UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC d/b/a NARTRON
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIVEK SUBRAMANIAN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Page 1 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 
`II.  BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 3 
`III.  MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 7 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’183 PATENT ............................................................ 9 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`VII.  TECHNICAL BACKGROUND & PRIOR ART CONSIDERED ............... 17 
`A. 
`Technical Background ......................................................................... 17 
`B. 
`Ingraham I ........................................................................................... 19 
`C. 
`Ingraham II and Ingraham III .............................................................. 24 
`D. 
`Caldwell ............................................................................................... 27 
`VIII.  THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES OR SUGGESTS ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................ 30 
`Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide Disclose or Suggest the
`A. 
`Features of Claims 37-41, 43, 45, 61, 64-67, 69, 83, 85, 86, 88,
`90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 .................................................... 30 
`1. 
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 31 
`2. 
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 65 
`3. 
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 66 
`4. 
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 68 
`5. 
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 80 
`Claim 83 .................................................................................... 83 
`6. 
`7. 
`Claim 94 .................................................................................... 85 
`8. 
`Claims 41, 67 ............................................................................ 88 
`9. 
`Claim 97 .................................................................................... 89 
`10.  Claim 86 .................................................................................... 89 
`11.  Claims 43, 69, 88, 99 ................................................................ 89 
`12.  Claims 45, 66 ............................................................................ 90 
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`13.  Claim 96 .................................................................................... 91 
`14.  Claims 64, 90, 101 .................................................................... 91 
`15.  Claims 65, 91, 102 .................................................................... 93 
`16.  Claim 85 .................................................................................... 93 
`Ingraham I, Caldwell, Gerpheide, and Wheeler Disclose or
`Suggest the Features of Claims 47, 48, 62, 63, and 84 ....................... 94 
`1. 
`Claims 47, 62 ............................................................................ 94 
`2. 
`Claims 48, 63 ............................................................................ 97 
`3. 
`Claim 84 .................................................................................... 98 
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 99 
`
`
`B. 
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Vivek Subramanian, declare as follows:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)
`
`as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $600/hour for my work.
`
`3. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my
`
`findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or
`
`any other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose or
`
`suggest the features recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“the
`
`’183Patent”) (Ex. 1001)1. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I am an independent consultant. All of my opinions stated in this
`
`declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and experience in
`
`
`1 Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits attached to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’183 patent.
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`designing, developing, researching, and
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`touch systems
`
`teaching regarding
`
`technology and information referenced in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of
`
`my current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and
`
`academic experience, is being submitted by Petitioner. The following provides an
`
`overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering &
`
`Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, located at Berkeley,
`
`California.
`
`8.
`
`I was awarded a B.S. degree from Louisiana State University in 1994,
`
`a M.S. degree from Stanford University in 1996, and a Ph.D. degree from Stanford
`
`University in 1998, all in electrical engineering.
`
`9.
`
`Since 2000, I have held various research and teaching positions in the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of
`
`California, Berkeley. I have published more than 200 technical papers in journals
`
`and technical conferences and am an inventor of more than 30 patents covering
`
`various technologies, including semiconductor devices, materials, circuit design,
`
`process technology, and memory architecture.
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`I also have significant experience in the industry. For example, in
`
`10.
`
`1998, I co-founded Matrix Semiconductor, Inc., a Silicon Valley startup that made
`
`high-density memory devices. I served as Chief Technology Advisor at QuSwami,
`
`Inc., from 2008-2011, which is an energy conversion device startup company. I
`
`have also served as a Founding Scientific Advisor to Kovio, Inc., which is a
`
`printed electronics startup company since 2004.
`
`11. Through the course of my research and development activities in
`
`industry and academia, I have had extensive experience with touch-screen
`
`technology and more generally with display technology as a whole. Starting in
`
`1994, I developed flat panel process technologies for both touch screens and
`
`displays, including specifically development of electrode technologies for use in
`
`capacitive touch screens as are discussed in the patent at issue herein. Furthermore,
`
`I have worked on resistive and capacitive touch sensors as part of my academic
`
`research, both as a graduate student, and as a professor, and have also continued to
`
`maintain significant research activities in flat panel displays and user interface
`
`technologies throughout this period.
