Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`
`
`Nos. 2021-1060, 2021-1122
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`___________________________
`
`UUSI, LLC, D/B/A NARTRON,
`Appellant
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Cross-Appellant
`________________________________________________
`On Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2016-00908
`
`APPELLANT NARTRON’S CORRECTED PRINCIPAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`Lawrence M. Hadley
`Stephen Underwood
`GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 1900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 553-3000
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`March 24, 2021
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`Representative Claim: U.S. Pat No. 5,796,183, Claim 40
`
`40. A capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit comprising:
`an oscillator providing a periodic output signal having a predefined frequency;
`a microcontroller 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, wherein the selectively providing comprises
`the microcontroller selectively providing a signal output frequency to each row of
`the plurality of small sized input touch terminals of the keypad;
`the plurality of small sized input touch terminals defining adjacent areas on a
`dielectric substrate for an operator to provide inputs by proximity and touch; and
`a detector circuit coupled to said oscillator for receiving said periodic output
`signal from said oscillator, and coupled to said input touch terminals, said detector
`circuit being responsive to signals from said oscillator via said microcontroller and
`a presence of an operator's body capacitance to ground coupled to said touch
`terminals when proximal or touched by the operator to provide a control output
`signal,
`wherein said predefined frequency of said oscillator and said signal output
`frequencies are selected to decrease a first impedance of said dielectric substrate
`relative to a second impedance of any contaminate that may create an electrical path
`on said dielectric substrate between said adjacent areas defined by the plurality of
`small sized input touch terminals, and wherein said detector circuit compares a
`sensed body capacitance change to ground proximate an input touch terminal to a
`threshold level to prevent inadvertent generation of the control output signal.
`
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`
`21-1060, 21-1122
`
`UUSI, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`UUSI, LLC (d/b/a Nartron)
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Instructions: Complete each section of the form. In answering items 2 and 3, be
`specific as to which represented entities the answers apply; lack of specificity may
`result in non-compliance. Please enter only one item per box; attach
`additional pages as needed and check the relevant box. Counsel must
`immediately file an amended Certificate of Interest if information changes. Fed.
`Cir. R. 47.4(b).
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`11/15/2020
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Stephen Underwood
`
`
`
`
`
`Name:
`
`Stephen Underwood
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented
`by undersigned counsel in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`July 2020
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not
`list the real parties if
`they are the same as the
`entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations
`for the entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`✔
`
`UUSI, LLC (d/b/a Nartron)
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`July 2020
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already
`entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`(DiMuro Ginsberg PC)
`
`Teresa M. Summers
`(DiMuro Ginsberg PC)
`
`Jan Weir
`(Glaser Weil LLP)
`
`5. Related Cases. Provide the case titles and numbers of any case known to be
`pending in this court or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be
`directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. Do not include the
`originating case number(s) for this case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5). See also Fed. Cir.
`R. 47.5(b).
`None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`Apple Inc. v. UUSI, LLC
`CAFC Case No. 21-1035
`
`UUSI, LLC v. Apple Inc.
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 18-cv-04637
`
`UUSI, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`W.D. Mich. Case No. 15-cv-00146
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`THE ’183 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5
`
`THE CITED PRIOR ART .............................................................................16
`
`A.
`Ingraham I (Appx2593-2600) .............................................................16
`B.
`Caldwell (Appx2608-2620) .................................................................19
`C. Gerpheide (Appx2942-2956) ..............................................................22
`D. Wheeler (Appx3054-3066) .................................................................29
`PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ...............................................................................30
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................34
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................................................35
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................36
`
`I.
`
`STANDARDS OF REVIEW .........................................................................36
`
`A. Obviousness .........................................................................................36
`B.
