`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00949IPR2016-00948
`Patent 9,089,7708,641,525
`_______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLEN STEVICK
`
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 1
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ..................................................................................... 5
`OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION .................................. 6
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW ............................................................................... 7
`B. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ................................. 8
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ‘770 525 PATENT ........................................... 9
`A. “VIDEO GAME HAND HELD CONTROLLER” .................................................... 9
`B. “LOCATED AT ON THE BACK OF THE CONTROLLER” ............................. 1312
`C. “RECESSED PORTIONRECESS”14 ....................................................................... 12
`D. “ELONGATE MEMBERS CONVERGE TOWARDS THE FRONT END OF THE
`CONTROLLER WITH RESPECT TO ONE ANOTHER” ............................................ 16
`D. “TRANSITION EDGE” ............................................................................................ 17
`
`THE TOSAKI REFERENCE (EX1002) 18 .................................................................... 19
`VI.
`VII. ENRIGHT (EX1003) IN VIEW OF TOSAKI (EX1002) 23 ........................................... 22
`VIII. ENRIGHT (EX1003) IN VIEW OF TOSAKI (EX1002) AND OELSCH (EX1006) .... 33
`VIIIIX. .................................................................................................... REPRESENTATIONS32
`.......................................................................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. Glen Stevick, declare and state as follows:
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Irongburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg” or
`
`“Petitioner”) to consider the merits of Valve Corporation’s (“Valve”)
`
`unpatentability claims set forth in the above-captioned Petition with regard
`
`to United States Patent No. 9,089,770 8,641,525 (“the ‘770 525 patent”). I
`
`have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions stated in this Declaration,
`
`and am competent to testify thereto.
`
`2. My company, Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc. (BEAR) is
`
`being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of $450.00
`
`per hour. My compensation is not contingent upon the substance of my
`
`declaration, any statements or opinions made, or the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`
`I understand that a true and
`
`accurate copy of my current curriculum vitae has been identified and will be
`
`filed by Ironburg as Exhibit 2003. Several of the details concerning my
`
`educational background, work experience, academic appointments, honors,
`
`awards, and publications are further discussed below.
`
`1
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`3.I have over 25 years experience
`
`4.
`
`in the general field of mechanical engineering and related engineering
`
`disciplines. My expertise includes years of experience in failure analysis
`
`and design of structures, consumer products, industrial equipment and
`
`medical devices, including specifically mechanical-electrical systems, aortic,
`
`hip and knee implants, turbines and reciprocating engines, automotive and
`
`aircraft components; structural dynamics, electronic control systems,
`
`material behavior, heat transfer and structure/fluid interaction.
`
`5.
`
`4.I received a Bachelors of Science
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan Technological University
`
`in 1980 and a Masters of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`the University of California, Berkeley in 1981.
`
`6.
`
`5.I worked for Chevron
`
`Corporation during and after my time at Michigan Technological University
`
`and U.C. Berkeley while working toward my Master’s degree.
`
`7.
`
`6.In 1989, I returned to the
`
`University of California, Berkeley and started Berkeley Engineering And
`
`Research, Inc. (“BEAR”). BEAR provides mechanical and electrical
`
`2
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`engineering services ranging from project analysis and consultation to
`
`accident investigations and expert testimony.
`
`8.
`
`7.I completed my Ph.D. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley in 1993
`
`majoring in material behavior and design, and minoring in structural analysis
`
`and dynamics and controls (electronic controls).
`
`9.
`
`8.I have more than 30 years of
`
`experience as a mechanical engineer, which began with nearly a decade
`
`working for Chevron as a project engineer and engineering mechanics
`
`specialist.
`
`10.
`
`9.I am a registered Mechanical
`
`Engineer in California, Texas, Louisiana and Nevada and a member of the
`
`American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
`
`11.
`
`10.My experience with Chevron
`
`related to many mechanical and electrical engineering methods and
`
`technologies used to control downstream process equipment, upstream oil
`
`and gas equipment, surface processing equipment and well-control
`
`equipment such as blowout preventers. I also provided advice and guidance
`
`concerning off-shore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea,
`
`3
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`including the avoidance of structural vibrations, the calculation of crack
`
`growth rates in platform structures, and the determination of remaining life
`
`for the platforms when operating in offshore environments. Assessment of
`
`these devices and structures involved detailed stress analysis and fracture
`
`mechanics calculations.