`
`12.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and have served on the technical committees for the Device Research
`
`Conference and the International Electron Device Meeting. I have also served as
`
`the scientific chair for the Large Area, Organic, and Printed Electronics
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Conference (LOPE-C), a major international conference catering to large area
`
`electronic systems such as displays, user interfaces, etc.
`
`13.
`
`I have received accolades for my achievements in academia as well as
`
`in the industry. For example, I was awarded the 2005 EDN Innovation Award, I
`
`was awarded the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award
`
`(CAREER), I was a finalist for 2003 World Technology Award for Information
`
`Technology Hardware, I was nominated to Scientific American’s SA50 List for
`
`Visionary Technology, I was nominated to Technology Review’s list of top 100
`
`young innovators (TR100), and I was nominated to the National Academy of
`
`Engineering’s “Frontiers of Engineering.”
`
`14.
`
`I have previously served as a technical expert in litigations between
`
`Apple and Nokia and between Apple and Motorola in which the patents at issue
`
`related to touch screen technology. I have also served as an expert for Wintek
`
`Corporation in several other IPR matters and litigation relating to touch screen
`
`technology.
`
`15.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`16. The opinions in this Declaration are based on the documents I
`
`reviewed, my knowledge and experience, and professional judgement. In forming
`
`my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (Ex. 1001) including reexamination certificates issued
`
`on April 29, 2013 and June 27, 2014; Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,796,183 (Ex. 1004); Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No.
`
`90/012,439 (Ex. 1005); Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No.
`
`90/013,106 (Ex. 1006); U.S. Patent No. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham I”)
`
`(Ex. 1007); U.S. Patent No. 4,731,548 to Ingraham (“Ingraham II”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,222 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”) (Ex. 1009); U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,758,735 to Ingraham (“Ingraham III”) (Ex. 1010); Walker, Fundamentals of
`
`Projected-Capacitive Touch Technology (2014) (Ex. 1011); U.S. Patent No
`
`5,565,658 to Gerpheide et al. (“Gerpheide”) (Ex. 1012); U.S. Patent No 5,341,036
`
`to Wheeler et al. (“Wheeler”) (Ex. 1015); U.S. Patent No. 5,572,205 to Caldwell et
`
`al. (“Caldwell ’205”) (Ex. 1016), and any other materials I refer to in this
`
`declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`17. All of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. My opinions
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`have also been guided by my appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the claims and the specification of the ’183 patent at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, which I have been asked to initially consider as the
`
`mid 1990’s (including January 31, 1996, the filing date for the ’183 patent). My
`
`opinions reflect how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`’183 patent, the prior art to the patent, and the state of the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`18. Based on my experience and expertise, it is my opinion that certain
`
`references disclose all the features recited in claims 37-41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61, 62-
`
`66, 67, 69, 83-86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 (“challenged claims”) of
`
`the ’183 patent, as I discuss in detail below.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`19.
`I am familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the inventions of the ’183 patent as of what I understand is the patent’s January 31,
`
`1996 filing date. Specifically, based on my review of the ’183 patent, the
`
`technology, the educational level and experience of active workers in the field, the
`
`types of problems faced by workers in the field, the solutions found to those
`
`problems, the sophistication of the technology in the field, and drawing on my own
`
`experience, I believe a person of ordinary skill in art at that time would have had at
`
`least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent thereof, and at least two
`
`8
`
`Page 9 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`to three years of experience in the relevant field, which includes touch systems
`
`technology. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as I have defined it here.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’183 PATENT
`20. The ’183 patent is entitled “capacitive responsive electronic switching
`
`circuit.” Figure 4 of the ’183 patent describes “a block diagram of a capacitive
`
`responsive electronic switching circuit.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:22-24.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`(Id. at Fig. 4.) “Upon being powered by voltage regulator 100, oscillator 200
`
`generates a square wave with a frequency of 50 kHz, and preferably greater than
`
`800 kHz, and having an amplitude of 26 V peak. The square wave generated by
`
`oscillator 200 is supplied via line 201 to a floating common generator 300, a touch
`
`pad shield plate 460, a touch circuit 400, and a microcontroller 500.” (Id. at 12:6-
`
`11.) “Touch circuit 400 senses capacitance from a touch pad 450 via line 451 and
`
`outputs a signal to microcontroller 500 via line 401 upon detecting a capacitance to
`
`ground at touch pad 450 that exceeds a threshold value. The details of touch circuit
`
`400 are described below with reference to FIG. 8.” (Id. at 12:24-28.)
