`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908, Paper No. 34
`July 24, 2017
`
`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.
` ______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
` ______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, June 22, 2017
`
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, CARL M. DEFRANCO,
`and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, June 22,
`2017, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia in Courtroom A, at 10:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQUIRE
`CHETAN BANSAL, ESQUIRE
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`TERESA M. SUMMERS, ESQUIRE
`DIMURO GINSBERG, PC
`1101 King Street
`Suite 610
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`(703) 684-4333
`
`CECIL E. KEY, ESQUIRE
`DIMURO GINSBERG, PC
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`(703) 289-5118
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Please be seated.
` Good morning, everyone. We are here for a final
`hearing this morning in Samsung Electronics Co. versus UUSI,
`LLC, doing business as Nartron. This is case IPR2016-00908.
` Welcome, everyone. And let me introduce the
`panel. I am Judge Giannetti. I will be presiding. And we
`have two judges who will be participating remotely. On the
`screen to my left is Judge Jivani, and participating via
`audio is Judge DeFranco.
` Let's start by getting appearances of counsel.
` Petitioner, who is appearing today for you?
` MR. MODI: Good morning, your Honors. Naveen Modi
`from Paul Hastings on behalf of petitioner. With me I have
`my colleagues Joe Palys and Chetan Bansal. Mr. Bansal will
`be presenting the argument for Samsung today.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mister -- is it Bansal?
` MR. MODI: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. And he's admitted pro hac
`or is he --
` MR. MODI: He's -- he is admitted, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: He's admitted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. MODI: He has a registration number, so he is
`admitted and he's listed as backup.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Would you spell his name. It's
`B-o-n-s-a-l?
` MR. MODI: B-a-n-s-a-l.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. B-a-n-s-a-l. All right.
`Mr. Bansal.
` All right. And for patent owner who is appearing
`today?
` MS. SUMMERS: Good morning, your Honors. My name
`is Teresa Summers. I'm with DGKIP Law and I represent the
`patent owner UUSI. And with me at counsel table is Cecil
`Key.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Ms. Summers. I'm going
`to switch chairs, if you'll just bear with me for a second.
`All right. More comfortable.
` All right. So, let me go over some details before
`we get started. First of all, each side will have 45 minutes
`to present its argument. The petitioner may reserve time for
`rebuttal. Petitioner will start the argument. And the
`rebuttal time, I think you can --
` Petitioner, you can reserve that either at the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`beginning of the argument or you can reserve the balance of
`the time at the end of the argument. I'll leave that up to
`you.
` Let me say a word about demonstratives. Both
`sides have submitted demonstratives, and I want to make it
`clear that demonstratives are an aid to argument. They are
`not part of the record of this proceeding. The official
`record will be the transcript that the court reporter will
`prepare and will be filed as part of the record in the
`proceeding.
` The transcript -- so, if you want something in the
`record, make sure that it is on the transcript.
` You are not authorized to file the demonstratives.
`The panel will review them and, if necessary, at the
`proceeding will authorize you to file the demonstratives.
` One other matter with regard to demonstratives.
`Since we have two judges appearing remotely, participating
`remotely in our proceeding, when you do refer to your
`demonstratives, please call out the slide number. They have
`the demonstratives that you have provided us. They will be
`able to follow along, but you have to call out the slide
`number when you refer to your demonstratives. And I will try
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`to remind you if you're not doing that, but it's very
`important for the two judges who are appearing remotely.
` Any questions, petitioner? Any questions,
`Mister --
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Bansal, any questions?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. Any questions from
`patent owner?
` MS. SUMMERS: No, your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. Let me just set the
`timer here for 45 minutes.
` Okay. Mr. Bansal, do you want to reserve time now
`or do you want to do that at the end?
` MR. BANSAL: I may use the remainder of my time
`for rebuttal.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Fine. So, we'll just
`start with 45 minutes, and whenever you stop, whatever time
`you have left will be your rebuttal.
` Okay. You can proceed when you're ready.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, we have a hard copy of
`our demonstratives. Would you like a copy?
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Sure. If you have that, you can
`hand it up.
` MR. BANSAL: May I approach the bench?
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Sure. Thank you.
` You may proceed when you're ready, Mr. Bansal.
` MR. BANSAL: May it please the board. My name is
`Chetan Bansal, and I represent Petitioner Samsung Electronics
`in this proceeding.
` Based on the petition and the supporting evidence,
`the board instituted trial. The record now includes even
`more evidence that further supports the board's institution
`decision. The board should issue a final decision canceling
`all claims at issue. Let me explain why.
