Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
`571-272-7822 Entered: November 17, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: November 17, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`filed a 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
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’952 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Global Touch Solutions,
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. Institution of an
`inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented
`in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the information
`presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following district court proceedings as related
`matters: Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 3:15-
`cv-2750 (N.D. Cal.); Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Toshiba Corp., Case
`No. 3:15-cv-2746 (N.D. Cal.); Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. VIZIO Inc.,
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2747 (N.D. Cal.); Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-2748 (N.D. Cal.); and Global Touch Solutions, LLC
`v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2749 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 3;
`Paper 6, 2; Paper 7, 1–2. Petitioner also has filed petitions for inter partes
`review of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,994,726 (IPR2015-01171), 7,498,749
`(IPR2015-01172), 7,329,970 (IPR2015-01173), and 7,781,980 (IPR2015-
`01174). Pet. 3; Paper 7, 2–3. The parties also identify as a related matter
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`IPR2015-01151, which is a petition for inter partes review of the ’952 patent
`filed by a different petitioner. Paper 6, 2; Paper 7, 3.
`
`B. The ’952 Patent
`The ’952 patent is directed to portable electronic devices operating on
`exhaustible power sources, such as batteries. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’952
`patent describes using a microchip-controlled switch that manages both
`current-conducting and user-interface functions in an electronic device, such
`as a flashlight, without the switch itself conducting current to the load. Id. at
`3:61–66. A visible indicator, such as a light emitting diode (LED), can be
`used to indicate the condition of the battery and/or find the device in the
`dark. Id. at 9:46–54, 9:58–63, Fig. 11.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Among the challenged claims, claims 1 and 26 are independent.
`Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
`1. A method for implementing a user interface of a
`product, the product comprising a power source, or a
`connection for a power source and at least one energy
`consuming load, said method including the step of using an
`electronic module comprising an electronic circuit including a
`microchip and a touch sensor forming part of the user interface,
`said microchip at least partially implementing the touch sensor
`functions and said method including the step of activating a
`visible indication in response to an activation signal received
`from the user interface, wherein the visible indication provides
`information to a user on at least one item from the following
`group:
`
`a state or condition of the product,
`location of the user interface,
`a battery power level indication.
`
`Id. at 12:27–41.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`on the following specific grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24,
`26, 27, and 38–40
`4 and 14
`
`Beard1 and Rathmann2
`Beard, Rathmann, and
`Danielson3
`Pet. 27–58. In its analysis, Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of
`Mr. Paul Beard. Ex. 1003.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
`its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner proposes a construction for “energy
`
`1 U.S. Patent 5,898,290, issued Apr. 27, 1999 (Ex. 1005, “Beard”).
`2 U.S. Patent 5,955,869, issued Apr. 27, 1999 (Ex. 1006, “Rathmann”).
`3 U.S. Patent 5,710,728, issued Jan. 20, 1998 (Ex. 1007, “Danielson”).
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`consuming load.” Pet. 8–9. We do not find it necessary to construe
`explicitly any terms for purposes of this decision.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based on Beard and Rathmann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Beard and
`Rathmann. Pet. 17–23, 27–58. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Beard,
`Petitioner explains how Beard and Rathmann allegedly teach all the claim
`limitations, and argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Beard with Rathmann. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Beard
`Beard describes an intelligent battery pack with a microcontroller and
`battery indicators that is designed to be used with a portable electronic
`device. Ex. 1005, 1:18–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68. The microcontroller responds to
`a touch-sensing circuit that detects changes in impedance or capacitance
`when an operator touches one or two contacts. Ex. 1005, 11:12–16, 7:41–
`52; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68. Figure 11 of Beard is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`Figure 11 depicts battery pack 201, which provides an operator with an
`indication of battery capacity whether or not battery pack 201 is inserted into
`portable electronic device 203. Ex. 1005, 11:10–13. When fully inserted,
`battery pack contacts 241, 243, and 245 engage corresponding device
`contacts 251, 253, and 255, and, if sufficient power is available, device 203
`may enter a fully operational state when the operator desires. Id. at 11:67–
`12:4.
