Paper No. 53
`Filed: September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`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 No. 5,796,183
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NARTRON’S
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`
`Filed: September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`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 No. 5,796,183
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NARTRON’S
`REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Page
`
`BACKGROUND, STATEMENT OF FACTS, CASE HISTORY ................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘183 Patent Solved a Critical Problem in the Art .......................... 1
`
`Case History – Proceedings in the PTAB and the Federal
`
`Circuit .................................................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`REHEARING SHOULD BE GRANTED ....................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The Panel Never Addressed “Reasonable Expectation of
`
`Success” in Combining Ingraham I with Caldwell, and
`
`Samsung Failed to Prove that a POSITA Would Reasonably
`
`Expect Such Success ............................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`Samsung Failed to Prove a Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`in Combining Ingraham I / Caldwell with Gerpheide ......................... 10
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 10, 11
`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) .............................................................. 4, 7, 10
`
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`If ever a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) warranted Director Rehearing, this
`
`is it. The FWD in this IPR (Paper 50) completely failed to consider whether a
`
`POSITA would have expected success in combining the two foundational references
`
`that the Panel used, with a third reference, to find most claims of Nartron’s U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 5,796,183 (Ex. 1001) obvious. The FWD in this IPR also conflicts with two
`
`different Panel decisions in related IPRs, rejecting obviousness challenges based on
`
`nearly identical art. Director Rehearing is needed so that the PTO can: (i) determine
`
`whether a POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining the two
`
`foundational references; and (ii) resolve the Panel conflicts on obviousness. Upon
`
`such rehearing, the FWD should be reversed, and all claims should be upheld.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND, STATEMENT OF FACTS, CASE HISTORY
`A. The ‘183 Patent Solved a Critical Problem in the Art
`The ‘183 patent relates to closely-spaced capacitive touch arrays. A capacitive
`
`touch array is a system that detects user touch by sensing the capacitance change
`
`that occurs when a user’s finger is brought close to the array. Ex. 1001, 3:11-4:27.
`
`One major problem with closely-spaced touch arrays is that contaminants on
`
`the surface (such as skin oils or water) can electrically couple two or more adjacent
`
`terminals. Id., 4:14-27. When this happens, a touch at one terminal can register as a
`
`touch on the adjacent terminal(s). Id. This can destroy the device’s usefulness. Id.
`
`The inventors of the ‘183 patent solved this problem. Id., 5:33-53. The
`
`2050134
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`inventors recognized that the impedance of a contaminant layer is generally resistive,
`
`while the impedance of the glass array surface is generally capacitive. Id., 8:64-10:9.
`
`Because capacitive impedance is frequency-dependent, the inventors realized that
`
`they could adjust the impedance of the array surface by adjusting the frequency of
`
`the electrical signal used to scan the array’s touch terminals. Id., 8:24-34. The
`
`“desired” conduction path (i.e., the path to the intended touch terminal) only passes
`
`through the glass surface, while the “undesired” conduction path (i.e., the path to the
`
`adjacent terminals) passes through the glass surface and the contaminant layer.
`
`Accordingly, the inventors realized they could make the impedance of the desired
`
`path low, relative to the impedance of the undesired path, by increasing the
`
`frequency of the scan signal. Id., 10:10-11:59. This results in only the desired path
`
`registering a touch, solving the problem of inadvertent actuation. Id.
`
`The inventors conducted extensive experiments, and ultimately concluded
`
`that scan signals in the range of 100-800 kHz optimally achieve this objective. Id..
`
`The use of such high-frequency scan signals—directly contrary to conventional
`
`wisdom at the time—solved the problem of surface contamination, paving the way
`
`for the densely-packed arrays of touch terminals found in virtually all modern
`
`smartphones and tablets. Ex. 2010, ¶ 22.
`
`B. Case History – Proceedings in the PTAB and the Federal Circuit
`Samsung filed a Petition for Inter Partes review of thirty claims of the ‘183
`
`2050134
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Patent on April 15, 2016 (Paper 2). The Petition asserted obviousness based on two
`
`combinations of prior art references: (i) a three-reference combination of U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham I”) (Ex. 1007), 5,594,222 to Caldwell
`
`(“Caldwell”) (Ex. 1009), and 5,565,658 to Gerpheide (“Gerpheide”) (Ex. 1012); and
`
`(ii) for certain dependent claims, a four-reference combination of Ingraham I,
`
`Caldwell, Gerpheide, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,341,036 to Wheeler (Ex. 1015).