` Turning to slide number 2, this slide reproduces
`the two instituted grounds in this proceeding.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: You're not going to project the
`slides; is that right? I don't see --
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, our understanding, there
`was a technical glitch on the patent office's side and that
`it's unavailable. So, we've been instructed to proceed in
`this manner.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: I see. All right. Well, we'll
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`just -- we'll just use the copies that you've given us. And,
`so, now all of the -- all of the panel is equally without a
`display. We'll just follow along. Just give me a second
`while I get your demonstratives.
` All right. You can proceed.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, as I was saying, on slide
`number 2, our -- the two instituted grounds, the first ground
`is a three-reference combination between Ingraham I,
`Caldwell, and Gerpheide, and the second ground is a
`combination between four references, Ingraham I, Caldwell,
`Gerpheide, and Wheeler. Each of these four references relate
`to capacity of touch systems where a user's touch is sensed
`based on a change in capacitance.
` Turning to slide --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Let me ask you something,
`counsel. I thought it was --
` JUDGE JIVANI: Let me interrupt you for a second.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Go ahead, judge.
` JUDGE JIVANI: So, counsel, you just said each
`reference is directed to touch capacitance. I understand
`from the briefing that there's an issue as to whether
`Caldwell increases touch sensitivity or decreases it. Would
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`you please speak to why one of ordinary skill in the art
`would look to Caldwell.
` MR. BANSAL: Sure, your Honor. Your Honor,
`Caldwell, as explained in our papers, also describes the
`capacitive proximity system where, when the user touches the
`touch terminal, the capacitance changes. And the change in
`capacitance is what is sensed by the circuit to determine
`whether a touch terminal has been touched.
` JUDGE JIVANI: But Caldwell's approach,
`nevertheless, is to bury the touch terminals on the opposite
`side of the substrate, is it not?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, I -- you know, it is
`ultimately a capacitive touch system. And then when you look
`at the claims, the claims do not specify any sort of
`requirement whether the touch terminals are on one side of
`the substrate or the other.
` JUDGE JIVANI: All right. And then, counsel, you
`also addressed Gerpheide for a moment. As you know, you
`mentioned our decision on institution. In that decision, we
`noted that there's conflicting expert testimony in the record
`at that time on whether one of ordinary skill would look to
`Gerpheide. I believe you just told us a moment ago that
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`there's now much more evidence. What is that additional
`evidence?
` MR. BANSAL: Your -- your Honor, you know, we have
`our arguments on rebuttal. Plus, also, you know, I think
`there is evidence in the sense that there are arguments that
`the patent owner has made. But when you look at the totality
`of the evidence, you know, Gerpheide is related to the other
`two references. And when you look at the combinations
`together, each of those combinations disclose every
`limitation that's in the claims.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel -- I'm sorry.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Counsel -- Judge Giannetti, please
`proceed.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes. Just -- your starting
`point here is Ingraham -- Ingraham I; right?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: -- which is a Nartron patent.
`Patent owner owns that patent or at least that was their
`patent at one time.
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: And it's discussed -- it's
`discussed in the -- in the specification of the '183 patent,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`isn't it?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor, the specification of
`the '183 patent --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, it was before -- it was
`before the patent office during the examination of the
`patent; correct?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: And isn't that also true of
`Gerpheide, that it was before the patent office in connection
`with one of the reexaminations?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, why did you pick art that
`the PTO had already considered? What was your rationale for
`picking Ingraham, which was also discussed and distinguished
`in the specification?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, quite honestly, the
`rationale is that these references are most pertinent to the
`claims at issue. You know, the claims at issue claim what,
`for the most part, is present in the Ingraham I reference.
`There are certain features that are then known or, you know,
`are established as being known by the Caldwell and the
`Gerpheide references. That's why those three reference
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`foundations were picked, at least for the impact --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, the examiner didn't think
`so or the examiner wouldn't have allowed the claims.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, the examiner was not
`presented with the exact combination that is presented in the
`petition. Moreover, the examiner did not have the benefit of
`Dr. Subramanian's testimony, which explains how these
`references in combination disclose every element of the
`claims.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: One of the points that -- that
`patent owner makes is that Ingraham I talks about eliminating
`oscillators, does not show an oscillator. Do you agree that
`it does not show an oscillator?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, as explained in the
`papers, Ingraham I discloses an oscillating signal. So, if I
`may turn to one of my slides, it may help. Can I please turn
`to slide number 6, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Got it.