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 8.) The operation of the touch circuit of figure 8 is summarized by the
`
`
`
`following:
`
`includes a
`the operator's body
`As stated above,
`capacitance to ground, which may range in a typical
`person from between 20 to 300 pF. The base terminal of
`transistor 410 is coupled to it's emitter by resistor 412
`such that unless capacitance is present by the user
`touching the touch pad 450, transistor 410 will not be
`forward biased and will not conduct. Thus, when touch
`pad 450 is not touched, the output signal at the collector
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`terminal of transistor 410 and across pulse stretcher
`circuit 417 will be zero volts. When, however, a person
`touches the touch pad 450, that person's body capacitance
`to ground couples the base of transistor 410 to ground
`103 through resistor 413, thereby forward biasing
`transistor 410 into conduction. This charges capacitor
`418 providing a positive DC voltage with respect to the
`line 301 and causes the output of the Schmitt trigger 420
`to go low.
`
`(Id. at 15:29-44.)
`
`21. That is, when there is no touch by the operator at the touch pad
`
`(represented by the unnumbered circle on the far right of the diagram), transistor
`
`410 does not conduct, which causes a Schmitt Trigger 420 to emit a signal
`
`indicating no touch is present. (Id. at 15:17-22, 15:29-37.) When there is a touch
`
`at the touch pad, the increase in capacitance at the touch pad causes transistor 410
`
`to conduct, which then causes the Schmitt Trigger 420 to emit a signal indicating a
`
`touch is present. (Id. at 15:37-47.)
`
`22. Figure 11 of the ’183 patent discloses a “variation of the first
`
`embodiment in that it includes an array of touch circuits designated as 9001through
`
`900nm, which, as shown, include both the touch circuit 400 shown in FIGS. 4 and 8
`
`and the input touch terminal pad 451 (FIG. 4).” (Id. at 18:34-43.)
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 11.)
`
`23.
`
`“Microcontroller 500 selects each row of the touch circuits 9001 to
`
`900nm by providing the signal from oscillator 200 to selected rows of touch circuits.
`
`In this manner, microcontroller 500 can sequentially activate the touch circuit rows
`
`and associate the received inputs from the columns of the array with the activated
`
`touch circuit(s).” (Id. at 18:43-49.)
`
`24. While the ’183 patent identifies several different configurations (e.g.,
`
`see Ex.1001 at Figure 11 (describing multiple detector-circuit/input-touch-terminal
`
`combinations arranged in a grid), Figure 12 (describing one input touch terminal
`
`connected to two detection circuits for redundancy), Figure 16 (describing a “palm
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`button” input touch terminal), all of the embodiments utilize a detection circuit that
`
`sends a control output signal after sensing an increase in capacitance to ground at a
`
`single input touch terminal, consistent with self-capacitance type systems.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`25.
`I understand that both Petitioner and Patent Owner have identified
`
`certain terms for construction in the corresponding district court litigation. Below
`
`is what I understand to be a summary of the constructions as proposed by
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner. I have considered the constructions proposed by the
`
`Petitioner and the Patent Owner. My analysis and conclusions as set forth below
`
`remain the same under any of these constructions. For the remaining claim terms
`
`of the ’183 patent that were not identified for construction by any party, I have
`
`given those terms their plain and ordinary meaning, as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the alleged invention, which I
`
`understand is the mid-1990s (e.g., January 1996, the filing date of the ’183 patent)
`
`having taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history of record. I applied this understanding in forming my
`
`opinions in this Declaration.
