Paper No. __
`Filed: April 15, 2016
`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 2
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 2
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 3
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART & ’183 PATENT .................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 3
`
`The ’183 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’183 Patent .......................................... 5
`
`Ingraham I ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Ingraham II and Ingraham III ............................................................... 8
`
`Caldwell ............................................................................................... 10
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 15
`
`A. Ground 1: Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide Render
`Obvious Claims 37-41, 43, 45, 61, 64-67, 69, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90,
`91, 94, 96, 99, 101, and 102 ................................................................ 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 37 .................................................................................... 15
`
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 36
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Claim 39 .................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 40 .................................................................................... 39
`
`Claim 61 .................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 83 .................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 94 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claims 41, 67, 86, 97 ................................................................ 54
`
`Claims 43, 69, 88, 99 ................................................................ 54
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Claims 45, 66, 96 ...................................................................... 55
`
`11. Claims 64, 90, 101 .................................................................... 55
`
`12. Claims 65, 91, 102 .................................................................... 56
`
`13. Claim 85 .................................................................................... 57
`
`B. Ground 2: Ingraham I, Caldwell, Gerpheide, and Wheeler
`Render Obvious Claims 47, 48, 62, 63, and 84 .................................. 57
`
`14. Claims 47, 62 ............................................................................ 57
`
`15. Claims 48, 63 ............................................................................ 59
`
`16. Claim 84 .................................................................................... 60
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Cases
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Boesch,
`617 F.2d 272 ....................................................................................................... 45
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2014-00247, Paper No. 20 (July 10, 2014) .................................................. 11
`
`Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates,
`Inc., IPR2015-00725, Paper No. 7 (Oct. 1, 2014) ........................................ 43, 48
`
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 9
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`In re Luck,
`476 F.2d 650 (CCPA 1973) ................................................................................ 45
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00034, Paper No. 11 (Apr. 8, 2014) .............................................. 43, 48
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 11, 12
`
`Square Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00156, Paper No. 38 (May 14, 2015) .................................................. 11
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems,
`Inc., IPR2014-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ......................................... 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 including reexamination certificates issued
`on April 29, 2013 and June 27, 2014
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No. 90/012,439
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No. 90/013,106
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham I”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,731,548 to Ingraham (“Ingraham II”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,222 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,758,735 to Ingraham (“Ingraham III”)
`
`Ex. 1011 Walker, Fundamentals of Projected-Capacitive Touch Technology
`(2014)
`U.S. Patent No 5,565,658 to Gerpheide et al. (“Gerpheide”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions for the ’183 patent
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No 5,341,036 to Wheeler et al. (“Wheeler”)
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,572,205 to Caldwell et al. (“Caldwell ’205”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 37-41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61-67, 69, 83-86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97,
`
`99, 101, and 102 of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“the ’183 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`which, on its face, is assigned to Nartron Corporation (“Patent Owner”). For the
`
`reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be found unpatentable and
`
`canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies the following as the real
`
`parties-in-interest: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’183 patent against
`
`Petitioner in UUSI, LLC D/B/A Nartron v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00146-JTN (W.D. Mich.). The ’183 patent was also
`
`at issue in Ex Parte Reexamination Control Nos. 90/012,439 (certificate issued
`
`April 29, 2013) and 90/013,106 (certificate issued June 27, 2014). Counsel and
`
`Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224), and
`
`Backup counsel is (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,224) and (2) Chetan R. Bansal
`
`(Limited Recognition No. L0667). Service information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875
`
`15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com;
`
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com;
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`The PTO is authorized to charge all fees due at any time during this
`
`proceeding, including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’183 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 37-41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61-
`
`67, 69, 83-86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 (“challenged claims”) of the
`
`’183 patent, and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable in view of the
`
`following prior art: Reference 1: U.S. Patent No. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (Ex.
`
`1007, “Ingraham I”) issued on February 11, 1992, and is prior art to the ’183
`
`patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Reference 2: U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,731,548 to Ingraham (Ex. 1008, “Ingraham II”) issued on March 15, 1998, and is
`
`prior art to the ’183 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Reference
`
`3: U.S. Patent No. 5,594,222 to Caldwell (Ex. 1009, “Caldwell”) was filed on
`
`October 25, 1994, and is prior art to the ’183 patent at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`U.S.C. § 102(e); Reference 4: U.S. Patent No 5,565,658 to Gerpheide et al. (Ex.