`
`The Panel issued a first Final Written Decision on October 18, 2017 (Paper
`
`35) (the “First FWD”). In it, the Panel upheld all challenged claims as patentable,
`
`because Samsung failed to prove that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine, or would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining,
`
`Ingraham I/Caldwell—both of which disclose discrete arrays of multiple
`
`touchpads—with Gerpheide, which discloses a single, continuous touchpad. Paper
`
`35 at 17-24. The Panel found that Samsung’s evidence on “motivation” and
`
`“reasonable expectation” was too “conclusory” to carry its burden of proof. Id. at
`
`19-21, 23. The Panel further found Samsung’s Petition deficient because it failed to
`
`adequately explain how the proposed combination of the discrete-pad references
`
`with the continuous-pad reference (Gerpheide) would work. Id. at 22-24.
`
`Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit issued an unpublished decision on
`
`June 18, 2019, reversing the Panel’s finding that a POSITA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine the continuous-pad reference (Gerpheide) with the discrete-
`
`2050134
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`pad references. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. UUSI, LLC, 775 F. App'x 692, 694-696 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019). It then remanded for the Board to decide, based on the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction of the “selectively providing” limitation present in all challenged
`
`claims, whether a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`combining the discrete-pad references with Gerpheide.1 Id. at 696.
`
`On remand, the Parties agreed that no new evidence would be submitted.
`
`Paper 41. Instead, the parties submitted briefing on the “reasonable expectation”
`
`issue. Id. After briefing, the same Panel issued a Second FWD (Paper 50). In the
`
`Second FWD, the Panel completely about-faced. Even though the same Panel
`
`previously found that Samsung’s evidence on “reasonable expectation” was
`
`insufficient—and even though Samsung adduced no new evidence on remand—the
`
`Board inexplicably now found that Samsung’s evidence on reasonable expectation
`
`was sufficient to prove obviousness. Paper 50 at 26-27. The Second FWD’s
`
`discussion of “reasonable expectation”—which spans only a single page (id.)—does
`
`not explain how the exact same evidence that was insufficient at the time of the First
`
`FWD could have become sufficient at the time of the Second FWD. Id.
`
`Nartron appealed on October 16, 2020. Paper 51. A copy of Nartron’s
`
`
`1 It is unclear why the Federal Circuit remanded, because the Board’s decision on
`
`“reasonable expectation” did not depend on any particular claim construction.
`
`2050134
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Opening Brief in the appeal is attached as Exhibit 2015. In its Brief, Nartron argued
`
`that the Second FWD should be reversed, both on the merits (Ex. 2015 at 37-62),
`
`and because the Panel APJs were unconstitutional “principal officers” under
`
`Arthrex. Ex. 2015 at 62-63. On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Arthrex.
`
`Two days later, the Federal Circuit asked Nartron to state how it believed the appeal
`
`should proceed in view of Arthrex. CAFC Case No. 21-1060, Dkt. 31. Nartron stated
`
`that the case should be remanded to the PTO, so that Nartron could request Director
`
`rehearing. Case No. 21-1060, Dkt. 33. On August 3, 2021, the Federal Circuit agreed
`
`and remanded. Case No. 21-1060, Dkt. 36. This Request followed. It is timely
`
`because it was filed within 30 days of the remand, as ordered. Id.
`
`II. REHEARING SHOULD BE GRANTED
`According to the USPTO’s Interim Guidance, Director review is appropriate
`
`if the panel’s decision includes “material errors of fact or law,” “matters that the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked,” “issues on which Board panel decisions are
`
`split,” or “inconsistencies with Office . . . decisions.” Here, all four factors apply.
