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
`
`______________
`
`IPR2015-01151
`Patent 8,288,952
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices .......................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Rule 42.8(b)(1) - Real Party-In-Interest .................................................... 3
`
`B. Rule 42.8(b)(2) - Related Matters .............................................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`This Petition Is Not Redundant of Apple’s IPR Petition
`on the ’952 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. Rule 42.104(a) - Grounds for Standing ...................................................... 6
`
`B. Rule 42.104 (b) - Challenge and Relief Requested ................................... 6
`
`C. Rule 42.104(b)(5) – Evidence Relied Upon .............................................. 7
`
`V.
`
`Factual Background ......................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Summary of the ’952 Patent ...................................................................... 8
`
`B. Prosecution History of the ’952 patent .................................................... 10
`
`VI. Broadest Reasonable Construction ................................................................ 11
`
`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) ............ 11
`
`B. “a product” (claims 4, 14, and 16); “the electronic user interface module”
`(claim 16); “the product user interface” (claim 26, from which claims 27
`and 38-40 ultimately depend) .................................................................. 13
`
`VII. Claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40 of the ’952 Patent are
`Unpatentable as Obvious over Jahagirdar Combined with Schultz .............. 14
`
`A. The Law of Obviousness ......................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art .......................................................... 16
`
`C. Overview of the Prior art ......................................................................... 17
`
`1. Scope and Content of U.S. Pat. No. 6,125,286 (“Jahagirdar”)
`(Exhibit 1004) ........................................................................... 17
`
`2. Scope and content of the Touch Sensor References .......................... 21
`
`VIII. Independent Claim 1 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 24
`
`A. Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 1’s preamble ......................... 24
`
`B. 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” ................................................................................................ 26
`
`C. 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.” ........... 34
`
`Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 2, rendering claim 2
`IX.
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 36
`
`X.
`
`Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 3, rendering claim 3
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 36
`
`Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 4, rendering claim 4
`XI.
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 37
`
`XII. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 14, rendering claim 14
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 38
`
`XIII. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 16, rendering claim 16
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 39
`
`XIV. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 17, rendering claim 17
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 40
`
`XV. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 19, rendering claim 19
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`XVI. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 22, rendering claim 22
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 42
`
`XVII. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 23, rendering claim 23
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 43
`
`XVIII.Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 24, rendering claim 24
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 44
`
`XIX. Independent Claim 26 would have been obvious over Jahagirdar in
`combination with Schultz .............................................................................. 44
`
`A. Jahagirdar taught the limitations of claim 1’s preamble ......................... 44
`
`B. Jahagirdar combined with Schultz renders obvious “said module
`comprising . . . a microchip and a touch sensor . . . said microchip . .
`.implementing the touch sensing functions” ........................................... 46
`
`C. Jahagirdar taught that the microchip “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.” .............................................................................................. 54
`
`XX. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 27, rendering claim 27
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 55
`
`XXI. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 38, rendering claim 38
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 56
`
`XXII. Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 39, rendering claim 39
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 56
`
`XXIII.Jahagirdar disclosed all of the limitations of claim 40, rendering claim 40
`obvious ........................................................................................................... 57
`
`XXIV.The Challenged Claims are also invalid under a construction of “the touch
`sensor functions” and “the touch sensing function” to mean “functions
`controlled by the touch sensor” ..................................................................... 57
`
`XXV. The Challenged Claims Would Have Been Obvious Under the Construction
`of “Energy Consuming Load” Advanced by Apple ...................................... 59
`
`XXVI. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Daiicchi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 16
`
`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. 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) .......................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................... 3, 14, 15, 16, 30, 33, 49, 53
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 7, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................... 7, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 3, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

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

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (filed July 25, 2011) (“’952 patent”)
`
`Prosecution history for the ’952 patent (“’952 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
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Horenstein (“Horenstein Decl.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`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 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (“’952 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`currently assigned to Global Touch Solutions, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’952 patent is one of a family of patents relating to flashlights
`
`containing microchip-controlled touch-sensor switches. Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at
`
`[60]. 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 ’952 patent application – the ninth filing in a
`
`chain of continuations – 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 (’952 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,
`
`2014). In contrast, during prosecution of the ’952 application, the applicant did not
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`submit computer or telephone prior art, and the examiner did not cite any. Ex.
`
`1001 (’952 patent) at [56]; see generally Ex. 1002 (’952 prosecution history). And
`
`the art that the examiner relied on was virtually the same art cited during
`
`prosecution of the eight parent applications to which the ’952 patent claims priority
`
`as a continuation. See generally Ex. 1002 (’952 prosecution history). Moreover, the
`
`examiner did not issue a substantive rejection before allowing the ’952 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. 1014 (Horenstein
`
`Decl.) at ¶ 31. 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 ¶ 33. 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 ¶ 43. For
`
`example, Schultz, which granted in 1977, disclosed an improved touch sensor. Id.
`
`at ¶ 40. Thus, and as Dr. Horenstein demonstrates in his declaration (Ex. 1014), a
`
`skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’952 patent would have had reason
`
`and motivation to combine Jahagirdar, which disclosed a microchip-controlled user
`
`interface, with Schultz, which taught touch sensor technology, the combination of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`which satisfies each of the challenged claims. Id. at ¶ 50. 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 requests 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.