` MR. BANSAL: On the left-hand side of this
`slide --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes.
` MR. BANSAL: -- is a portion of a figure from
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Ingraham I.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right.
` MR. BANSAL: As explained in the papers, there's a
`115-volt AC signal, 115-volt oscillating signal, that is
`provided in the circuit.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, how do you know that's an
`oscillator, though? That looks to me like a -- a socket, a
`wall socket, and that signal would be provided by a generator
`someplace off in a power terminal --
` MR. BANSAL: Exactly, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: -- not an oscillator.
` MR. BANSAL: That's why what we explained and what
`Dr. Subramanian explained was an oscillator would be
`necessary for generating this 115-volt AC signal.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Why is that?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, because that's what
`oscillators do.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: But generators generate 115-volt
`AC signals, too, without oscillators.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, as explained by
`Dr. Subramanian, the generators are going to have an
`oscillator. Regardless of that, your Honor, if you look to
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`slide number 7, we rely on Caldwell --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: As an old -- old line electrical
`engineer, I have to say I disagree with that. I think you
`can provide an 115-volt AC signal without an oscillator with
`a generator. So, I don't accept that testimony. Is that --
`is that what you point to as being the presence of an
`oscillator in that Ingraham I?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, what we point to is that
`there's 115-volt AC signal. An oscillator would -- you know,
`would be present, but to the extent it is not present or to
`the extent it's not explicitly disclosed in Ingraham I,
`Caldwell discloses an oscillator.
` As -- if you turn to slide number 7, we -- we rely
`on the Caldwell reference for the teaching of an oscillator.
`As you see on slide 7, figure number 12, of Caldwell, there's
`an oscillator 30 that provides an oscillating signal to the
`array of touch pads 42.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. I interrupted Judge
`Jivani, so I will yield the floor to him.
` JUDGE JIVANI: I appreciate that.
` So, counsel, I still want to return to your
`motivation to combine. I understand that you're seeking
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`combining the oscillator from Caldwell, but why would one
`look to Caldwell?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, one would look to
`Caldwell because, well, first of all, Caldwell is also in the
`same field as Ingraham I, which is the positive touch
`responsive systems. But the other reason, as we have
`explained in the papers, is like Judge Giannetti mentioned,
`Ingraham I will require the wall power supply for its
`oscillating signal. But Caldwell discloses a local
`oscillator.
` Now, if you take the local oscillator and you
`combine that with Ingraham I, now that system, the combined
`system, is capable of operating in a portable manner. That
`is now the system can be applied to a system which may not
`have the benefit of the wall power supply.
` JUDGE JIVANI: So, to make it portable.
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, to be portable.
` JUDGE JIVANI: And according to patent owner's
`counsel, at least in the papers, that portable system would
`shock the user; is that correct?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor. Let me -- well, yes,
`in the sense -- they make this argument but the argument is
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`incorrect. Let me address that, your Honor.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Please.
` MR. BANSAL: So, if I may turn to slide number 30,
`your Honor.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Okay.
` MR. BANSAL: On slide number 30, at the bottom is
`an excerpt from Ingraham I. It's the control circuit from
`Ingraham I. And as you can see, your Honor, on the left-hand
`side of that circuit is the input touch portion 13, which is
`where the user would touch.
` And then before that, there are two resistors, 44
`and 46. These are extremely high value resistances. And as
`noted by Ingraham II, which is incorporated by reference in
`Ingraham I, the function of those two resistors is to make
`sure the user is not shocked. Because what those two
`resistors do is they prevent any harmful electric current
`from being provided to the user when the user touches the
`touch portion.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Let me just note for the record
`that this slide 30 is the diagram that we're referring to as
`figure 3 from Ingraham I. Is that right, counsel?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes. Yes, your Honor, it's an
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`excerpt from figure 3 of Ingraham I.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
` JUDGE JIVANI: And, so, counsel, are these
`resistors also described in Ingraham I or are you turning to
`the description in Ingraham II?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, these resistors are
`present in Ingraham I as shown in figure 3, but Ingraham I
`does not provide every detail of its control circuit, and it
`says that the details of its control circuit are present in
`Ingraham II. So, it actually incorporates that portion of
`Ingraham II by reference.