`
`1012, “Gerpheide”) was filed on December 7, 1994, and is prior art to the ’183
`
`patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and Reference 5: U.S. Patent
`
`No 5,341,036 to Wheeler et al. (Ex. 1015, “Wheeler”) issued on August 23, 1994,
`
`and is prior art to the ’183 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds: Ground 1: Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide render claims 37-41,
`
`43, 45, 61, 64-67, 69, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and Ground 2: Ingraham I, Caldwell,
`
`Gerpheide, and Wheeler render claims 47, 48, 62, 63, and 84 unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’183 patent would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or
`
`equivalent thereof, and at least two to three years of experience in the relevant
`
`field, which includes touch systems technology. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 19.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART & ’183 PATENT
`A. Technology Background
`The prior art cited in this petition and the ’183 patent generally relate to
`
`
`
`capacitive touch sensors. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 26, 27.) The operation of capacitive
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`touch sensors was well understood at the time of the alleged invention of the ’183
`
`patent. (Id.) In a capacitive touch sensor that utilizes the phenomenon of “self-
`
`capacitance” as its detection mechanism, when a user touches the self-capacitance
`
`sensor, she creates an additional path to ground, thereby increasing the total
`
`capacitance between the electrode and ground. (Id.; Ex. 1011 at 10.) This results
`
`in an increase in current for the sensor electrode that can be measured to determine
`
`whether the touch sensor has been touched by a user. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 27.) As
`
`discussed in detail in the sections to follow, the ’183 patent and the prior art (e.g.,
`
`Ingraham I), disclose such self-capacitance touch sensor features. (Id.)
`
`The ’183 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’183 patent relates to a capacitive responsive electronic switching
`
`circuit. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 20-24.) Figure 4 of the ’183 patent
`
`describes “a block diagram of a capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 7:22-24.) The circuit includes an oscillator providing a periodic
`
`output signal, an input touch terminal for an operator to provide an input by
`
`proximity or touch, and a touch circuit that receives the output signal from the
`
`oscillator. (Id. at Fig. 4, 12:6-28.) As disclosed in connection with Figure 8 (touch
`
`circuit), when there is no touch by the operator at the touch pad, transistor 410 does
`
`not conduct. (Id. at 15:29-47.) 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
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Schmitt Trigger 420 to emit a signal indicating a touch is present. (Id. at 15:37-
`
`47.)
`
`C. The Prosecution History of the ’183 Patent
`The ’183 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/601,268 on
`
`August 18, 1998. (See generally Ex. 1004.) Nearly fifteen years after the ’183
`
`patent issued, and after development of touch screen smartphones and tablets by
`
`Petitioner and other manufacturers, Patent Owner twice sought reexamination of
`
`the ’183 patent to add 85 new claims. (See generally Ex. 1005, 1006.) Patent
`
`Owner now pursues litigation against Petitioner on those new claims.
`
`Among the references relied upon in this Petition, Caldwell and Wheeler
`
`were never considered by
`
`the Patent Office during prosecution or
`
`the
`
`reexaminations. (See generally Exs. 1009, 1015; see also id. at Ex. 1001 at
`
`References Cited.) The primary reference (Ingraham I) for the proposed grounds
`
`in this petition was considered by the Patent Office during prosecution and a
`
`secondary reference (Gerpheide) was brought to the Examiner’s attention in the
`
`second re-examination. But Petitioner presents Ingraham I and Gerpheide in a
`
`new light never considered by the Office. (See infra Section IX.) Moreover,
`
`Petitioner presents testimony from Dr. Vivek Subramanian (Ex. 1002), who
`
`confirms that the relevant teachings of Ingraham I in combination with Caldwell,
`
`Gerpheide, and Wheeler discloses what is claimed by the challenged claims of the
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`’183 patent. (See Ex. 1002.) As such, consideration of Ingraham I and Gerpheide
`
`by the Patent Office should not preclude the Office from considering and adopting
`
`the grounds in this petition that involve these references.