`
`2. Rathmann
`Rathmann describes a “smart battery for use in an intelligent device
`having power management capabilities.” Ex. 1006, 1:12–16; 1:65–3:30.
`Rathmann’s indicator is comprised of LEDs. Id. at 12:4–34, 16:24–36. In
`response to a signal from the battery pack’s user interface, four LEDs
`illuminate sequentially to indicate remaining battery charge. Id. at 16:24–
`36, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 87.
`
`3. Analysis of Obviousness Challenge of
`Claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40
`
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Beard and Rathmann teaches
`all of the limitations of independent claim 1, including all aspects of the
`preamble, some of which Petitioner argues are not limiting. Pet. 27–36. For
`example, Petitioner argues Beard’s disclosure of displaying the state of a
`product’s battery, in response to a user touching contacts, meets the
`recitation in claim 1 of a “method for implementing a user interface of a
`product.” Id. at 27–28. Petitioner further contends Beard discloses the
`product includes “a power source, or a connection for a power source,” as
`recited in claim 1, because Figure 11 of Beard shows portable electronic
`device 203 has contacts 251, 253, and 255, which are connections for battery
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`pack 201 of Figure 11, demonstrating Beard discloses both a power source
`(batteries 231 of battery pack 201 when battery pack 201 is inserted into
`device 203) and a connection for a power source (contacts 251, 253, and
`255). Id. at 28. Petitioner maps the recited “energy consuming load” to
`energy consuming components of device 203, examples of which Petitioner
`contends are disclosed throughout Beard. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:57–
`61, Figs. 5, 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126).
`Petitioner argues Beard also discloses both recited method steps (i.e.,
`“using an electronic module . . .” and “activating a visible indication . . .”).
`Pet. 29–34. In particular, Petitioner maps Beard’s battery pack module 201
`to the recited electronic module and the circuitry (i.e., control circuit 223,
`touch sensing circuitry 221, and touch contacts 211 and 213) within Beard’s
`battery pack module 201 to the recited electronic circuit having a touch
`sensor, which forms part of a user interface, and a microchip, which “at least
`partially implement[s] the touch sensor functions.” Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex.
`1005, 4:20–24 (battery pack 201 has electronic circuitry), 7:44–48 (control
`circuit includes a Microchip PIC 16C71 microcontroller), 11:12–22 (control
`circuit and touch sensor, which are part of an electronic circuit, form part of
`a user interface in which microchip implements touch sensor functions); Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 127–132). Petitioner contends Beard discloses “using” the
`electronic module because Beard describes interacting with the module by
`touching the contacts. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 11:12–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 133).
`With respect to the recited “activating a visible indication . . .” step,
`Petitioner asserts touching the battery contact(s) results in Beard’s control
`circuit sending an activation signal to provide a visual display of battery
`power information. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:44–48, 11:12–22, 11:31–33;
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72, 73, 136). The claim recites that the visible indication
`provides information regarding at least one of “a state or condition of the
`product, location of the user interface, [and] a battery power level
`indication.” Ex. 1001, 12:39–41. Petitioner argues Beard discloses
`displaying information meeting each of the recited groups. Pet. 32–34.
`Specifically, Petitioner maps Beard’s disclosure of indicating battery power
`information (the amount of charge stored and used), providing time
`estimates for remaining battery life based on product usage information, and
`activating LEDs to the recited groups of “battery power level indication,” “a
`state or condition of the product,” and a “location of the user interface,”
`respectively. Id.
`Moreover, Petitioner contends, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would look to Rathmann for additional details about adapting the circuitry to
`control the activation of a visible indication—such as LEDs that illuminate
`to indicate battery capacity—in response to an activation signal from a user
`interface. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1006, 16:24–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 139).
