Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-145
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`THE ’571 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2 
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 5 
`
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5 
`
`A. 
`
`“gesture signal” (claims 1-7, 12-18, 23-29) .......................................... 8 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Immersion’s Construction Tracks the Intrinsic Record .............. 8 
`
`Apple’s Construction Is Too Broad and Vitiates the
`Meaning of “Gesture” ............................................................... 12 
`
`“dynamic interaction parameter” (claims 1, 4-7, 12, 15-18,
`23, 26-29) ............................................................................................ 14 
`
`“vector signal” (claims 2, 13, 24) ........................................................ 15 
`
`“on-screen signal” (claims 3, 14, 25) .................................................. 15 
`
`“physical model” (claims 5, 16, 27) .................................................... 16 
`
`“generating a dynamic interaction parameter using . . . an
`animation” (claims 6, 17, 28) .............................................................. 16 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`“module”/ “drive module” (claims 12, 15-18) .................................... 17 
`
`V.  GROUND 1: BURROUGH DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-7,
`12-18, AND 23-29 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ....................... 19 
`
`A. 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 1,
`12, and 23 ............................................................................................ 21 
`
`1. 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose a “First Gesture Signal”
`or a “Second Gesture Signal” ................................................... 21 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose “Generating a Dynamic
`Interaction Parameter Using the First Gesture Signal
`and the Second Gesture Signal” ................................................ 24 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose “Applying a Drive Signal
`to a Haptic Output Device According to the Dynamic
`Interaction Parameter” .............................................................. 27 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 2,
`13, and 24 (“the First or Second Gesture Signal Comprises a
`Vector Signal”) .................................................................................... 28 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 3,
`14, and 25 (“the First or Second Gesture Signal Comprises
`an On-Screen Signal”) ......................................................................... 30 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 4,
`15, and 26 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction Parameter
`from a Difference Between the First Gesture Signal and the
`Second Gesture Signal”) ..................................................................... 31 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 5,
`16, and 27 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction Parameter
`Using the First Gesture Signal and the Second Gesture Signal
`and a Physical Model”) ....................................................................... 32 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 6,
`17, and 28 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction Parameter
`Using the First Gesture Signal and the Second Gesture Signal
`and an Animation”) ............................................................................. 35 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claims 7,
`18, and 29 (Generating a Dynamic Interaction Parameter
`Based on Two Device Sensor Signals as Well as a First and
`Second Gesture Signal) ....................................................................... 37 
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 12
`(“Drive Module”) ................................................................................ 40 
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`VI.  GROUND 2: ROSENBERG ’373 DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS
`1, 2, 4-6, 12, 13, 15-18, 23, 24, AND 26-29 OBVIOUS UNDER
`PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ....................................................................... 41 
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`The Board Should Deny Institution of Grounds 2 and 3
`Because the Patent Office Considered Substantially Similar
`Material to Rosenberg ’373 During Prosecution ................................ 42 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 1, 12, and 23 ............................................................................ 45 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose “Receiving a First
`Gesture Signal” or “Receiving a Second Gesture
`Signal” ....................................................................................... 45 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose “Generating a
`Dynamic Interaction Parameter Using the First Gesture
`Signal and the Second Gesture Signal” .................................... 48 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 2, 13, and 24 (“the First or Second Gesture Signal
`Comprises a Vector Signal”) ............................................................... 50 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 4, 15, and 26 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction
`Parameter From a Difference Between the First Gesture
`Signal and the Second Gesture Signal”) ............................................. 52 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 5, 16, and 27 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction
`Parameter Using the First Gesture Signal and the Second
`Gesture Signal and a Physical Model”) .............................................. 53 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 6, 17, and 28 (“Generating a Dynamic Interaction
`Parameter Using the First Gesture Signal and the Second
`Gesture Signal and an Animation”) .................................................... 53 
`
`G. 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`Claims 7, 18, and 29 (Generating a Dynamic Interaction
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Parameter Based on Two Device Sensor Signals as Well as a
`First and Second Gesture Signal) ........................................................ 54 
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`H. 
`
`Rosenberg ’373 Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim
`12 ......................................................................................................... 58 
`
`VII.  GROUND 3: THE COMBINATION OF ROSENBERG ’373 AND
`ROSENBERG ’846 DOES NOT RENDER CLAIMS 3, 14, AND
`25 OBVIOUS UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ................................ 58 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`Cases 
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 35
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 18
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Michelle K. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 14
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper No. 19 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013) ...................... 42
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 18
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ................................................................. 37, 56
`
`Microboards Tech., LLC d/b/a Afinia v. Stratasys Inc.,
`IPR2015-00287, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ...................... 43
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 18
`
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper No. 14 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2014) ......................... 43
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 2, 32
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Statutes 
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................... 42, 45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b ........................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2001
`Immersion
`Ex. 2002
`Immersion
`Ex. 2003
`Immersion
`Ex. 2004
`Immersion
`Ex. 2005
`Immersion
`Ex. 2006
`Immersion
`Ex. 2007
`Immersion
`Ex. 2008
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Declaration of Yon Visell, Ph.D. in Support of Immersion
`Corporation’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gesture?s=t
`(last visited Oct. 11, 2016)
`August 2, 2012 Applicant Remarks in Prosecution of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,279,193
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0279392
`(Rosenberg ’392)
`July 19, 2012 Non-Final Rejection in Prosecution of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,279,193
`May 16, 2012 Original Claims in Prosecution of U.S. Patent No.