`
`12.
`
`11.Since 1986, I have also worked
`
`as a consulting engineer through BEAR, and have provided engineering
`
`services related to various mechanical and electrical devices and systems.
`
`13.
`
`12.In addition, I have taught
`
`mechanical engineering at U.C. Berkeley, serving as an instructor for the
`
`department’s senior design course, “Mechanical Engineering Design,” and
`
`have conducted various lectures on mechanical engineering topics.
`
`14.
`
`13.Currently, I serve as a
`
`mechanical engineering consultant at BEAR, specializing in failure analysis
`
`and design of dynamic structures, industrial equipment and consumer
`
`products, including mechanical and electrical systems.
`
`15.
`
`I am an author of numerous mechanical engineering publications and
`
`reports listed in my Curriculum Vitae attached as Exhibit 2003, as well as
`
`the co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,119,461, entitled “Thermal-Electric
`
`4
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`Container,” U.S. Patent No. 7,620,209, entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Dynamic Space-Time Imaging System,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,395,376,
`
`entitled “Method and Apparatus for Magnetic Response Imaging System.
`
`16.
`
`I am currently a member of American Society of Testing and
`
`Materials (ASTM) Committee E05 on Fire Standards, Committee F15 on
`
`Consumer Products and Committee E08 on Fatigue and Fracture.
`
`17.
`
`17.I have led engineering teams at
`
`BEAR designing robotic inspection devices for piping systems, powerline
`
`detection (magnetic and electric field) devices for cranes and manlifts,
`
`microwave cauterizing forceps for surgery that detect and suppress spark
`
`development by modifying controller output, and designing and
`
`implementing controller devices for testing devices. I have also analyzed
`
`the failure of controllers, similar to the subject controller, for a wide variety
`
`of equipment, including manlifts, automated welders and cranes.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`18.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘770 525 patent
`
`specification, its claims, and its file history, as well as its related ‘525 patent
`
`specification and file history.
`
`5
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`19.
`
`Review of the ‘770 525 patent filed by Valve on May 2, 2016 (the
`
`“Petition”), as well as the April 19, 2016 Declaration of Dr. David Rempel
`
`filed in support thereof (the “Rempel Declaration”).
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the references cited in the
`
`Petition. I refer to the following exhibits cited in the Inter Partes Review as
`
`set forth in the table below:
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Reference
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525 (“the ‘525 Patent”)
`1002
`U.S. Patent No. 5,989,123 (“Tosaki”)
`1003
`US Publ. No. 20100073283 (“Enright”)
`10111006 US Patent No. 9,089,770 (“the ‘770 Patent4,032,728 (“Oelsch”)
`10121008 Rempel Declaration
`2001
`Prosecution History of the ‘770 525 Patent
`2004
`Excerpts from MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
`DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1998).
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`Excerpts from WEBSTER’S NEW AMERICAN
`DICTIONARY (1995).
`Prosecution History of the ‘525 Patent
`U.S. Patent 7,859,514 (“Park”)
`21.
`
`
`6
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`I confirm that to the best of my knowledge that the above-noted
`
`21.
`
`dictionaries cited in my declaration - Exhibits 2004 and 2005 - are true and
`
`accurate copies of what they purport to be, and that an expert in the field
`
`would reasonably rely on them.
`
`22. Unless stated otherwise, I agree and apply the claim constructions set
`
`forth in the Institution Decision in this declaration. Paper 10.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION
`23. While considering the ‘770 525 Patent and stating my opinions, I am
`
`relying on legal principles that have been explained to me by counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction Law
`
`24.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two
`
`types of claims - independent claims and dependent claims. An independent
`
`claim stands alone and includes only the features it recites. A dependent
`
`claim can depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all the features that it recites in
`
`addition to all of the features recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`7
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`I understand that in this inter partes review the claims must be given
`
`25.
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation, but that interpretation must be
`
`consistent with the specification.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claim terms are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`unless the inventor provides a special meaning for a term.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that if there are specific statements in the specification
`
`that define the invention, those statements are strong evidence of a definition
`
`for a term.
`
`28.