`
`D.
`Ingraham I
`Ingraham I (Ex. 1007) discloses a “capacity response keyboard.” (Ex. 1007,
`
`Abstract; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 28.) The keyboard consists of “capacity responsive
`
`switches” “that respond to the change in capacity from a user touching a surface
`
`portion of the switch.” (Ex. 1007 at 1:5-9.) Ingraham I discloses a capacity
`
`responsive keyboard 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.) Touch
`
`plate assembly 12 includes “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.) The touch pad assembly 12 includes multiple “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.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a single input
`
`portion 13 (e.g., the red oval in demonstrative A below) constitutes the
`
`combination of a portion of the dielectric member 26, indicia 30, a transmission
`
`6
`
`

`
`member 18, plate member 18.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 29 .)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Figs. 1, 2, (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶ 29.)
`
`When the user touches an 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.” (Ex. 1007 at 3:1-6, 3:21-47.) This increase in the
`
`capacitance is detected by a touch sensing circuit (annotated in blue in
`
`demonstrative B below), which accordingly provides an output signal on line 57 to
`
`microcomputer 80. (Id. at Fig. 3; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 30.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Fig. 3 (annotated); Ex. 1002 at ¶ 30.) Each of the touch sensing
`
`circuits including the input portion 13 receives an AC signal (annotated in green
`
`above) from the 115V AC power source. The above-described touch detection
`
`mechanism is very similar to the touch detection mechanism disclosed in the ’183
`
`patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 31-33; Ex. 1001 at 5:43-45.)
`
`E.
`Ingraham II and Ingraham III
`Ingraham I builds on prior patents (Ingraham II and Ingraham III) by the
`
`same inventor. (Ex. 1007 at 1:39-54.) For instance, Ingraham I incorporates by
`
`reference certain disclosure from Ingraham II. (Id. at 3:21-24.) “To incorporate
`
`material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is
`
`found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`
`212 F.3d 1272, 1282–83 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether a patent describes material to
`
`be incorporated by reference with sufficient particularity is assessed from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1283. Moreover, citation
`
`to a specific page (e.g., by page and line number) is not necessary so long as one of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood the material specifically incorporated by
`
`reference. See e.g., Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (statement that
`
`“the disclosures” of two identified applications “are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference” was sufficient to incorporate the applications in their entirety).
`
`Here, while Ingraham I discloses a control circuit 14 (see Fig. 3), it does not
`
`provide a detailed explanation about the components of circuit 14. (Ex. 1007 at
`
`3:21-24.) Instead, Ingraham I incorporates by reference the teachings of Ingraham
`
`II for purposes of 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.”)
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ingraham I identifies
`
`with particularity and specifically incorporates by reference the disclosure in
`
`Ingraham II regarding control circuit 14. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 34.) Given that Ingraham
`
`I specifically calls out control circuit 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`understood that the disclosure in at least columns 2, 3 and figure 1 of Ingraham II
`
`relating to the control circuit 14 is incorporated by reference in Ingraham I. (Id.)
`
`While both Ingraham I and Ingraham II derive their oscillating input signal for the
`
`touch sensing circuits and input portions 13 from a 115 VAC power line, Ingraham
`
`III adapts the same touch sensing circuit to a portable system (e.g., for an
`
`automobile, airplane) by providing a dedicated oscillator circuit that operates on a
`
`DC supply and provides an oscillating signal to the touch terminals and the touch
`
`sensing circuitry. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 35-37; 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.) (Ex. 1010 at 1:32-44,
`
`1:53-55, 2:21-60.)
`
`Caldwell
`
`F.