`
`B. Rule 42.8(b)(2) - Related Matters
`The ’952 Patent is the subject of a pending patent-infringement action
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`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; 7,329,970; 7,498,749; 7,772,781; 7,781,980; 7,994,726;
`
`and 8,035,623.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner currently asserts the ’952 patent in three other
`
`lawsuits against other entities. 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); and Global Touch
`
`Solutions, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00391 (E.D. Va. filed Aug.
`
`1, 2014).
`
`Additionally, filed by Petitioner concurrently with this Petition are four Inter
`
`Partes Review petitions directed to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,329,970; 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. and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively,
`
`“Apple”) on May 11, 2015 is an Inter Partes Review petition directed to the ’952
`
`patent. Four petitions directed to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,329,970; 7,994,726;
`
`7,781,980; and 7,498,749, respectively, were also filed on that date.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`1.
`
`This Petition Is Not Redundant of Apple’s IPR
`Petition on the ’952 Patent
`
`On May 11, 2015, Apple filed IPR Petition No. 2015-01175, seeking
`
`cancellation of claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26-27, and 38-40 of the ’952
`
`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:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Daniel J. Goettle, No. 50,983
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`John F. Murphy, No. 54,329
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.568.3100
`F 215.568.3439
`e-mail: dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.568.3100
`F 215.568.3439
`e-mail: johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com
`
`Sarah C. Dukmen, No. 64,899
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`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 sixteen 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 ’952 patent is available for, and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting, inter partes review of any claim of the ’952
`
`patent.
`
`B. Rule 42.104 (b) - Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests that the Challenged Claims (claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40) of the ’952 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 ’952 patent. See Ex. 1002 (’952
`
`prosecution history); Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at [56].
`
` 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
`1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19,
`
`Statutory Basis for Challenge
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Jahagirdar
`
`22-24, 26, 27, 38-40
`
`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. 1014). Exhibit 1014 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
`
`faculty member since 1979. Ex. 1014 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶¶ 2-3. Dr. Horenstein
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`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 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 ’952 patent describes “microchip controlled
`
`Summary of the ’952 Patent
`
`electrical current switching devices.” Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at col. 1 ll. 45-46.
`
`More particularly, the ’952 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
`
`dimming, etc.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 55-59.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`The ’952 patent explains several disadvantages of prior-art mechanical
`
`switches, particularly in relation to flashlights. See id. at col. 1 l. 66-col. 3 l. 57.
`
`For example the ’952 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. 2 ll. 3-
`
`8. The ’952 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. 3 ll. 18-22.
`
`The ’952 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. 62-66. The ’952 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 (nonintelligent) product, for example a prior
`
`art flashlight.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 15-19. Further, “the MMI functions are controlled
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`by very low current signals, using touch pads, or carbon coated membrane type
`
`switches” that minimize mechanical wear. Id. at col. 3 l. 66-col. 4 l. 1.
`
`However, as demonstrated below, all of the elements of the claimed
`
`invention of the ’952 patent were known before October 9, 1998, the earliest
`
`priority date arguable for the claims of the ’952 patent, and based on the teachings
`
`of the prior art, the combinations of those elements in the Challenged claims would
`
`have been obvious. Ex. 1014 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 31.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’952 patent
`
`B.
`As filed on July 25, 2011, the ’952 patent application claimed priority to
`
`eight earlier filed applications, the earliest of which was filed on October 9, 1998.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at [60]. While earlier applications in the ’952 patent family
`
`issued with claims directed to flashlights, the as-filed claims of the ’952 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 26. For
`
`example, in contrast to the ’952 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 ’952 patent included 40 claims, including
`
`independent claims 1 and 26. Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at as-filed application dtd.
`
`July 25, 2011. None of the claims were rejected over prior art and all forty claims
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`issued with no amendments. See generally Ex. 1002 (’952 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 ’952 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.
`
`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)
`
`The terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch 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.”1 Ex. 1014
`
`
`1 Petitioner acknowledges that the terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the
`
`touch sensing functions” could be interpreted in the abstract to mean “functions
`
`controlled by the touch sensor.” Ex. 1014 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 26. However,
`
`such a construction is not reasonably supported by the specification. Id. In any
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`(Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 25.
`
`As an initial matter, the terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch
`
`sensing functions” lack antecedent basis. Although this defect renders the claims
`
`indefinite, strictly for the purposes of this petition, Petitioner will assume arguendo
`
`that “the touch sensor functions” and “the touch sensing functions” instead read
`
`“touch sensor functions” and “touch sensing functions,” such that these terms
`
`would not lack antecedent basis.
`
`Petitioner further notes that both terms “the touch sensor functions” and “the
`
`touch sensing functions” appear only once in the ’952 patent, respectively, in
`
`claims 1 and 26. Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at claims 1, 26; Ex. 1014 (Horenstein
`
`Decl.) at ¶ 27. 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. 1014
`
`(Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 27 (quoting Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at col. 3 l. 67-col. 4 l.
`
`1). The ’952 further clarifies 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 same
`
`event, with reference to Section XXIV below, the Challenged Claims would still
`
`be invalid under this alternate construction. See infra Section XXIV.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`microchip which provides the MMI functions.” Ex. 1014 (Horenstein Decl.) at ¶
`
`28 (quoting Ex. 1001 (’952 patent) at col. 4 ll. 5-8). Based on these passages —
`
`which contrast the functions performed by the touch sensor (the MMI functions)
`
`with the functions performed by the device — 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.” Ex. 1014
`
`(Horenstein Decl.) at ¶ 28.
`
`Additionally, claims that depend from independent claims 1 and 26 further
`
`clarify that 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