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`responsive to . . . a
`presence
`of
`an
`operator’s
`body
`capacitance to ground
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 61,
`83, and 94)
`
`input touch terminals
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 45,
`61, 66, 83, 94, and
`96)
`
`keypad
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 45,
`61, 66, 83, 94, and
`96)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`responsive to an increase
`in capacitance caused by
`the operator’s body
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`a plurality of distinct touch
`pads of permanent and
`fixed location configured to
`allow detection of
`an
`operator’s input only by a
`detector circuit or circuits
`uniquely associated with
`the
`touch pad
` being
`touched
`
`fixed,
`a multiplicity of
`physically distinct, small
`sized
`touch pads
`in a
`physically close array, such
`as a keyboard
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“terminal(s) used to accept
`touch input.”2
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary
`for “small sized input touch
`terminals of the keypad”:
`“touch circuits of the input
`touch terminal(s).”
`
`detector circuit
`
`circuit,
`electronic
`an
`the
`separate
`from
`(Claims 37, 39, 40,
`the
`microcontroller
`and
`47, 48, 61, 62, 63, 83,
`oscillator, that detects an
`
`2 I have been informed that according to Patent Owner, this is the plain and
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`ordinary meaning of “input touch terminals.”
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`84, and 94)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`increase in capacitance to
`ground
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“a circuit that provides a
`control output signal
`in
`response to an operator’s
`presence.”3
`
`control output signal
`
`(Claims 37, 39, 40,
`47, 48, 61, 62, 63, 83,
`84, and 94)
`
`a signal sent by the detector
`circuit
`that operates
`the
`device
`and
`is
`only
`generated when a sufficient
`increase in capacitance to
`ground is present at a touch
`pad
`
`first and second touch
`terminals
`
`(Claims 37, 83, and
`94)
`
`
`
`terminals of
`touch
`two
`fixed,
`and
`permanent,
`distinct physical area and
`location that are touched
`sequentially—i.e., first, and
`then
`second—by
`the
`operator
`
`defining . . . areas [. . .
`for an operator
`to
`provide
`input
`by
`proximity and touch]
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Plain
`meaning.
`
`and
`
`ordinary
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“an output signal from a
`detector circuit that affects
`a device.”
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“two touch circuits used to
`accept
`input
`by
`an
`operator.”
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`
`
`3 I have been informed that according to Patent Owner, this is the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “detector circuit.”
`
`16
`
`Page 17 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 83,
`and 94)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`a construction is necessary:
`“area of the first and second
`input
`touch
`terminals
`in
`which an operator provides
`input.”
`
`input
`sized
`small
`touch terminals of the
`keypad
`
`(Claims 40, 45, 61,
`66, 83, 94, and 96)
`
` No construction necessary.
`The
`terms “input
`touch
`terminals” and “keypad”
`should
`be
`construed
`independently as discussed
`above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“touch circuits of an input
`touch terminal.”
`
`
`
`VII. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND & PRIOR ART CONSIDERED
`A. Technical Background
`26. The prior art I considered and discuss in this declaration, and the ’183
`
`patent, generally relate to capacitive touch sensors. The operation of capacitive
`
`touch sensors was well understood at the time of the alleged invention of the ’183
`
`patent. For instance, it was well known in the mid 1990s and earlier that capacitive
`
`touch sensors, such as the ones disclosed in the prior art and the ’183 patent, detect
`
`the location of a user touch as a function of change in capacitance. These
`
`capacitive touch sensors include conductive electrodes that are separated from the
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`interface that receives a user’s touch (e.g., via a finger) by a dielectric member.
