containing
`
`electronic circuitry.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`24. As I state above, I understand that in IPR proceedings, the claim terms
`
`in the ’952 patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as would
`
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
`
`Under this standard, it is my opinion that, aside from the terms otherwise construed
`
`below, the terms in the Challenged Claims should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as would be commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that the ’952 patent
`
`application was filed in 2011, but claims priority to applications filed as early as
`
`1998 and 1999. My views on the meaning of the terms of the Challenged Claims
`
`are the same regardless of the timeframe considered.
`
`A.
`
`“the touch sensor functions” (claim 1, from which claims 2-4, 14,
`16, 17, 19, and 22-24 ultimately depend) and “the touch sensing
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`functions” (claim 26, from which claims 27 and 38-40 ultimately
`depend)
`In my opinion, the terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch
`
`25.
`
`sensing functions” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to mean “the activities performed by the touch sensor.”
`
`26. The terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch sensing
`
`functions” present some ambiguity, because they could be interpreted in the
`
`abstract to mean “functions controlled by the touch sensor.” However, reading the
`
`claim in light of the specification of the ’952 patent supports the meaning “the
`
`activities performed by the touch sensor.”
`
`27. Both terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch sensing
`
`functions” appear only once in the ’952 patent, respectively, in claims 1 and 26.
`
`However, the ’952 specification does provide some insight into the meaning of
`
`these terms relative to its description of man-machine-interface functions or “MMI
`
`functions [that] are controlled by very low current signals, using touch pads, or
`
`carbon coated membrane type switches.” Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at col. 3 l. 67-
`
`col. 4 l. 1.
`
`28. The ’952 patent specification also states that the MMI functions are at
`
`least partially implemented by the microchip: “according to the present invention,
`
`[it is] possible to control the functions of the device in an intelligent manner by the
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`same microchip which provides the MMI functions.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 5-8. These
`
`passages of the patent contrast the functions performed by the touch sensor (the
`
`MMI functions) with the functions performed by the device. The claim language
`
`aligns better with the functions performed by the touch sensor – that is, the
`
`function of acting like a switch, rather than some performance of the device, such
`
`as a flashlight, as a whole. The specification makes it clear that the latter functions
`
`are performed by the microchip, not the touch sensor. Rather, the function of the
`
`touch sensor in the context of the specification is simply to send an “on” or “off”
`
`signal to the microchip. Notice that the claim reads “touch sensor functions,” and
`
`not “device functions” or “product functions.” Thus, one of ordinary skill at the
`
`time of the ’952 filing would understand “touch sensor functions” and “touch
`
`sensing functions” to mean “activities performed by the touch sensor.”
`
`29. Additionally, claims that depend from independent claims 1 and 26
`
`further clarify that the terms “touch sensor functions” and “touch sensing
`
`functions” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention to mean “activities performed by the touch sensor.” For example,
`
`both dependent claims 2 and 27, which depend from claims 1 and 26, respectively,
`
`recite “a function” of “the product” in contrast to the “touch sensor” or “touch
`
`sensing” functions. Id. at claims 1, 2, 26, and 27.
`
`30. The contrast between the use of the term function in claims 1 and 26
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`versus claims 2 and 27 is a further indication that one of ordinary skill at the time
`
`of the ’952 filing would understand “touch sensor functions” and “touch sensing
`
`functions” to mean “activities performed by the touch sensor.” (As I explain
`
`below, regardless of which way the claims are read, they would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill. See infra Section XXVI.)
`
`VI. Obviousness – Overview
`31.
`In my opinion, for the reasons set forth below, the Challenged Claims
`
`of the ’952 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1998, the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’952 patent. I reached this
`
`conclusion primarily in view of Jahagirdar (Ex. 1004), which teaches, among other
`
`things, microchip-controlled user interfaces, but also in view of well-known
`
`principles of touch sensing. These principles are embodied in several references,
`
`including computer and telephone prior art, that I will also discuss. By way of
`
`summary, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims are obvious in view of
`
`Jahagirdar and known proximity sensor technology, e.g., Schultz (Ex. 1005),
`
`discussed below.