`Constitutionality of the PTAB.............................................................37
`NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
`SUCCESS IN COMBINING INGRAHAM I AND CALDWELL ..............37
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`The Board Erred by Failing to Address Reasonable Expectation of
`Success in Combining Ingraham I and Caldwell ................................38
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 7 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`B.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Reasonably Expect Success in Combining
`Ingraham I and Caldwell .....................................................................41
`III. A POSITA WOULD NOT REASONABLY EXPECT SUCCESS IN
`COMBINING INGRAHAM I/CALDWELL WITH GERPHEIDE .............47
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ingraham I/Caldwell’s Discrete Array Is Incompatible with
`Gerpheide’s Continuous Position-Based Interference Technique ......48
`Samsung and the Board Did Not Explain How a POSITA Would
`Overcome the Incompatibility Between Ingraham I/Caldwell and
`Gerpheide ............................................................................................52
`The FWD Fails to Adequately Support a Finding of Reasonable
`Expectation of Success ........................................................................54
`Samsung and the Board Failed to Show a Reasonable Expectation of
`Combining the Cited Disclosures to Achieve the Cited Purpose .......55
`The Board’s FWD Is In Direct Conflict With A Different Board
`Decision Finding No Reasonable Expectation of Success For A
`Combination of Nearly Identical Art, Asserted In The Same Way ....57
`Samsung and the Board Failed to Explain How the Required
`Synchronous Detector Could Be Implemented in the Combination ...60
`IV. THE BOARD LACKED AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE ANY CLAIMS
`AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BODY UNDER ARTHREX ....................62
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 8 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 2, 35, 62, 63
`
`
`Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc.,
`702 F.3d 624 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................37
`
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 55, 61, 62
`
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 36, 37, 52
`
`
`In re Nievelt,
`482 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1973) ..................................................................................55
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... passim
`
`
`OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................57
`
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................35
`
`
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... passim
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. UUSI, LLC,
`775 F. App'x 692 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................ passim
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 9 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................................................................... 33, 49
`
`
`United States v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 549 (2020) ............................................................................................62
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C § 6 .............................................................................................................38
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ...............................................................................................50
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Rules
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.5 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`1983908.1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 10 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, Appellant UUSI, LLC d/b/a Nartron
`
`(“Nartron”) states that that the following appeals from the same proceeding were
`
`previously before this Court:
`
`1. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. UUSI, LLC, DBA Nartron, CAFC Case No.
`
`2018-1310, decided June 18, 2019 by Judges Newman, Lourie and
`
`Dyk, reported at 775 Fed. App’x 692.
`
`Nartron states that the following pending cases may directly affect, or may be
`
`directly affected by, this Court’s decision in this appeal:
`
`1. Apple, Inc. v. UUSI, LLC, DBA Nartron, CAFC Case Nos. 21-1035,
`
`21-1036, 21-1057 and 21-1058;
`
`2. UUSI, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., W.D. Mich. Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-00146-JTN; and
`
`3. UUSI, LLC v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:18-cv-04637.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) had subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 and 318. This Court has exclusive
`
`appellate jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319. The PTAB issued a Final
`
`Written Decision and Judgment on September 17, 2020. Appx1-60. Nartron timely
`
`filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2020. Appx4246-4249.
`
`1983908.1
`
`1
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 11 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Did the Board err in finding certain challenged claims of Nartron’s U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 5,796,183 (“the ’183 patent”) obvious based on a hypothetically-assumed
`
`combination of “Ingraham I” and “Caldwell,” without ever addressing whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have reasonably expected
`
`success in combining those references, where the Petitioner (Samsung) offered no
`
`evidence as to how the alleged combination would work, and where the undisputed
`
`evidence showed that the combination would not work?
`
`2.
`
`Did the Board err in finding that a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the assumed Ingraham I/Caldwell
`
`combination with “Gerpheide,” where Samsung failed to explain how the alleged
`
`combination would work, the undisputed evidence shows that the combination
`
`would not work, and a separate panel of the Board, in a different case, held that there
`
`was no reasonable expectation of success in combining highly-similar art?
`
`3.
`
`Did the Board lack authority to invalidate claims of the ’183 patent,
`
`because the Board is an unconstitutional body under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`
`Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)?