`
`The Second FWD contains multiple material errors of law and fact, including
`
`the clearly erroneous finding that a POSITA would have reasonably expected
`
`success in combining the discrete-pad references (Ingraham I and Caldwell) with the
`
`continuous-pad reference (Gerpheide), and a clear failure to provide the legally-
`
`required “evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings of the
`
`2050134
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`combination.” Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); see also Ex. 2015 at 47-62. The Second FWD further contains “matters that
`
`the Board . . . overlooked,” namely, a complete failure to address Nartron’s argument
`
`that a POSITA would not have reasonably expected success in making the
`
`foundational Ingraham I/Caldwell combination. Ex. 2015 at 38-40. It contains two
`
`“issues on which Board panel decisions are split:” (i) a split between this panel and
`
`the panel in IPR2019-00356, which found that a POSITA would not reasonably
`
`expect success in combining related Ingraham and Caldwell patents (Ex. 2015 at 45-
`
`46); and (ii) a split between this panel and panel in IPR2019-00359, which found
`
`that a POSITA would not expect success in combining highly-similar discrete and
`
`continuous pad art (Ex. 2015 at 57-60). And it contains “inconsistencies with Office
`
`. . . decisions,” including the clear inconsistency between the First FWD’s decision
`
`that Samsung’s evidence on reasonable expectation was insufficient, and the Second
`
`FWD’s decision that the exact same evidence was sufficient. Ex. 2015 at 52-54.
`
`To prevent injustice and correct manifest error, Director review is warranted.
`
`A. The Panel Never Addressed “Reasonable Expectation of Success”
`in Combining Ingraham I with Caldwell, and Samsung Failed to
`Prove that a POSITA Would Reasonably Expect Such Success
`All asserted grounds of unpatentability relied, at their foundation, on a
`
`combination of the two discrete-pad references: Ingraham I and Caldwell. Paper 2
`
`at 15-36; Paper 21 at 26-30. Samsung relied on “Ingraham I in combination with
`
`2050134
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Caldwell” to satisfy almost all of the elements of the challenged claims, including
`
`the “oscillator” (Paper 2 at 15-18), the “microcontroller” (id. at 19-26), the “closely-
`
`spaced array of input touch terminals” (id.), and the “detector circuit” (id. at 31-36).
`
`Samsung relied on the third reference, Gerpheide, solely to satisfy the additional
`
`element of “selectively providing signal output frequencies.” Id. at 26-29. Thus, to
`
`prove obviousness based on a combination of Ingraham I / Caldwell with Gerpheide,
`
`Samsung first had to prove that a POSITA would have reasonably expected success
`
`in making the foundational Ingraham I / Caldwell combination.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response, Nartron expressly argued that a POSITA would
`
`not have reasonably expected success in combining Ingraham I with Caldwell. Paper
`
`21 at 27-30. The Panel’s First FWD did not address this issue, because it was not
`
`necessary to the decision. The Panel found that, regardless of whether the Ingraham
`
`I/Caldwell combination was proper, the proposed combination of Ingraham
`
`I/Caldwell with Gerpheide was improper. Paper 22-24. Thus, the Panel did not
`
`address the foundational Ingraham I / Caldwell combination. Id. The Federal Circuit
`
`also did not address this combination. Samsung, 775 Fed. Appx. at 696-697.
`
`Because neither the Panel nor the Federal Circuit addressed whether a
`
`POSITA would have expected success in making the Ingraham I/Caldwell
`
`combination, this issue was still “live” on remand. Thus, to properly find
`
`obviousness, the Panel first had to consider whether a POSITA would have expected
`
`2050134
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`success in combining Ingraham I with Caldwell. It never did. Thus, the Panel
`
`overlooked an issue fundamental to its obviousness decision. This warrants review.
`
`Upon review, the Director should find that Samsung failed to prove a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining Ingraham I with Caldwell. Samsung
`
`failed to carry its burden of proof on this issue, for at least four reasons.
`
`First, Samsung failed to provide a “clear, evidence-supported account of the
`
`contemplated workings of the [Ingraham I / Caldwell] combination,” as required.
`
`PersonalWeb, 848 F.3d at 994. When the technology is complex (as here), a “clear,
`
`evidence supported account” of “how the combination of the two references was
`
`supposed to work” is a “prerequisite to adequately . . . supporting a conclusion that
`
`a relevant skilled artisan would . . . reasonably expect success.” Id. Here, Samsung
`
`merely provided a vague block diagram, “Demonstrative C,” which purported to
`
`show how some components of Caldwell (the “oscillator,” “demultiplexer,” and
`
`“multiplexer”) could be connected to some components of Ingraham I (the “input
`
`portions” and “microcomputer”). Paper 2 at 23-25; Ex. 1002, ¶ 64. But Samsung
`
`never explained how those components would work together to yield a functioning
`
`device. Id. Thus, Samsung did not meet its burden of proof. Ex. 2015 at 41-42.