`Caldwell discloses a touch panel that includes a touch sensor that detects
`
`user contact. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 38; Ex. 1009 at 1:6-9.) The configuration of an
`
`individual pad is described with reference to figures 1 and 2. (Ex. 1009 at Figs. 1,
`
`2, 3:24-29.) Dielectric substrate 10 has a front surface 12, where a user contacts
`
`the touch pad, and a back surface 14 where center electrode 16 and outer electrode
`
`18 are formed. (Id. at 4:11-19, Figs. 1, 2.) A strobe line 22 is connected to the
`
`outer electrode 18 to provide a strobe signal, which is an oscillating square wave
`
`generated by an oscillator 30. (Id. at 4:39-51, 6:40-53, Figs. 1, 12.) A sense
`
`electrode 24 is also provided for every touch pad for carrying a detection signal
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`from the touch pad to the detection circuitry. (Id. at 5:3-6, Fig. 1.) Figure 6 shows
`
`a matrix of touch pads that constitutes a touch panel. (Id. at 5:60-61.) The system
`
`of Caldwell (see Fig. 12) sequentially monitors each of the touch pads in this
`
`matrix by providing a strobe signal on strobe electrodes 22 to a row (or column) of
`
`touch pads and then sequentially selecting columns (or rows) of sense electrodes
`
`24 to sense the signal output from the touch pad (see Fig. 5). (Id. at 6:40-63; see
`
`id. at Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 39-40.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ’183 patent expired on January 31, 2016. Accordingly, the claims of the
`
`’183 patent should be construed under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See, e.g., Square Inc. v. J. Carl
`
`Cooper, IPR2014-00156, Paper No. 38 at 7 (May 14, 2015) (citing In re Rambus,
`
`Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Under Phillips, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings, as would be understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the
`
`language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record.
`
`See, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc., v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper No.
`
`20 at 2-3 (July 10, 2014). The Board, however, only construes the claims when
`
`necessary to resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Systems, Inc_, IPR20l4-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (August 14, 2015) (citing Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`In the corresponding district court litigation, Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`proposed constructions for the terms listed below. Because as discussed below, the
`
`prior art discloses the claimed features under either party’s construction, the Board
`
`need not construe these terms in this proceeding.
`
`Should the Board need to
`
`construe one of the below list terms,
`
`it should adopt Petitioner’s constructions
`
`because they are consistent with the language of the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history under Phillips.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`.
`
`. a
`responsive to _
`an
`presence
`of
`body
`operator’s
`capacitance to ground
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 61,
`83, and 94)
`
`input touch terminals
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 45,
`61, 66, 83, 94, and
`
`96)
`
`responsive to an increase
`in capacitance caused by
`the operator’s body
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`a plurality of distinct touch
`pads of permanent
`and
`fixed location configured to
`allow detection
`of
`an
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`operator’s input only by a
`detector circuit or circuits
`
`If the Court determines that
`
`a construction is necessary:
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`“terminal(s) used to accept
`touch input.”1
`
`uniquely associated with
`the
`touch pad
` being
`touched
`
`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).”
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“a circuit that provides a
`control output signal
`in
`response to an operator’s
`presence.”2
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Plain
`meaning.
`
`and
`
`ordinary
`
`keypad
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 45,
`61, 66, 83, 94, and
`96)
`
`fixed,
`a multiplicity of
`physically distinct, small
`sized
`touch pads
`in a
`physically close array, such
`as a keyboard
`
`detector circuit
`
`(Claims 37, 39, 40,
`47, 48, 61, 62, 63, 83,
`84, and 94)
`
`circuit,
`electronic
`an
`the
`separate
`from
`the
`microcontroller
`and
`oscillator, that detects an
`increase in capacitance to
`ground
`
`control output signal
`
`(Claims 37, 39, 40,
`47, 48, 61, 62, 63, 83,
`
`a signal sent by the detector
`circuit
`that operates
`the
`device
`and
`is
`only
`generated when a sufficient
`increase in capacitance to
`
`
` 1
`
` According to Patent Owner, this is the plain and ordinary meaning of “input
`
`touch terminals.” (Ex. 1014 at 9-10.)
`
`2 According to Patent Owner, this is the plain and ordinary meaning of “detector
`
`circuit.” (Ex. 1014 at 14.)
`
`13
`
`

`
`84, and 94)
`
`ground is present at a touch
`pad
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`“an output signal from a
`detector circuit that affects
`a device.”
`
`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
`
`No construction necessary.3
`
`
`
`defining . . . areas [. . .
