`
`
`
`
`
`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