`
`Second, a finding of reasonable expectation would directly conflict with the
`
`decision denying Institution in IPR2019-00356, Paper 14 (Ex. 2016 here). In
`
`IPR2019-00356, Petitioner Apple argued that many of the same claims at issue here
`
`2050134
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`were obvious based on a combination of another Caldwell patent, U.S. Pat.
`
`5,572,205 (“Caldwell ’205”) (Ex. 1016 here), with another Ingraham patent, U.S.
`
`Pat. 4,758,735 (“Ingraham ’735”) (Ex. 1010 here). Ex. 2016 at 6-7. Like Samsung,
`
`Apple argued that a POSITA would combine the drive circuitry and row-column
`
`scanning technique of the Caldwell patent with the input portions of the Ingraham
`
`patent, to arrive at the claimed invention. Compare Ex. 2016 at 16-17 with Paper 2
`
`at 19-26. The input portions of Ingraham ’735 (cited by Apple) were essentially
`
`identical to the input portions of Ingraham I (cited by Samsung) (compare Ex. 1007,
`
`Fig. 3 with Ex. 1010, Fig. 1), and the driver circuitry and scan technique of Caldwell
`
`’205 (cited by Apple) was essentially identical to the driver circuitry and scan
`
`technique of Caldwell ’222 (cited here by Samsung). Compare Ex. 1009, Figs. 6-7
`
`and 12 with Ex. 1016, Figs. 2-5. In denying institution, the IPR2019-00356 Panel
`
`found that a POSITA would not reasonably expect success in combining Ingraham
`
`’735’s input portions with Caldwell ’205’s driver circuitry. Ex. 2016 at 19-22.
`
`Here, Samsung relies on a nearly identical combination of Ingraham I’s input
`
`portions and Caldwell ’222’s driver circuitry. Any finding of reasonable expectation
`
`(which the Samsung Panel failed to consider) would conflict with the Apple Panel’s
`
`finding in IPR2019-00356. This conflict warrants rehearing. The Apple Panel’s
`
`decision should be followed, and the Director should find that Samsung failed to
`
`prove a reasonable expectation of success in combining Ingraham and Caldwell.
`
`2050134
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Third, Nartron’s expert, Dr. Cairns, offered undisputed testimony that the
`
`proposed combination would not work, because Caldwell’s “oscillator” (part of the
`
`alleged combination) sends scan signals in the range of “100 kHz to 200 kHz”, but
`
`Ingraham I’s “input portions” only operate at frequencies of 60 Hz, more than 1000
`
`times slower than Caldwell. Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 111-114; see also Ex. 2015 at 42-45.
`
`Fourth, Samsung failed to explain how the “on/off” input portions of
`
`Ingraham I could work with Caldwell’s “peak detect” scheme. Ex. 2015 at 46-47.
`
`Thus, all challenged claims should be upheld, because Samsung failed to
`
`prove a reasonable expectation of success in combining Ingraham I and Caldwell.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung Failed to Prove a Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining Ingraham I / Caldwell with Gerpheide
`Separately, all challenged claims should be upheld because Samsung failed to
`
`prove a reasonable expectation of success in combining the assumed Ingraham I /
`
`Caldwell combination with Gerpheide. Samsung’s Petition relied on Gerpheide to
`
`satisfy the “selectively providing signal output frequencies” claim element, which
`
`the Federal Circuit construed to mean “provid[ing] a frequency, selected from
`
`multiple possible frequencies, to the entire touch pad” (Samsung, 775 F. App’x at
`
`697). Specifically, Samsung’s Petition relied on Gerpheide’s “interference negating
`
`functionality,” disclosed at 8:22-9:33, to teach that claim element. Paper 2 at 27-29.
`
`To establish a reasonable expectation of success, a Petitioner must prove that
`
`“the combination would have worked for its intended purpose.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`
`2050134
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Samsung’s
`
`“intended purpose” of combining Gerpheide with Ingraham I / Caldwell was to help
`
`Ingraham I / Caldwell “reject electrical interference.” Paper 2 at 29. Thus, Samsung
`
`had to prove that a POSITA would have been able to combine Gerpheide’s technique
`
`with Ingraham I / Caldwell, to help the latter “reject electrical interference.” Id.