`for an operator
`to
`provide
`input
`by
`proximity and touch]
`
`(Claims 37, 40, 83,
`and 94)
`
`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
`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
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`If the Court determines that
`a construction is necessary:
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Petitioner had initially proposed a different construction for this term in
`
`litigation, but now agrees that no construction is necessary for this term.
`
`14
`
`

`
`above.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`“touch circuits of an input
`touch terminal.”
`
`
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide Render Obvious
`Claims 37-41, 43, 45, 61, 64-67, 69, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97,
`99, 101, and 102
`1.
`Claim 37
`“A capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit for a controlled device
`comprising:”
`Ingraham I discloses this feature. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 41-42.) For example,
`
`a)
`
`Ingraham I discloses that “[t]he invention is especially adapted for a keyboard
`
`made up of a plurality of such capacity responsive switches.” (Ex. 1007 at 1:5-9,
`
`emphasis added.) The keyboard of capacity responsive switches controls a device
`
`such as an electric motor. (Id. at 2:32-35, 3:45-47.) (See also discussion above in
`
`Section VII.D; citations and analysis below for the remaining elements of this
`
`claim.)
`
`b)
`
`“an oscillator providing a periodic output signal having a predefined
`frequency,”
`
`Ingraham I and Caldwell discloses this feature. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 43.) As
`
`illustrated in Fig. 3, Ingraham I discloses a 115V AC power source. (Ex. 1007 at
`
`Fig. 3.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the 115 VAC
`
`power source is a 115 V 60 Hz AC power source derived from the power line
`
`providing electricity to the unit housing the device. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 43.) Indeed, the
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`incorporated disclosure from Ingraham II (see Section VII.E) regarding the control
`
`circuit14 shows that the 115 VAC signal is a 60 Hz AC power signal. (See e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1008 at Fig. 1, 2:10-19.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have also
`
`understood that the 115 V 60 Hz AC signal disclosed by Ingraham I is a periodic
`
`signal that oscillates at a predefined frequency4 of 60 Hz. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 43.)
`
`While Ingraham I does not explicitly disclose an oscillator circuit, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an oscillator circuit is
`
`necessary to generate the 60 Hz AC signal. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 44.) (See also Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:44-56, stating that Ingraham I discloses an “oscillator” voltage.”) In any
`
`event, Caldwell discloses an oscillator 30 that provides an oscillating signal (a
`
`periodic square wave) having a predefined frequency (e.g., 100 kHz, 200 kHz) to a
`
`matrix of touch pads. (See supra Section VII.F, discussing Ex. 1009 at Fig. 12,
`
`4:39-46, 6:40-52.) As discussed below, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’183 patent to
`
`modify the system of Ingraham I, based on Caldwell, to provide an oscillator that
`
`generates a periodic signal (e.g., 115V 60 Hz AC signal) for the circuitry of the
`
`touch sensing system in Ingraham I. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 45.)
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Patent Owner’s infringement contentions confirm that “all oscillators have a
`
`predefined frequency.” (Ex. 1013 at 12.)
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been encouraged to look to the
`
`teachings of Caldwell to refine the features of Ingraham I because both references
`
`disclose sensors that detect a user’s touching of a touch terminal based on a change
`
`in capacitance resulting from the user’s touch. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 46; Ex. 1007 at
`
`1:65-2:2, 3:1-37; Ex. 1009 at 7:39-42, 7:56-65.) In particular, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to modify Ingraham I based on Caldwell in
`
`order to allow the system of Ingraham I to function in a portable system (e.g., a
`
`system such as an automobile in which a connection to the building’s power supply
`
`is unavailable). (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 47.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that in such a portable system, due to the absence of an AC power
`
`source (e.g., a 115 VAC 60 Hz source), an oscillator would be required to generate
`
`the AC signal for the touch sensing circuits and input portions 13 of the touch pad
`
`assembly 10 in Ingraham I. (Id.) Such a skilled person would have had the
`
`knowledge and capability to implement a dedicated oscillator circuit that could
`
`generate the required AC signal at the desired voltage and frequency (e.g., 115
`
`VAC signal for the system of figure 3 in Ingraham I) from a DC power supply
`
`(e.g., a car battery). (Id.) Ingraham III5 confirms