`
`Accordingly, each conductive electrode can be thought of as one of two “plates” of
`
`a parallel-plate capacitor where the opposing plate may be ground, another
`
`electrode, a stylus, or a finger. Given a time-varying voltage source, every
`
`electrode has a baseline, or steady-state (no touch) capacitance Cs to ground, as
`
`shown below:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1011 at 10.)
`
`27. A capacitive touch sensor that utilizes the phenomenon of “self-
`
`capacitance” as its detection mechanism detects a user touch by detecting an
`
`increase in the capacitance between an electrode and ground. When a user touches
`
`the self-capacitance sensor, he creates an additional path to ground, thereby
`
`increasing the total capacitance between the electrode and ground by an amount
`
`CH.
`
`18
`
`Page 19 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1011 at 10.) When a user touches the sensor, which may have a dielectric
`
`separating the electrode of the sensor and the user’s finger (which forms another
`
`electrode), an additional current is drawn by the user’s finger from the oscillating
`
`source stimulating the electrode of the sensor, which results in an increase in
`
`current traveling to the electrode of the sensor. This increase in current traveling to
`
`the electrode can be measured to determine whether the touch sensor has been
`
`touched by a user. As discussed in detail in the sections to follow, the ’183 patent,
`
`Ingraham I, Ingraham II, and Ingraham III disclose such self-capacitance touch
`
`sensor features.
`
`B. Ingraham I
`28.
`Ingraham I (Ex. 1007) discloses a “capacity response keyboard.” (Ex.
`
`1007, Abstract.) The keyboard consists of “capacity responsive switches” “that
`
`respond to the change in capacity from a user touching a surface portion of the
`
`switch.” (Id. at 1:5-9.) Ingraham I discloses a capacity responsive keyboard
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`system 10, which includes a touch plate assembly 12 (Fig. 2) and a control circuit
`
`14 (Fig. 3) connected with touch plate assembly 12. (Id. at Figs. 2, 3, 2:28-35.)
`
`The capacitive responsive keyboard system 10 controls actuation of a “load 69
`
`such as an electric motor.” (Id. at Fig. 3, 2:32-35.)
`
`29. Touch plate assembly 12 “includes a substrate 16 on which a plurality
`
`of electrically conductive plate members 18 are mounted on one surface thereof.”
`
`(Id. at 2:40-43.) As seen from figures 1 and 2, the touch pad assembly 12 includes
`
`at least sixteen “input portions 13” and an indicia layer 30 adhering to the back
`
`surface 32 of dielectric member 26 to “provide an indication of the function of
`
`each input portion 13.” (Id. at Figs. 1, 2, 2:64-67.) “A plurality of flexible,
`
`electrically conductive transmission members 28 [overlying a corresponding plate
`
`member 18] are sandwiched between a surface 32 of dielectric member 26 and
`
`substrate 16.” (Id. at 2:58-64.) (Ex. 1007 at Figs. 1, 2.) In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a single input portion 13
`
`includes the combination of a portion of the dielectric member 26, indicia 30, a
`
`transmission member 18, plate member 18. I have created below an annotated
`
`version of figure 1 of Ingraham I where the red oval illustrates a single input
`
`portion 13. I have annotated figure 2, which is a side elevation of figure 1, in red
`
`to show the different constituents of a single input portion 13.
`
`20
`
`Page 21 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Fig. 1, 2 (annotated as Demonstrative A).)
`
`30.
`
`“Control circuit 14” that detects the touching of one of the input
`
`portions 13 is “positioned on the side of substrate 16 opposite plate members 18 . .
`
`. .” (Id. at 2:52:54, 3:21-47.) When the user touches a particular input portion 13
`
`by touching the “outwardly-facing surface 34 of dielectric member 26, the
`
`capacity-to-ground for
`
`the corresponding plate member 18
`
`is
`
`increased
`
`substantially, as illustrated by capacitor 42 in FIG. 3.” (Id. at 3:1-6, 3:21-47.) As
`
`seen from Fig. 3, each input portion 13 is associated with a touch sensing circuit
`
`(which I annotate in blue below) that senses a user’s touch and provides an output
`
`signal on line 57 to microcomputer 80. (Id. at Fig. 3.)