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This case now comes before this Court a second time. The first time, this Court
`
`instructed the Board to decide whether a POSITA would have had a reasonable
`
`1983908.1
`
`2
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 12 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`expectation of success in combining U.S. Pat. No. 5,565,658 to Gerpheide
`
`(“Gerpheide”) with U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham I”) and
`
`5,594,222 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”), “to ‘provide’ a frequency, selected from
`
`multiple possible frequencies, to the entire touch pad.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. UUSI,
`
`LLC, 775 F. App'x 692, 697 (Fed. Cir. 2019). But the Board ignored this instruction.
`
`The Board made no finding on whether a POSITA would have expected success in
`
`combining the first two references, Ingraham I and Caldwell, even though Nartron
`
`specifically challenged the Petition on those grounds. Appx3384-3387. Rather, the
`
`Board simply assumed this foundational combination. The Board also never
`
`explained why a POSITA would have expected success in taking the assumed
`
`Ingraham I/Caldwell combination and combining it with Gerpheide. Appx27. And
`
`the Board never explained how the proposed combination would work. Id
`
`The judgment of obviousness is unsupportable. When the technology is
`
`complex, as it is here, “a clear, evidence-supported account of the contemplated
`
`workings of the combination is a prerequisite to adequately explaining and
`
`supporting a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`
`make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing so.” Pers. Web Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). It was incumbent upon
`
`Samsung and the Board to explain what specific teachings from Gerpheide they were
`
`incorporating into Ingraham I/Caldwell, and to explain how those teachings could
`
`1983908.1
`
`3
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 13 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`be incorporated to make a working device. Id. But Samsung’s Petition relied on only
`
`one teaching from Gerpheide: the interference negation technique that “evaluates
`
`the interference and selects a new reference frequency . . . from a table of frequencies
`
`having the lowest interference measurement.” Appx200. Thus, to prove reasonable
`
`expectation, Samsung and the Board had to show “how the combination of [that
`
`technique with Ingraham I/Caldwell] was supposed to work,” and prove that a
`
`POSITA would reasonably expect it to work. Pers. Web., 848 F.3d at 994.
`
`They never did. Samsung gave no explanation of how Gerpheide’s
`
`interference negation technique—which depends on the continuous position signals
`
`provided by Gerpheide’s continuous x-y electrode array—could be combined with
`
`the discrete array of Ingraham I/Caldwell. The Board, similarly, never explained
`
`how the combination would work. Instead, after (incorrectly) rejecting Nartron’s
`
`arguments on Samsung’s failure to establish a reasonable expectation as being based
`
`on a “mistaken premise,” the Board simply stated, with no analysis: “we find that
`
`Petitioner has shown that the skilled artisan would have combined Gerpheide with
`
`Ingraham/Caldwell as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success.” Appx27.
`
`That was legally inadequate. The Board never provided the required “clear,
`
`evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings of the combination.”
`
`PersonalWeb, 848 F.3d at 994. Nor could it have, because Samsung’s Petition failed
`
`to provide such an “evidence-supported account.” Thus, the Board’s obviousness
`
`1983908.1
`
`4
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 14 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`finding is reversible error, and the error cannot be cured on remand. Without any
`
`evidence establishing a reasonable expectation of success, the judgment of
`
`obviousness should be reversed, and the claims confirmed as patentable.
`
`I.
`
`THE ’183 PATENT
`The ’183 patent (Appx126-166) pioneered the development of densely-spaced
`
`capacitive touch arrays. Appx3545. The technology disclosed and claimed in the
`
`’183 patent provides the foundation upon which today’s touch screen technology is
`
`built. Id. The ’183 patent was developed by, and is assigned to, Nartron Corporation
`
`of Reed City, Michigan. Appx126. For over fifty years, Nartron has been a leading
`
`developer of electronics and control equipment for the automotive and other
`
`industries. EX2005. In addition to the touchscreen technology of the ’183 patent,
`
`Nartron’s developments have included the first electric power steering system, the
`
`first electronic cruise control, and the first in-dash computer. Id.