`
`In this declaration, I have used the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard when interpreting the claim terms.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is used to analyze the prior art without the benefit
`
`of hindsight. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to be one who thinks along the lines of conventional wisdom in
`
`the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate, whether by extraordinary
`
`insights or by patient and often expensive systematic research.
`
`8
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`I have been asked to offer my opinion regarding the level of ordinary
`
`30.
`
`skill in the art with respect to the ’770 525 Patent. Based on my review of
`
`the patent and the relevant art, my opinion is that the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art relating to the ’770 525 Patent is low, specifically that of a person
`
`with no more than a year of experience or other training in controller
`
`assembly or tooling.
`
`31. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on my review of the ‘770 525 Patent, my education, my experience in the
`
`field of mechanical engineering, and my related experience.
`
`32.
`
`I meet these criteria and consider myself a person with at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the patent. I would have been such a
`
`person at the time of invention of the patent. I have supervised those with
`
`ordinary skill in the art and I am therefore familiar with their qualifications.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that the Rempel Declaration (¶ 11 at p. 2) asserts
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘770 525 Patent is “designer of
`
`commercial video game controllers,” that [n]o collegiate education was
`
`required to fully understand the particular subject matter of the ‘770 525
`
`patent at the time of its filing, or today” and that “one of ordinary skill in the
`
`video game controller design art when the ‘770 525 patent was filed would
`
`9
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`have typically had a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering
`
`field, and approximately two years of relevant experience.”
`
`34. My statements and opinions set forth herein are true and correct
`
`regardless of which of these two descriptions of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is ultimately adopted.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ‘770 525 PATENT
`A. “Video Game Hand Held Controller”
`
`35.
`
`Independent claim claims 1 and 20 of the ‘770 525 Patent recites
`
`recite the term “video game hand held controller” in the preamble.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a preamble will not be seen as limiting unless it
`
`breathes life and meaning into the claim. I also understand that the preamble
`
`can be limiting when elements in the preamble serve as an antecedent basis
`
`for limitations in the claim body.
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that the term “video game hand held controller”
`
`breathes life and meaning into the claim, and serves as an antecedent basis
`
`for the term “the controller” in independent claim 1claims 1 and 20, and
`
`therefore, I provide the following construction.
`
`38.
`
`The definition of “hand held,” as
`
`defined in MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th
`
`10
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`ed. 1998) is “held in the hand; esp to be operated while being held in the
`
`hand.” EX2004, p. 526.
`
`39.
`
`38.The notion that the video game
`
`hand held controller is held in and operated operate by the user’s hands is
`
`further supported in the claims, written description and the drawings.
`
`40.
`
`39.Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘770 525
`
`are reproduced below:.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`Notably, the express language of
`
`41.
`
`claims 1 and 20 also recite that “the controller is shaped to be held in the
`
`hand of a user such that the user’s thumb is positioned to operate the front
`
`control.”
`
`42.
`
`40.In my opinion, the The
`
`specification contains clear and unmistakable statements that limits the
`
`scope of “video game controller” to a repeatedly refers to the “hand held
`
`controller that is ” as “the present invention” and that the controller is shaped
`
`to be held in and operated by both hands of a the user.” For example, the
`
`specification states:
`
` “The present invention relates to video game consoles, in particular hand
`held controllers for video game consoles.” EX1011, 1:7-8.
` “An improved controller for a game console that is intended to be held by
`a user in both hands … and has two additional controlslocated on the
`back in positions to be operated by the middle fingers of a user.” Id.,
`Abstract.
`
` “Conventional controllers for most game consoles are intended to be held
`and operated by the user using both hands”. Id.EX1001, 1:8-9.
`
`
` “The controller of the present invention may be very similar to
`controllers according to the prior art. In particular, the outer case of the
`controller … may be the same as a controller according to the prior art, as
`described above and as illustrated in the figures.” Id., 2:15-19.
`
` “The present invention provides a hand held controller for video game
`
`12
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`console having a hard outer case and a plurality of controls located on the
`front and top edge of the controller.” Id., 1:49-51.
` “An improved controller (10) for a game console that is intended to be
`held by a user in both hands … and has two additional controls (11)
`located on the back in positions to be operated by the middle fingers of a
`user.” Id., Abstract.