`
`21
`
`Page 22 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Fig. 3 (annotated as Demonstrative B).)
`
`31. As seen from figure 3 of Ingraham I, each of the touch sensing
`
`circuits and input portion 13 receives an AC signal (annotated in green above)
`
`from the 115V AC power source. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known that the 115V AC source is a 115V AC power source derived
`
`22
`
`Page 23 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`from a power source providing electricity to the unit housing the device. Below, I
`
`describe the touch sensing operation of the touch sensing circuits.
`
`32.
`
`In each touch sensing circuit, “a voltage divider is established
`
`between a capacitor 47” and capacitor 42 introduced by the “user touching one
`
`input portion 13.” (Ex. 1007 at 3:24-28.) When a user is not touching the
`
`corresponding input portion 13, “capacitor 47 pulls base 52 of transistor 50 to a
`
`high level which reverse-biases the base-emitter junction of the transistor.” (Id. at
`
`3:30-47.) As a result, transistor 50 is in a non-conducting state. (Id.) But when an
`
`individual touches input portion 13, “the voltage level on base 52 drops sufficiently
`
`to establish a forward-biased base emitter junction for the transistor.” (Id.) That is
`
`the voltage difference (VEB) between the base terminal (52) and the emitter
`
`terminal (51) of transistor 50 increases. (Id.; see also Ex. 1007 at Fig. 3.) This
`
`increase in VEB “causes transistor 50 to conduct, which provides an input signal on
`
`line 57 to a microcomputer 80,” which accordingly controls current to load 69.
`
`(Id.)
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, the above-described touch detection mechanism
`
`disclosed in Ingraham I is very similar to the touch detection mechanism disclosed
`
`in the ’183 patent. (See Ex. 1001 at 15:29-47.) This is understandable because the
`
`’183 patent touch detection circuitry illustrated in figure 8 essentially adopts the
`
`23
`
`Page 24 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`touch detection circuitry from Ingraham I with certain modifications. (Id. at 18:1-
`
`33.)
`
`C. Ingraham II and Ingraham III
`34.
`I understand that Ingraham I relates to other prior patents (Ingraham
`
`II and Ingraham III) by the same inventor. (Ex. 1007 at 1:39-54.) Ingraham I
`
`discloses a control circuit 14 (see Fig. 3) without a detailed explanation about the
`
`components of circuit 14. (Id. at 3:21-24.) However, I understand that Ingraham I
`
`incorporates by reference the teachings of Ingraham II relating to the control
`
`circuit 14. (Id., “A detailed description of control circuit 14 is provided in U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 4,731,548, issued Mar. 15, 1988 to Ronald Ingraham, the disclosure of
`
`which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.”) In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ingraham I specifically
`
`incorporates by reference the disclosure in Ingraham II regarding control circuit
`
`14. Given that Ingraham I specifically calls out control circuit 14, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that the disclosure in at least columns 2, 3
`
`and figure 1 of Ingraham II relating to the control circuit 14, which is analogous to
`
`circuit 10 in Ingraham II, is incorporated by reference in Ingraham I. (Id.) I
`
`understand that this means those disclosures in Ingraham II are considered to be
`
`part of the disclosure of Ingraham I. I have applied this understanding in my
`
`analysis of the ’183 patent.
`
`24
`
`Page 25 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`35. The touch sensing circuitry that is disclosed in Ingraham II and III is
`
`very similar if not essentially the same in both structure and operation to the touch
`
`sensing circuitry disclosed in Ingraham I. (Compare Ex. 1007 at 3:30-47, with Ex.
`
`1008 at Fig. 1, 2:39-3:15 and Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1, 2:48-3:10.) As I show in the
`
`below annotated figures, the similarity in the touch sensing circuitry in the three
`
`patents would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`25
`
`Page 26 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1008 at Fig. 1 (annotated ) – top; Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1 (annotated) – bottom.)
`
`36. While both I