`
`The ’183 patent was filed on January 31, 1996, and issued on August 18, 1998.
`
`Appx126. The ’183 patent relates to capacitive-touch control devices. Appx140. A
`
`capacitive-touch control device is one that senses user input by detecting the change
`
`in capacitance that occurs when a user touches, or brings their finger close to, the
`
`surface of the device. Appx141, 3:11-4:27. When a user touches (or approaches) the
`
`device surface, a capacitance is established between the device and the user’s finger.
`
`Id. That capacitance creates an electrical path from the device surface, through the
`
`1983908.1
`
`5
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 15 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`user’s body, to ground. Id. Electronics in the device sense the addition of that new
`
`electrical path, and thus sense the user’s touch. Id. Unlike manual switches,
`
`capacitive touch control devices avoid the “wear and tear” of moving switch parts.
`
`They also generate less electrical noise, and are more comfortable for the user—
`
`particularly if the user repeatedly operates the device. Appx140, 1:10-67.
`
`When the ’183 patent was filed, capacitive touch switches were commonly
`
`used in household appliances, such as washer/dryers, stoves, and microwave ovens.
`
`See, e.g., Appx2615, 1:12-15. Capacitive touch switches are ideally suited for such
`
`applications, because appliances have a large surface area, and a limited number of
`
`buttons (e.g., on a microwave, buttons for digits “0” through “9,” plus buttons to
`
`“start” cooking, “stop” cooking, etc.). Thus, appliances can use large buttons, and
`
`spread the buttons out over the device surface. This limits the risk that a user,
`
`intending to press one button, will inadvertently activate a neighboring button.
`
`However, in other applications—such as a “keyboard” for providing input to
`
`a computer—conventional capacitive switches were “not practical,” due to the
`
`“multiplicity of switches [that] are required in a small area.” Appx140, 2:48-57.
`
`When many capacitive touch switches are placed in close proximity, there is a high
`
`likelihood of “false detections”—i.e., the user intending to press button “N,” but the
`
`device instead registering a touch of neighboring buttons “N-1” or “N+1.” Id.; see
`
`also Appx141, 3:64-4:3. One major cause of such “unintended actuation” is “surface
`
`1983908.1
`
`6
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 16 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`contamination.” Appx141, 4:14-27. As the ’183 patent explains:
`
`An additional consideration in using zero force [capacitive]
`switches resides in the difficulties that arise in trying to employ
`dense arrays of such switches. Touch switches that do not
`require physical contact with the operator but rather rely on the
`operator's close proximity can result in unintended actuations
`as an operator's hand or other body part passes in close
`proximity to the touch terminal . . .
`[as of January 1996], surface contamination remains as a
`problem. Skin oils, water, and other contaminants can form
`conductive films that overlay and capacitively couple adjacent
`or multiple touch pads. An operator making contact with the
`film can then couple multiple touch pads to his or her body
`capacitance and its capacitive coupling to ground. This can
`result in multiple actuations where only one is desired.
`Appx141, 3:64-4:25. The problem of surface contamination is illustrated
`
`below, in an annotated version of the ’183 patent’s Figure 3:
`
`Above, a polycarbon (PCB) plate 55 contains two electrically-conductive
`
`“pads” 57 and 59. The pads are electrodes designed to sense a user’s touch by
`
`
`
`1983908.1
`
`7
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 17 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`detecting changes in capacitance. Appx144, 9:62-10:10. Each pad is connected to
`
`electronics in the device (not shown), which detect such changes. Id. These
`
`electronics include an “oscillator” which supplies an “oscillator voltage” to the pads.