`With respect to claims 2 and 22, Petitioner argues that a user may
`activate the battery-level indication multiple times because the indicator
`automatically deactivates after ten seconds. Pet. 37, 44. Thus, in addition to
`Beard disclosing the steps recited in claim 1, including activating a visible
`indication, Petitioner argues Beard further teaches subsequent touches result
`in performing “selection and activation of a function or mode of the product
`in response to a further activation signal(s) received from the user interface,”
`as recited in claim 2, and “activating or deactivating product functions in
`response to signals received from the user interface,” as recited in claim 22.
`Id. at 36–38, 43–44.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`Petitioner further contends that Beard discloses the recitation in claim
`19 that “the power source is a battery and wherein the power source is
`enclosed in the product housing . . . .” Pet 42–43. Petitioner argues Beard
`discloses that the “power source” is the set of batteries depicted within
`battery pack 103, and that the power source, therefore, is enclosed in the
`product housing when battery pack 103 is inserted into host device 101, as
`depicted in Beard’s Figure 8. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:31–22, 11:10–12, Fig.
`8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 162, 163).
`Claim 26 recites an electronic module with similar components to the
`electronic module “used” in claim 1 and further recites that the electronic
`module is configured to activate the visible indicator (the second step recited
`in claim 1). Ex. 1001, 13:64–14:10. For similar reasons to those argued
`with respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues each limitation recited in claim 26
`is taught by the combination of Beard and Rathmann. Pet. 47–54.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments with respect to each of
`claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40 of the ’952 patent. Upon
`consideration of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. On the present record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Beard and Rathmann teaches the
`limitations recited in claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40, and
`Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for
`combining Beard and Rathmann. Pet. 17–23, 27–58. Accordingly, the
`information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing that claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40
`would have been rendered obvious by the combination of Beard and
`Rathmann.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on Beard, Rathmann, and Danielson
`Petitioner contends claims 4 and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Beard, Rathmann, and Danielson. Pet. 58–
`59. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Beard, Petitioner explains how Beard,
`Rathmann, and Danielson allegedly teach all the claim limitations, and
`argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Danielson
`with Beard. Id. at 23–26, 58–59 (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Danielson
`Danielson describes a portable data collection terminal system.
`Ex. 1007, Abstract, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 107. Danielson describes various
`aspects of such terminal devices, including embodiments that have audio and
`radio frequency circuitry. Ex. 1007, 22:58–60; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94.
`
`2. Claims
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Beard, Rathmann, and
`Danielson teaches all of the limitations of dependent claims 4 and 14.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that Danielson describes a radio frequency
`transceiver and an audio circuit device directly coupled to a microprocessor.
`Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:51–53, 22:58–60, Fig. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 217,
`218).
`
`Upon consideration of Petitioner’s explanations and supporting
`evidence, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. On the present
`record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Beard,
`Rathmann, and Danielson teaches the limitations recited in dependent claims
`4 and 14, and Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational
`underpinning for combining the references. Pet. 23–26, 58–59.
`Accordingly, the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 4 and 14 would have
`been rendered obvious by the combination of Beard, Rathmann, and
`Danielson.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. At this preliminary
`stage, the Board has not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal
`issues.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is instituted as to claims 1–4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–
`40 of the ’952 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`A.
`Claims 1–3, 16, 17, 19, 22–24, 26, 27, and 38–40 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Beard and Rathmann; and
`
`B.
`Claim 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Beard, Rathmann, and Danielson; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01175
`Patent 8,288,952 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Robert Steinberg
`Matthew Moore
`Gabriel Gross
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`gabe.gross@lw.com
`
`Phillip Morton
`DeAnna Allen
`Cooley LLP
`pmorton@cooley.com
`dallen@cooley.com
`
`Doris Hines
`Luke McCammon
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`dori.hines@finnegan.com
`luke.mccammon@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`William Mandir
`Peter Park
`Brian Shelton
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`pspark@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`
`12
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