`
` “The controller is shaped to be held in both hands of the user such that
`the user's thumbs are positioned to operate controls located on the front
`of the controller and the user's index fingers are positioned to operate
`controls located on the top edge of the controller.” Id., 1:52-56.
`
`48. A POSITA would understand that the claimed “video game
`
`controller” is a “hand held controller that is held in and operated by both
`
`hands of a user” in view of the specification and drawings. As demonstrated
`
`above, the specification repeatedly refers to the “hand held controller” as
`
`“the present invention.” Further, the patent repeatedly disparaged
`
`conventional hand-held controllers because they do not include “the specific
`
`embodiment” with “one or more additional controls located on the back of
`
`the controller in a position to be operated by the user’s other fingers.”
`
`EX1011, 1:56-58 and 2:55-57.
`
`49. Similarly, the prosecution history further informs a POSITA on the
`
`meaning of video game controller. In an Office Action dated October 21,
`
`2014, the Examiner stated that “Burns discloses a video game controller
`
`(Title, and pages 1-3, a handheld controller for XBOX 360) …” (EX2001 at
`
`13
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`p. 56 (emphasis added).) To establish inventorship with evidence of
`
`conception and reduction to practice, the patentee submitted a declaration
`
`stating, among others, that:
`
`4. I am the inventor of the subject matter disclosed in the Burns
`article.
`5. The inventorship of the present application is correct in that
`the Burns article discloses subject matter invented by me rather
`than by Dave BDurns …. EX2001 at 48.
`50. Thus, in light of the prosecution history, a POSITA would understand
`
`that the claimed video game controller is the hand-held controller disclosed
`
`in the Burns article. Further, a POSITA would also understand that the
`
`patentee disavowed claim scope for any video game controllers other than
`
`hand-held controllers. This is true because no other “video game
`
`controllers” were discussed in the context of the disclosed “present
`
`invention.”
`
`51.Finally, as I noted in my declaration submitted in connection with
`
`IPR2016-00948 for the parent ‘525 Patent, the definition of “hand held,” as
`
`defined in MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th
`
`ed. 1998) is “held in the hand; esp to be operated while being held in the
`
`hand.” EX2004, p. 526. This is consistent with the description of video
`
`game controller in the specification.
`
`14
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`52.Having studied the ‘770 525
`
`48.
`
`Patent, the file history, and based on my experience, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would understand that the claimed “video game hand held controller” is “a
`
`hand-held controller that is held in and operated by both hands of a user.”
`
`B. “Located At On The Back Of The Controller”
`
`49.
`
`53. Independent claim 1 recites
`
`claims 1 and 20 recite the phrase “located at on the back of the controller.”
`
`50.
`
`54.Given the proposed
`
`construction for “hand held controller” above, it is my opinion that the
`
`phrase “located on the back of the controller” means “located at on the back
`
`of the hand-held controller that is held in and operated by both hands of a
`
`user.”
`
`C. “Recessed PortionRecess”
`
`51.
`
`55.Claim 6 7 of the ‘770 525
`
`Patent recites that the back of the hand-held controller includes “a recessed
`
`portion between the first handle and the second handle.” EX1011, 5:12-13.
`
`has elongate members “mounted within a recess located in the case of the
`
`controller.”
`
`15
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`Claim 8 of the ‘525 Patent recites
`
`52.
`
`that “each elongate member comprises an outermost surface which is
`
`disposed in closer proximity to the outermost surface of the controller such
`
`that a user’s finger may be received in said respective recess.”
`
`53.
`
`56.I understand that Petitioner
`
`sought to construe “recessed portion“recess” as “any region between a first
`
`and second handle that is recessed towards the front of the video game
`
`controller.” Pet. at 15.
`
`54.
`
`57.I also understand that the
`
`Institution Decision rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction and
`
`explained that this term is not “limited to a recess towards the front of the
`
`controller.” Paper 10 at 1015.
`
`55.
`
`58.I agree with the Institution
`
`Decision and seek to further clarify the meaning of the term “recessed
`
`portion“recess.”
`
`56.
`
`59.The definition of “recess,” as
`
`defined in WEBSTER’S NEW AMERICAN DICTIONARY (1995), is “an
`
`indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).” EX2005, p. 435.
`
`16
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`60.I have reviewed the ‘770 525
`
`57.