`
`Appx141, 3:53-56. On top of the pads is a layer of glass 60. Id. The glass isolates
`
`and protects the pads, and serves as the surface for the user to touch. Appx144, 9:62-
`
`10:34. It is assumed that a layer of water 65 sits on top of the glass, overlaying both
`
`pads. Id. This is not an unreasonable assumption—in real-world conditions,
`
`capacitive touch surfaces are often covered by contaminants, such as skin oil or
`
`water. Appx141, 3:64-4:25. In operation, a user places a finger on the glass over pad
`
`57, intending to register a touch of pad 57. Id., 9:62-10:34. This adds a capacitor,
`
`Cbody, and a resistor, Rbody, to the circuit, representing the capacitance and resistance
`
`of the electrical path through the user’s body to ground. Id.
`
`If there were no water layer 65 on the glass surface, the electrical path from
`
`the pad 57, through the glass 60, through the user’s body 70 to ground would
`
`“provide[] a capacitive short . . . that lowers the amplitude of the oscillator voltage
`
`seen at the touch terminal” 57. Appx141, 3:53-56. This voltage decrease would be
`
`sensed by electronics in the device, registering a touch of pad 57. Id.
`
`However, it is more complicated when the water layer 65 is present. Water is
`
`electrically conductive. Thus, the water layer 65 provides a second electrical path,
`
`connecting the user’s finger to pad 59. Appx144, 9:61-10:35. Current and voltage
`
`1983908.1
`
`8
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 18 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`will flow along this path, decreasing the oscillator voltage seen at pad 59, and
`
`potentially registering an unintended touch at pad 59. Id. Such unintended actuation
`
`severely limits, or even destroys, the utility of the device. Id.
`
`The inventors of the ’183 patent solved this problem, by recognizing that
`
`whether the device will register an unintended touch on pad 59 depends on the ratio
`
`of the impedance of the undesired path (shown in purple above) to the desired path
`
`(shown in red above). Id., 10:10-35. Both paths pass through the glass layer 60, and
`
`thus both experience impedance based on the capacitance of the glass, 62 and 64. Id.
`
`But the undesired path also includes the water layer, and thus includes the additional
`
`impedance of the water. Id. If the impedance of the glass layer (which is the same
`
`for pads 57 and 59) is small relative to the impedance of the water layer, then the
`
`impedance of the undesired (water) path will be much greater than the impedance of
`
`the desired path. Id. Because current and voltage follow the path of least impedance,
`
`this would cause the voltage drop at the desired pad 57 to be much greater than the
`
`voltage drop at the undesired pad 59. Id. By appropriate setting of the detection
`
`threshold, this permits the device to distinguish between the desired and undesired
`
`pads, and only register a touch at the desired pad. Id.
`
`To decease the impedance of the glass relative to that of the water, the
`
`inventors turned to the frequency of the “oscillator voltage” used to scan the pads 57
`
`and 59. Id., 10:35-11:60. The inventors realized that the impedance of the water path
`
`1983908.1
`
`9
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 19 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`is “primarily resistive,” while the impedance of the glass is “primarily capacitive.”
`
`Id., 10:25-34. Accordingly, the impedance of the water path is unaffected by the
`
`oscillator voltage frequency, while the impedance of the glass is inversely
`
`proportional to the oscillator voltage frequency, via the relationship (cid:1852)(cid:3034)(cid:3039)(cid:3028)(cid:3046)(cid:3046)= (cid:2869)(cid:2870)(cid:3095)(cid:3033)(cid:3004),
`
`where Zglass is the impedance of the glass, f is the oscillator voltage frequency, and
`
`C is the base capacitance of the glass. By increasing the oscillator frequency f, the
`
`inventors could decrease the glass impedance Zglass relative to the water impedance
`
`Zwater, causing the voltage drop at the desired pad 57 to be much greater than the
`
`voltage drop at the undesired pad 59. This permits the device to distinguish the
`
`desired touch 57 from the undesired touch 59. Appx144-145, 10:35-11:60.