`
`It utterly failed to do so. Neither Samsung nor its expert, Dr. Subramanian,
`
`provided any explanation of how the technique of Gerpheide could be incorporated
`
`into Ingraham I / Caldwell to reject electrical noise. See Paper 2 at 26-28; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 69-72. Dr. Subramanian simply asserted, ipse dixit, that a POSITA “would have
`
`been motivated to incorporate interference negating functionality similar to that
`
`described by Gerpheide in the . . . Ingraham I-Caldwell system,” and “would have
`
`found such a modification to be a predictable and common sense implementation.”
`
`Id., ¶ 72. Samsung’s Petition parroted that conclusory assertion. Paper 2 at 28-29.
`
`But neither Samsung nor its expert explained what precise functionality “similar to
`
`that described by Gerpheide” could or would be “incorporated” into Ingraham
`
`I/Caldwell to reject noise. And neither of them made any attempt to explain how
`
`such functionality could be incorporated. That, alone, should have been fatal to
`
`Samsung’s Petition. DePuy, 567 F.3d at 1326; PersonalWeb, 848 F.3d at 994.
`
`Indeed, in the First FWD, the Panel agreed that this was fatal. In the First
`
`FWD, the Panel found that Samsung failed to adequately “address why one
`
`2050134
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`reasonably would have expected the combination . . . to function correctly,” and that
`
`“Dr. Subramanian’s testimony [was] of little assistance in this regard,” because his
`
`testimony was “conclusory” and “offer[ed] little persuasive evidence of reasonable
`
`expectation of success.” Paper 35 at 19, 23. That finding was correct.
`
`Yet the same Panel’s Second’s FWD inexplicably came to the exact opposite
`
`conclusion, on the exact same evidence. Paper 50 at 26-27. In the Second FWD, the
`
`Panel found that the “evidence from Dr. Subramanian”—i.e., the same evidence it
`
`had criticized as too “conclusory” in the First FWD—was now sufficient to “show[]
`
`that the skilled artisan would have . . . [had] a reasonable expectation of success.”
`
`Id. The Panel gave no analysis or explanation for its reversal. Director rehearing is
`
`necessary to resolve the irreconcilable conflict between the First and Second FWDs.
`
`Rehearing is further warranted because the First FWD was correct. Ingraham
`
`I and Caldwell are fundamentally incompatible with Gerpheide. Paper 44 at 10-12;
`
`Ex. 2015 at 48-52. Ingraham I and Caldwell are discrete arrays, comprising rows
`
`and columns of touchpads. See Ex. 1007, Figs. 1 and 3; Ex. 1009, Fig. 6. By contrast,
`
`Gerpheide uses an electrode mesh to create a single, continuous, x-y touch surface.
`
`Ex. 1012, Fig. 2a; Ex. 2015 at 22-29. Each input portion in Ingraham I/Caldwell has
`
`two possible states: “on,” or “off.” Paper 44 at 11-12; Ex. 1007, 3:21-47; Ex. 2015
`
`at 50-52. By contrast, Gerpheide’s electrodes detect the continuous (X, Y) position
`
`of touch along the surface. Ex. 1012, 4:21-37; Paper 44 at 10-12.
`
`2050134
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`Gerpheide exploits the continuous nature of its (X, Y) position signals to
`
`negate interference. Specifically, Gerpheide’s microprocessor 102 includes an
`
`“interference evaluation” block 106, which continually computes the second
`
`differences—i.e., the differences between the differences—between consecutive X
`
`and Y data samples. Ex. 1012, 8:38-9:17. This “has the effect of applying a high-
`
`pass filter” to the datastream. Id., 8:51-53. Gerpheide recognized that electrical noise
`
`is typically high in frequency. Id., 8:43-45. Thus, the output of the second-difference
`
`calculation is an indication of electrical noise. Id. Gerpheide continually adds the X
`
`and Y second differences together, over each set of 32 data samples, to compute an
`
`“Interference Measure,” IM. Id., 8:55-9:33. IM represents the amount of noise the
`
`device experienced at a particular scan frequency. Id. Gerpheide maintains a table
`
`of the IMs measured at each possible frequency. Id. Every 32 samples, Gerpheide
`
`switches its scan frequency to the one with the lowest IM. Id. In this way, Gerpheide
`
`continually attempts to operate at the frequency with the lowest noise. Id.