` And Ingraham II, which has the exact same
`resistors, the exact same circuit, explains what the function
`of those two resistors is.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Okay.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, so turning back to slide
`number 3, your Honor is very well aware of the technology at
`issue, but we thought it may help to provide a very quick
`overview of one of the embodiments. And the --
` JUDGE JIVANI: Actually, counsel, let me pause
`you. We're familiar with the embodiments. And in the
`interest of time, let me ask you to move forward from the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`oscillator we just discussed to your next limitation.
` MR. BANSAL: Sure, your Honor.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, so, turning to slide
`number 9, slide number 9 has the feature of a micro-
`controller using the periodic output signal from the
`oscillator, the microcontroller selectively providing signal
`output frequencies to a plurality of small-sized input touch
`terminals of a keypad.
` So, your Honor, keeping the frequencies limitation
`aside for now, what Ingraham I discloses is a plurality of
`input touch portions. Each of those touch portions receive
`the oscillating signal, which, if you look at the figure on
`slide number 9, the signal in green is the oscillating signal
`and that is being provided to each of those input touch
`portions.
` What's missing, though, is that the signal, the
`oscillating signal, is directly provided to the input touch
`portions as opposed to being provided via a microcontroller,
`as required by the claim.
` So, now, if you turn to slide number 10, slide
`number 10 describes the Caldwell reference where there's an
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`oscillator, 30, that provides the oscillating signal to the
`array of touch pads, 42. But here, now, the oscillating
`signal is selectively provided via the microprocessor and the
`demultiplexer to the area of touch pads.
` So, what Caldwell discloses is a scanning
`technique. That is, you pick a row; you provide the
`oscillating signal; then you go to the next row; and then you
`provide the oscillating signal to the next row.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's a predetermined sequence;
`is that correct, counsel?
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor, that's a pre -- it's
`a predetermined sequence.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: And isn't that a distinction
`between Caldwell and the patent, the '183 patent?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor, this is not a
`distinction between the claims of the '183 patent and
`Caldwell.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: I thought that was something
`that was being contested.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, as we've explained, the
`claims simply require that the oscillating signal must be
`selectively provided to each row of the input touch
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`terminals, which is something that Caldwell discloses and,
`therefore, the combination of Ingraham I and Caldwell
`discloses.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, what is selective if it's
`doing it in a particular sequence?
` MR. BANSAL: That is you select one row and you
`provide the signal to that row; you select the next row and
`then you provide the signal to that row.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's your position on that.
` MR. BANSAL: Yes, your Honor.
` Turning to slide number 11 -- Judge Jivani, did
`you have a question? I thought I heard something.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Yes. Judge Giannetti -- Giannetti
`covered it.
` Thank you, Judge Giannetti.
` I do have a follow-on question, which is, counsel,
`are you seeking a specific construction of the selectively
`providing signal output frequencies limitation?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor. We have explained
`our position in our papers.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Thank you.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, turning to slide 11, now,
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`you know, I described Ingraham I. I described Caldwell.
`Now, when you put the teachings of those two references
`together, what you get is a system where the microcontroller
`not only provides an oscillating signal to the input touch
`terminals but it actually selects each row and then provides
`a signal selectively to each of the rows.
` Dr. Subramanian created a demonstrative, which is
`demonstrative C on slide number 11. This demonstrative
`provides one example of what the combined system would look
`like. And as you can see from the demonstrative, the
`oscillator signal is provided to the microcontroller, and the
`microcontroller selects which row -- or selects a row of
`input touch portions to which the oscillator signal is
`provided.
` Turning to slide number 12, your Honor, as
`explained in our papers, there would have been several
`advantages to combining the teachings of Ingraham I and
`Caldwell in this manner. For one --
` JUDGE JIVANI: Before you move off of -- before
`you move into the advantages, I want to understand the
`interplay between claims 40 and 45 since your papers raise
`claim 45. You just said that your combination would take the
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`signal frequency, the signal from the oscillator, and
`selectively provide it to each row. And I believe what
`you're saying is that the same signal and same frequency
`would be sent to each row. Does that not collapse 40 and 45
`to the same scope?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor. 45 is covered within
`the scope of 40. So, 40 can do what's in 45 or it can do
`something different. So --
` JUDGE JIVANI: I understand how dependency works,
`but explain to me the difference between the claims if, under
`your theory, what's required in claim 40 is only selecting
`the same frequency and sending it to each row.
` MR. BANSAL: So, your Honor, what claim 40
`requires and what our analysis shows is that a frequency is
`selectively provided to each row. That is, the system
`selects each row and then provides a frequency to it. When
`you come to claim 45, we explained that the combined system
`provides this in frequency and that's why the combined system
`meets claim 45.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Okay.