`
`The inventors conducted extensive experiments to determine the optimal
`
`oscillator frequencies f for rejecting unintended touches. Appx147-148, 16:64-
`
`17:67. They ultimately concluded that, “ideally, the frequency of operation would
`
`be kept at the 800kHz of the preferred embodiment or even higher.” Appx145, 11:9-
`
`11. However, the inventors recognized that “a move to high frequency operation
`
`(>50 to 800 kHz) is not a benign choice.” Appx143, 8:9-14. Conventional capacitive
`
`touch devices operated at much lower frequencies, such as “60 to 1000Hz” – fifty
`
`times less than 50khz, and 800 times less than 800 kHz. “Higher frequencies require
`
`generally more costly, higher-speed parts, and often result in the added cost of
`
`special design measures to minimize electronic emissions and the introduction of
`
`1983908.1
`
`10
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 20 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`high frequency noise on power supply lines.” Id.. 8:15-19. Thus, in the invention,
`
`“the frequency chosen [is] a tradeoff between the likelihood of surface
`
`contamination and the cost of going to higher frequencies.” Appx145, 11:30-38.
`
`Ultimately, the inventors concluded that, “[f]or applications where thermal
`
`drift and electronic noise levels are low, operation at or near 100 kHz may be
`
`possible.” Id., 11:13-15. And “in cases where there is little or no surface
`
`contamination, the frequency of operation can go well below 50 kHz.” Id., 11:25-
`
`30. However, “at 10 kHz and below, the impedance of the glass becomes much
`
`greater than that of likely water bridges between pads resulting in adjacent pads
`
`being [a]ffected as much by a touch as the touched pad itself.” Id., 11:10-15. Thus,
`
`the invention selects the oscillator frequency, from the range of available
`
`frequencies, to optimize the “tradeoff” between cost and inadvertent-touch rejection.
`
`The ’183 patent teaches a POSITA several ways to control the oscillator
`
`frequency. First, it teaches a POSITA to do so at the design stage, by selecting
`
`appropriate components for the “oscillator 200.” Appx146, 13:32-14:34. A
`
`“preferred example” of an oscillator is shown in Figure 6:
`
`1983908.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 21 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`Id. As seen above, the preferred oscillator includes a number of resistors, capacitors,
`
`gates, and transistors. Id. The oscillator receives 5V power from lines 104 and 105,
`
`and ultimately outputs a “26 V peak square wave on output line 201.” Id. That 26V
`
`square wave is used as the “oscillator voltage” to scan the touchpads. Id.
`
`The patent discloses that the frequency of the square wave can be controlled
`
`by controlling “the values of the resistors and capacitors utilized in oscillator 200.”
`
`Id., 14:21-34. The patent specifically lists the resistance and capacitance values that
`
`would yield the preferred “800 kHz” square wave. Id., 13:32-14:34. The patent also
`
`teaches that these values can be altered to “output a square wave having a frequency
`
`of 50 kHz or greater,” or any other appropriate frequency that provides the desired
`
`“tradeoff” between spurious touch rejection and cost. Id.
`
`A POSITA reading the ‘183 patent would also readily understand how to
`
`select from multiple available frequencies during operation. Appx3611, ¶172. For
`
`instance, the oscillator signal is provided to a “microcontroller,” which uses the
`
`oscillator signal to scan the touchpads. Appx133, Fig. 11. Nartron’s expert, Dr.
`
`Darran Cairns, testified that a POSITA would know that a “divide by N plus M or a
`
`divide by N function in the microcontroller” could be used to reduce, and thus
`
`change, the frequency of the signal sent to the touchpads. Appx3758-3759.
`
`The ’183 patent discloses both “single touchpad” and “multiple touchpad”
`
`embodiments. The single touchpad embodiment is shown in Fig. 4. This
`
`1983908.1
`
`12
`
`IPR2016-00908
`Exhibit 2015
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1060 Document: 21 Page: 22 Filed: 03/24/2021
`
`embodiment includes only one touchpad, and is suitable for, e.g., an “on/off” control
`
`for a lamp. Appx145, 11:60-16:24. The multiple touch