`
`32.
`
`In following the analytical framework for obviousness that has been
`
`explained to me, I will first discuss the scope and content of the prior art, then
`
`analyze each claim to show where the limitations of the claim are present in the
`
`prior art. I will also discuss why one of skill would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`
`combine the prior art accordingly. I have already set forth above the level of skill
`
`for a person skilled in the art in the time frame of the ’952 patent. See supra
`
`Section IV.
`
`VII. Obviousness - Description of Prior-Art Jahagirdar Patent
`33.
`Jahagirdar is a U.S. Patent entitled “Communication Device Having
`
`Multiple Displays and Method of Operating the Same,” that was filed on June 5,
`
`1997. Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at [22], [54]. I understand that Jahagirdar is prior art
`
`to the ’952 patent. Jahagirdar was directed generally to the field of electronic
`
`circuitry applied to MMIs, and in particular to a mobile phone that had a
`
`microchip-controlled user interface and mechanical push-button switches. See id.
`
`at col. 3 ll. 59-67.
`
`34. As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the Jahagirdar patent (copied below
`
`with annotations), Jahagirdar described a mobile phone (mobile station 102)
`
`having a user interface that included a plurality of keys 144. Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar)
`
`at col. 1 l. 63- col. 2 l. 6, col. 3 ll. 30-31, figs. 1-2.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`35. The mobile station shown as 102 had a power source, battery 128:
`
`“[m]obile station 102 also includes a removable battery 128.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 33-
`
`35. Further, the mobile station 102 also included at least one energy consuming
`
`load (display element 520, which is shown in Figure 5, below). Id. at col. 4 ll. 27-
`
`30. Specifically, the mobile station 102 had electrical circuitry 500 that included
`
`display components 506 such as display element 520. Id. at col. 3 ll. 59- 62, col. 4
`
`ll. 27-31. With reference again to Figures 1 and 2 above, “[d]isplay elements 516
`
`and 520 [see fig. 5 reprinted below] provide visual information in display areas
`
`130 and 132, respectively.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 40-41. Jahagirdar described that battery
`
`128 is “provided for powering electrical circuitry,” such as display element 516
`
`(see fig. 5 reprinted below). Id. at col. 3 ll. 33-34.
`
`36.
`
`In addition to the display components 506, Jahagirdar’s “[e]lectrical
`
`circuitry 500 includes. . . a key circuit 513.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 60-63. Jahagirdar
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`
`
`further explained that the “key circuit 513 provides signals to controller [504] in
`
`response to actuations of the plurality of keys 144.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 19-20.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Jahagirdar described that its display element 516 was activated in
`
`response to an activation signal received from key 150 (of keys 144 which were
`
`part of Jahagirdar’s user interface). Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5 ll. 54-56.
`
`Specifically, and referring to Figure 8A, shown below, Jahagirdar described “[i]f
`
`controller 504 detects an actuation of key 150 (step 814), controller 504 sends
`
`display data to driver 514, which sends display data to display element 516. For
`
`[sic] displaying new visual information in display area 130.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 54-57.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Jahagirdar further described that display element 516 displayed visual
`
`information such as “status information, and may include date and time
`
`information, battery status information such as a battery level indication and/or a
`
`low battery warning indication.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 59-61.
`
`VIII. Obviousness – Description of Prior-Art Touch Sensor References
`A.
`Schultz
`39. Schultz is a U.S. patent entitled “Touch Actuated System Responsive
`
`to a Combination of Resistance and Capacitance.” Ex. 1005 (Schultz) at [54]. It
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`
`
`
`issued on October 11, 1977. Id. at [45]. I understand that Schultz is prior art to the
`
`’952 patent. As with the ’952 patent and Jahagirdar, Schultz was directed to the
`
`field of electronic circuitry applied to MMIs, and in particular, Schultz described
`
`“a reliable touch actuated system.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 27-31.