` MR. BANSAL: So, your Honor, coming back to slide
`number 12, slide number 12 explains the different advantages
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`that would be gained by combining the teachings of Ingraham I
`and Caldwell in the manner that has been described. For one,
`you can decrease the number of I/O pins in the
`microcontroller; two, you can reduce the number of wires
`and which increases signal integrity.
` Turning to slide number 13, your Honor, this is
`the next aspect that I wanted to explain, which is the
`frequencies aspect of claim 40. Gerpheide discloses a system
`in which the microcontroller varies the oscillator frequency
`and provides different frequencies to the input touch
`terminals or, you know, to the touch pad.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Wait, counsel. It provides
`different frequencies to each terminal?
` MR. BANSAL: No, your Honor, that's not what it
`says. What I said was the microcontroller has -- you know,
`is -- it's changing the frequency of the oscillator with time
`because, for instance, there may be interference at a certain
`frequency and, so, the microcontroller is able to change the
`oscillator frequency and then provide the changed frequency
`to the touch terminals.
` JUDGE JIVANI: But each terminal still gets the
`same frequency in Gerpheide, correct, such that in your
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`combination, every row would still receive the same
`frequency?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, that's one implementation
`of the combination that we have represented.
` JUDGE JIVANI: Okay. And at the outset of the
`argument, I asked you to please tell me what evidence you
`have that one of ordinary skill would look to Gerpheide.
`Counsel, I don't believe I received an answer, so, I'm going
`to give you another opportunity to please tell me. What
`evidence do you have in the record that one would look to
`Gerpheide?
` MR. BANSAL: Sure, your Honor. So, as explained
`in our papers, your Honor, Gerpheide notes that there was a
`known problem with interference in capacity of touch systems,
`that there is interference that exists at different
`frequencies. One way to negate that interference is for the
`microcontroller to check the interference at different
`frequencies and then change the frequencies based on, I
`guess, the frequency which has the least amount of
`interference.
` And given that -- that knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill, as evidenced by Gerpheide, one of ordinary
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`skill in the art would have looked to Gerpheide, given this
`known problem and the solution that Gerpheide provides.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: I guess the problem that I have
`with that is that when it changes the frequency, it changes
`it until there's another episode of interference. So, it's
`delivering the same frequency. It's not selectively, I
`guess, as I might -- as one might interpret that. It's not
`really being selective; it's just it's selecting a new
`frequency and then providing that frequency to all of the --
`all of the elements.
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, the selective aspect is
`the selecting of a row and then -- right? So, let's say, if
`you have 20 rows, at any given instance, only one row will
`receive the oscillating signal.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: But all the rows will receive
`the same oscillating signal, the same frequency, until the
`frequency is changed as a result of the different
`interference events; is that correct?
` MR. BANSAL: In one implementation, yes, your
`Honor. That is, you would -- you may not change the
`frequency until there is interference at that frequency or,
`you know, for some other reason. But the point is that you
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`select a row and you provide an oscillating signal to it; you
`select another row, and then you provide the oscillating
`signal to it.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: The same oscillating signal.
`The same frequency.
` MR. BANSAL: The same frequency unless the
`frequency got changed in between. Right? So, if you have 20
`rows, you don't have to go through all the 20 rows. The
`microcontroller will be assessing interference. And if it
`senses interference, at some point the frequency may get
`changed. So, two rows may actually end up getting different
`frequencies. But, your Honor, I think --
` JUDGE JIVANI: Where is that in your argument?
`Where is that in your papers, what you just described?
` MR. BANSAL: Your Honor, I believe that's
`consistent with what we have in the papers, which is the
`microcontroller can change the frequency.
` Now, I was just, you know, responding to Judge
`Giannetti's question about is there a change between
`frequencies, but -- and, you know, one implement or one
`example or one consequence of the combined system would be
`what I just described.
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` But, I think, your Honor, I think we should focus
`on the claims. And if you look at what the claims require,
`the claims nowhere require that the frequency between each
`row be different. In fact, if you look at claim 45, which
`depends off of claim 40, it specifies that the frequency for
`each row can have the same frequency value.
` So, your Honor, moving on to slide number 14, I
`already described the advantage that Gerpheide provides,
`which is it provides a technique using which you can negate
`interference by the microcontroller proactively sensing
`interference on different frequencies and changing the
`frequency.
` And for this reason, one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide, such that the combined
`system now changes frequency based on an interference
`measurement.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Is Gerpheide really a k
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
