`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Global Touch Solutions, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2015-01151
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT EXHIBIT 1022
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF MARK HORENSTEIN REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,288,952
`
`MICROSOFT EXHIBIT 1022
`Microsoft v. Global Touch, IPR2015-01151
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Mark N. Horenstein, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Mark N. Horenstein. I am the same Mark N. Horenstein
`
`who signed and submitted a declaration on May 12, 2015 in this proceeding
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (the “’952 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed the Patent Owner’s Response and related exhibits, as
`
`well as the deposition transcript of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Robert E. Morley
`
`(Ex. 1017). Nothing expressed in either of these documents changes my opinion
`
`that claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40 of the ’952 patent are
`
`rendered obvious by Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) and Ex. 1005 (Schultz).
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Morley indicates in his Declaration and Deposition that touch
`
`sensors such as those taught by Schultz would have decreased accidental actuation
`
`by inanimate objects, such as clothes, objects in a bag, surfaces of furniture, and so
`
`forth. Ex. 1017 (Morley Tr.) at 157:20-158:23; See also Ex. 2002 (Morley Decl.)
`
`at ¶60. I agree with Dr. Morley’s assessment that incorporating Schultz’s touch
`
`sensor into the phone disclosed by Jahagirdar would have alleviated the problem of
`
`accidental actuation by inanimate objects. I further note that, although I disagree
`
`with his assessment, even if Dr. Morley is correct that Schultz’s touch sensor
`
`would increase the likelihood of accidental actuation by animate objects such as a
`
`hand, one of ordinary skill still would have sought to combine Schultz and
`
`Jahagirdar in order to reduce inadvertent actuation by inanimate objects.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`4.
`
`Different types of switches have different benefits and drawbacks.
`
`Because different consumers might prefer the advantages of one type of switch,
`
`such as a touch sensor, over another, such as a push button, it would have been
`
`routine design procedure, as a commercial matter, to pursue multiple types of
`
`switches for implementation into a mobile phone, depending on the needs and
`
`desired operational features of the end product. Moreover, concerns about
`
`inadvertent actuation of a touch sensor by an animate object could be addressed by
`
`adjusting the sensitivity touch sensor, putting it at the bottom of a fingertip-sized
`
`indent, or moving it to a location on the phone where inadvertent actuation would
`
`have been less likely.
`
`5.
`
`I also understand that Dr. Morley believes that Jahagirdar’s display
`
`element 516 could not be activated using keys 150, because when key 150 was
`
`pressed, display element 516 had already been activated by flipping the phone
`
`closed. But Dr. Morley fails to account for the sentence in Jahagirdar describing
`
`the fact that while display area 130 may have displayed status information with the
`
`phone flipped closed, “[a]lternatively, the status information may include little or
`
`no information, where display area 130 is cleared” in the case where the phone’s
`
`flip lid was closed. Ex. 1004 (Jahagirdar) at col. 5 ll. 43-44 (emphasis added). For
`
`this alternative configuration, when key 150 was pressed to display “new visual
`
`information” relative to the cleared screen, display element 516 would then have
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`changed from a blank screen to one displaying information, and would thus have
`
`been activated (or turned on) in the process.
`
`6.
`
`Additionally, even if Jahagirdar’s alternative embodiment is ignored,
`
`because portions of display 130 changed in response to key 150, Jahagirdar thus
`
`disclosed the activation of display element 520 at the same time that display
`
`element 520 was unaffected (i.e., remained off).
`
`7. With reference to either of the embodiments described above, when
`
`the timer of controller 504 timed out, thereby deactivating the “new display
`
`information,” display element 516 was itself deactivated, because it returned either
`
`to a blank screen or to a screen having at least some of its LED or LCD segments
`
`deactivated.
`
`8.
`
`For the reasons described above, in combination with my first
`
`Declaration and deposition testimony, I maintain that claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19,
`
`22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40 of the ’952 patent are rendered obvious by Ex. 1004
`
`(Jahagirdar) and Ex. 1005 (Schultz).
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`June 1, 2026
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`
`Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D., P.E.
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