`
`40. With reference to Figure 3 from Schultz, reprinted below with
`
`annotations, Schultz disclosed an improved touch sensor: touch responsive area 67.
`
`Id. at col. 4 ll. 47-48. When “an element, such as the human finger, across the
`
`conductors 34 and 35 [corresponding to touch responsive area 67] causes the
`
`voltage on conductor 36 to change state and be inverted by the inverter 41[, t]his
`
`inversion by inverter 41 combined with the pulse output 11 causes the flip-flop 43
`
`to change state and activate the load 52.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 30-35.
`
`
`
`41. Schultz further described that its design was an improvement over
`
`prior-art switches because it minimized inadvertent actuation. Id. at col. 1 ll. 20-
`
`21. “With the present system, a more reliable touch sensing mechanism is
`
`provided than is available by mere capacitive proximity type touch devices or
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`
`
`
`purely resistive touch type devices.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 64-67. Specifically, “[t]he
`
`mere application of a short circuit between the conductors 34 and 35 does not
`
`provide the necessary charging delay of capacitor 60 and voltage which are
`
`necessary to actuate the present system. The inherent body capacitance 60 of an
`
`animal is required.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 35-40. I note that Schultz included humans
`
`among the “animals” that could interact with the sensor: “There are numerous
`
`types of electrical control systems that are responsive to the touch of animals, such
`
`as humans, pets or domestic animals.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 7-9.
`
`42. Schultz described that its touch sensor had an advantage over
`
`“[c]onventional electric switches which require movements [and] are susceptible to
`
`contamination and mechanical failures.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 17-19. Schultz further
`
`explained that its touch sensor “has no moving parts and is therefor [sic] not
`
`subject to the contamination and spurious types of operation.” Id. at col. 1 l. 68-
`
`col. 2 l. 1.
`
`B.
`Touch Sensors in the Prior Art Generally
`43. By 1998, touch sensing was old technology with widely recognized
`
`functionality. Touch sensors similar to that described in Schultz also had known
`
`applications in telephones, such as Jahagirdar’s mobile phone.
`
`44. For example, Norimatsu, a U.S. patent entitled “Telephone Having
`
`Touch Sensor for Responding to a Call,” issued on July 12, 1994. Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`
`
`
`(Norimatsu) at [45], [54]. Figure 4 of Norimatsu, shown below with annotations in
`
`red, depicted a telephone handset 40 that included a touch sensor portion 191. Id.
`
`at col. 4 l. 1.
`
`45. Norimatsu described that “[t]he sensor portion, or mesh, 191 is
`
`attached to part of the handset surface, which part is so selected that the user can
`
`most conveniently touch thereon.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 9-12. Further, “when the user
`
`touches the sensor portion 191, the amplifier 194 produces a high-level signal
`
`which is sent to the controller 15 as a detection signal.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 61-63.
`
`“[I]n response to the detection signal, the controller 15 determines that the user has
`
`responded to a call and then stops the transmission of the signaling tone.” Id. at
`
`col. 3 ll. 65-68.
`
`
`
`46. Norimatsu described the convenience of such touch sensors for the
`
`user: “[a]nother object of the present invention is to provide a telephone in which
`
`the user can easily respond to a call by simply touching the telephone.” Ex. 1006
`
`(Norimatsu) at col. 1 ll. 34-36.
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`
`
`
`47. Other benefits of touch sensing had long been recognized in the field.
`
`For example, in the 1985 publication of “Issues and Techniques in Touch-Sensitive
`
`Tablet Input,” written by William Buxton et al., the authors highlighted that the
`
`“simple construction, [of touch sensors] with no moving parts, leads to reliable and
`
`long-lived operation.” Ex. 1007 (Buxton) at p. 216.
`
`48. Further, references which were cited in the prosecution of the ’952
`
`patent provide similar indications of the benefits of to