`
`Gerpheide’s technique is fundamentally incompatible with Ingraham
`
`I/Caldwell, because Ingraham I/Caldwell’s discrete touchpads—which can only
`
`output “on” or “off” signals—are incapable of generating continuous (X, Y) signals
`
`that can be “second-differenced,” as needed to compute Gerpheide’s IM. Paper 44
`
`at 10-12. The Panel agreed with Nartron on this point in the First FWD, correctly
`
`finding that Samsung had not explained how “Gerpheide’s interference algorithm–
`
`2050134
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`–which . . . [has] a single electrode and calculates drift in position across the
`
`electrode”—i.e., the continuous IM—“would function successfully in a multi touch
`
`keypad.” Paper 35 at 23-24. Samsung submitted no new evidence on remand. Thus,
`
`in the Second FWD, the Panel should have maintained its earlier finding. The
`
`Panel’s unexplained reversal was incorrect, arbitrary, and capricious.
`
`It also directly conflicts with the Panel decision in co-pending IPR2019-
`
`00359, Paper 27 (Exhibit 2017 here). There, Petitioner Apple, like Samsung, relied
`
`on a combination of a discrete touchpad array, “Chiu” (Exhibit 2018 here), with a
`
`continuous single touch surface, “Meadows” (Exhibit 2019 here). See Ex. 2017 at
`
`75. Like Samsung, Apple relied on the discrete reference (Chiu) to disclose almost
`
`all claim elements, and relied on the continuous reference (Meadows) to disclose
`
`selecting the scan frequency “from a plurality of Hertz values [frequencies].” Id. The
`
`Panel found that Apple failed to prove reasonable expectation of success, because
`
`there were fundamental incompatibilities between the discrete and continuous
`
`references, and Apple “d[id] not adequately explain how the combination would be
`
`made, or how it would work.” Id. at 78-83. That finding was not only correct, it
`
`cannot be squared with the Panel finding here. This conflict warrants rehearing. The
`
`Director should find that the Apple Panel was correct, and that Samsung similarly
`
`failed to prove a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Finally, the Director should grant rehearing because the Panel failed to
`
`2050134
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`comply with Federal Circuit precedent. When the technology is complex (as here),
`
`the Federal Circuit requires the Panel to provide a “clear, evidence-supported
`
`account of the contemplated workings of the combination” before finding
`
`obviousness. PersonalWeb, 848 F.3d at 994. But the Panel here gave no account
`
`whatsoever of how the combination would work. Paper 50 at 26-27. In the single
`
`page of the FWD that addresses reasonable expectation, the Panel took issue with
`
`Nartron’s arguments, but never affirmatively explained how the combination would
`
`work. Id. It also never addressed how a POSITA would remedy the many
`
`incompatibilities between the discrete and continuous-pad references. Id.; Paper 44
`
`at 10-12. Thus, the Panel did not provide the requisite “clear, evidence-supported
`
`account of the contemplated workings of the combination.” This warrants rehearing.
`
`Upon rehearing, the Director should find that such a “clear, evidence-supported
`
`account” cannot be provided, because Samsung adduced no evidence to explain how
`
`the proposed combination of Ingraham I / Caldwell with Gerpheide could be made.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, rehearing should be granted, and all challenged
`
`claims should be upheld. If rehearing is granted, Nartron directs the Director’s
`
`attention to Nartron’s Opening Brief at the Federal Circuit (Ex. 2015), which
`
`explains in detail why the Panel’s Second FWD should be reversed.
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Stephen Underwood
`Stephen Underwood (Reg. # 77,977)
`
`Lawrence M. Hadley (pro hac vice
`admission pending)
`
`GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
`AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Tel: (949) 287-6890
`Fax: (949) 873-5495
`sunderwood@glaserweil.com
`lhadley@glaserweil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00908
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`NARTRON’S REQUEST FOR DIRECTOR REHEARING was served by email on
`
`the following counsel of record in this matter:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Samsung:
`
`• Naveen Modi (naveenmodi@paulhastings.com)
`
`• Joseph E. Palys (josephpalys@paulhastings.com)
`
`• Chetan R. Bansal (chetanbansal@paulhastings.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Stephen Underwood
`
`Stephen Underwood
`
`Reg. No. 77,977
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`2050134
`
`17
`
`
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