`
`Patent and believe that the specification further informs the meaning of the
`
`term “recessed portion“recess” to a POSITA.
`
`58.
`
`61.Based on the claims, written
`
`description and drawings of the ‘770 525 Patent, a POSITA would
`
`understand that the “recessed portion“recess” is for receiving the user’s
`
`fingers.
`
`59.
`
`Notably, the express language of
`
`claim 8 requires that “a user’s finger may be received in said respective
`
`recess.”
`
`60.
`
`Although claim 8 expressly states
`
`that the “recess” is for “receiving a user’s finger,” it is my opinion that this
`
`serves to confirm what is explicitly and/or implicitly defined for this claim
`
`term in the specification.
`
`61.
`
`62.The specification explains that
`
`the hand-held controller of the present invention has elongate members
`
`“mounted within a respective recess located in the case of the controller”
`
`and “comprises an outermost surface which is disposed in close proximity to
`
`17
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`the outermost surface of the controller such that the user’s finger may be
`
`received in said respective recess.” EX1011EX1001, 1:62-67.
`
`62.
`
`63.Further, the ‘770 525 Patent
`
`states that the “controller of the present invention is particularly
`
`advantageous over controllers according to the prior art as it comprises on or
`
`more additional controls located on the back of the controller in a position to
`
`be operated by middle fingers of a user.” Id., 2:21-25.
`
`63. The ‘770 525 Patent also describes that the “paddles 11 are mounted
`
`within recesses located on the case of the controller 10; and are disposed in
`
`close proximity to the outer surface of the controller body. In this way a
`
`user may engage the paddles 11 with the tips of the fingers, preferably the
`
`middle fingers, without compromising the user’s grip on the controller 10.
`
`Id., 3:39-44.
`
`64. Likewise, Figure 3 shows a recess on the back of the hand-held
`
`controller that joins the first handle and the second handle for receiving a
`
`user’s fingers when the user holds the first handle and the second handle.
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.) This is shown in the annotated Figure 3 below:
`
`
`First Handle
`
`Second Handle
`
`18
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`
`
`
`
`
`Recessed Portion
`
`65. Thus, in the context of the ‘770 525 Patent as a whole, I believe that a
`
`POSITA would understand that the hand-held controller of the present
`
`invention has an indentation in the back surface of the hand held controller
`
`that joins the first handle and the second handle and that this indentation
`
`receives a user’s fingers when the user holds the first handle and the second
`
`handle.
`
`66. Further, based on the teachings of the ‘770 525 Patent, a POSITA
`
`would also understand that the patentee disavowed claim scope on any
`
`recessed portion recess or any indentation other than that for receiving a
`
`user’s fingers at the back of the hand-held controller. This is true because no
`
`other “recessed potion” or “recess” was discussed in the context of the
`
`disclosed “present invention.”
`
`19
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`67. Thus, based on the specification of the ‘770 525 Patent, I believe the
`
`term “recessed portion“recess” means “an indentation in the back surface
`
`of the hand-held controller that joins the first handle and the second
`
`handle for receiving a user’s fingers.”
`
`D. “Transition Edge”
`
`68. Claim 8 recites that the “the first elongate member is positioned at or
`
`adjacent a first transition edge between the first handle and the recessed
`
`portion; and wherein the second elongate member is positioned at or
`
`adjacent a second transition edge between the second handle and the
`
`recessed portion.” (EX1011, 5:16-21.) The Institution Decision did not
`
`construe the term “transition edge.”
`
`69. Petitioner proposed construction for “transition edge” is “any region
`
`between the handle and a recessed portion.” In my opinion, this
`
`construction is incomplete because it removes the required “transition”
`
`between the handle and the recessed portion. The proper interpretation of
`
`this term must include the notion that there is transition or intersection
`
`between the first/second handle and the recessed portion.
`
`70. The specification supports this interpretation. For example, a
`
`POSITA would understand from FIG. 3 that the hand-held controller has a
`
`20
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`first transition edge between the first handle to the recessed portion and a
`
`second transition edge between the second handle and the recessed portion.
`
`An intersection defines the transition.
`
`71.
`
`A POSITA would also understand
`
`that each transition edge is a region that transitions between the handle and
`
`the recessed portion.
`
`72. For at least this reason, the broadest reasonable interpretation, in view
`
`of the specification, for the term “transition edge” is “an intersection that
`
`transitions between the handle and a recessed portion.”
`
`
`
`
`
`D. “Elongate Members Converge Towards the Front End of The
`Controller with Respect to One Another”
`68.
`
`Claim 13 recites that the “elongate
`
`members converge towards the front end of the controller with respect to
`
`one another.”
`
`69.
`
`The Institution Decision requested
`
`“that the parties further address proper interpretation of claim 13 at trial.”
`
`Paper 10 at 9. In this regard, I offer the following interpretation and
`
`construction.
`
`21
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`As an initial matter, the Institution
`
`70.
`
`Decision stated that the “claims are not limited to a specific contour of the
`
`surface of the back of the controller.” Paper 10 at 15.
`
`71.
`
`I agree that the back of the
`
`controller is not limited to a specific contour.
`
`72.
`
`For purposes of claim 13, it is my
`
`opinion that the elongate members not only converge with respect to one
`
`another, but also do so towards the front (or front end) of the controller.
`
`73.
`
`Claim 13 is supported in the
`
`specification. Specifically, the written description states that:
`
`In another embodiment, the elongate members converge
`towards the front end of the controller with respect to one
`another. EX1001, 2:5-7.
`
`74.
`
`I believe that a POSITA would
`
`readily understand that in order to converge, the elongate members must
`
`converge toward each other at one end (and not be parallel to one another).
`
`75.
`
`For example, elongate members
`
`converge when they are closer together near the top of the controller in a
`
`“snow-plow” configuration.
`
`22
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 24
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`I believe that a POSITA would
`
`76.
`
`also understand based on the claim language and the specification that in
`
`order to converge towards the front end of the controller, the elongate
`
`members must also be angled or inclined such they converge toward the
`
`front of the controller.
`
`77.
`
`For example, the elongate
`
`members converge towards the front of the controller when they flare away
`
`(from a plane of the front of the controller) from the top of the elongate
`
`members to the bottom.
`
`78.
`
`This is readily apparent from the
`
`orientation and angular positioning of the elongate members in FIG. 3 of the
`
`‘525 Patent. As shown in the annotated figure below, the red dashed lines
`
`(representing the angular positioning of the elongate members along their
`
`respective axis) converge towards the front (which is on the z-y plane) and
`
`intersects the x-axis at x1 and at an angle θ.
`
`23
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 25
`
`
`
`
`I-PPa'.10-1-6-90949
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`Patent No. 9;089,—7—"r08 641 525
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`24
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 26
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 26
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`Thus, based on the express claim
`
`79.
`
`language and the specification of the ‘525 Patent, I believe that the proper
`
`construction for the phrase “elongate members converge towards the front
`
`end of the controller with respect to one another” is “elongate members
`
`converge towards one another and toward the front of the controller.” This
`
`allows for a natural sweep of the fingers to continually contact the paddle
`
`controls.
`
`VI. THE TOSAKI REFERENCE (EX1002)
`80. Tosaki describes a steering wheel control apparatus with a
`
`fixed/thigh-held base casing to allow rotation of a steering wheel against the
`
`base. The steering wheel includes gearshift levers that are positioned and
`
`operated through arched openings. The steering wheel is integrally fixed to
`
`and rotatably supported by a steering shaft. The rotation of the steering
`
`wheel triggers the mechanical rotation of a control disk having a plurality of
`
`circumferential holes passing through a light detector photodiode to detect
`
`the rotational direction and angle of the steering wheel.
`
`81.
`
`In light of the teachings of Tosaki, it is my opinion that a POSITA
`
`would not consider Tosaki’s fixed/thigh-held control apparatus to be a hand-
`
`held controller.
`
`25
`
`IRONBURG EX2013, Page 27
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00949
`
`IPR2016-00948
`Patent No. 9,089,7708,641,525
`82. Tosaki’s Fig. 10 reproduced below illustrates a side view of the
`
`steering wheel control apparatus.
`
`
`
`83. As shown, the “back of the steering wheel control apparatus” is
`
`bottom plate 11 of the base casing 10. EX1002, 8:55-56.
`
`84.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and the Rempel Declaration took the
`
`position that the back of the steering wheel is the back of the controller. I
`
`disagree wit
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