`8,279,193
`Curriculum Vitae of Yon Visell, Ph.D.
`
`Oct. 11, 2016 Joint Proposed Claim Construction Chart submitted
`by Apple, Immersion, and OUII Staff in ITC Investigation Nos.
`337-TA-990 and 337-TA-1004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. did not submit a statement of material facts in this
`
`Petition. Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no
`
`facts are admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Patent Owner Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) submits that the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) should deny the petition for inter partes review
`
`(“Petition”) submitted by Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and not institute inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 (Ex. 1001, the “’571 patent”) for at
`
`least two independent reasons.
`
`First, the Petition fails to establish that Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. US 2010/0156818 (“Burrough”) or the other two prior art
`
`references submitted by Apple, Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 (“Rosenberg
`
`’373”); and Ex. 1006, U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 (“Rosenberg ’846”), disclose or
`
`render obvious the challenged claims of the ’571 patent. Apple particularly fails to
`
`demonstrate the obviousness of the claim limitations “receiving a first gesture
`
`signal,” “receiving a second gesture signal,” and “generating a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter using the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal” as recited in
`
`independent claims 1, 12, and 23. The Petition repeatedly attempts to read out
`
`these critical limitations from the claims by referring to snippets of raw position
`
`data at particular points in time and calling those fragments “gesture signals.” The
`
`Petition should be denied and trial should not be instituted on this basis alone.
`
`Second, although all grounds identified in the Petition are obviousness rather
`
`than anticipation, the Petition addresses obviousness in only a conclusory fashion,
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`without identifying any prior art teaching that would lead a person of ordinary skill
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`in the art to arrive at the inventions claimed in the ’571 patent. For example,
`
`Apple’s primary prior art reference repeatedly teaches, at best, that only a single
`
`gesture signal is used to contribute to a haptic effect. Nevertheless, the Petition
`
`argues the claims of the ’571 patent are obvious under that reference, when instead
`
`the ’571 patent claims require a different system where both a first and a second
`
`gesture signal are used to generate a dynamic interaction parameter. Apple’s
`
`obviousness analysis is also flawed because it is performed on a claim limitation
`
`by claim limitation basis, as opposed to analyzing obviousness of the claim as a
`
`whole. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a
`
`whole, not separate pieces of the claim.”). The Petition should also be denied for
`
`this reason.
`
`As explained in further detail below, and in the supporting declaration of
`
`Professor Yon Visell, Ex. 2001, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`found the challenged claims obvious under the cited prior art. Thus, the Board
`
`should deny institution of inter partes review on all three proposed grounds.
`
`II. THE ’571 PATENT
`The ’571 patent is entitled “Interactivity Model for Shared Feedback on
`
`Mobile Devices.” The ’571 patent is directed to a novel way of producing haptic
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`effects in electronic devices. The fundamental insight that is described and
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`claimed in the ’571 patent is to track and analyze gesture signals to provide more
`
`compelling haptic feedback in response to a user’s input. Ex. 1001 at 1:49-62.
`
`Reflecting this focus, the claims specify that both a first and a second gesture
`
`signal (each based on a user’s gestural inputs) are used to generate something
`
`called a “dynamic interaction parameter.” Id. at claim 1 (“receiving a first gesture
`
`signal; receiving a second gesture signal; generating a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter using the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal”). The
`
`claims require more than a single gesture signal to form the dynamic interaction
`
`parameter.
`
`The dynamic interaction parameter is meant to accurately and responsively
`
`track the user’s behavior. As such, the dynamic interaction parameter changes or
`
`reacts in real time to the user’s interactions, and is used to alter the haptic effects
`
`produced by the device. This allows the device to provide responsive haptic
`
`feedback to the user. Ex. 1001 at 1:29-33 (“[V]ibrotactile haptic effects . . . may
`
`be useful in providing cues to users of electronic devices to alert the user to
`
`specific events, or provide realistic feedback to create greater sensory immersion
`
`within a simulated or virtual environment.”). The approach of the ’571 patent is an
`
`improvement over the prior art because it can improve the timing and/or nature of
`
`haptic feedback: “[B]ecause these user gestures and system animations have
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`variable timing, the correlation to haptic feedback [in the prior art] may be static
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`and inconsistent and therefore less compelling to the user.” Id. at 1:49-56.
`
`Other ingredients may be used in addition to a first gesture signal and a
`
`second gesture signal to generate the dynamic interaction parameter. For example,
`
`additional device sensor signals may be used. Id. at claim 7. Using these
`
`additional ingredients is another improvement over the prior art. E.g., id. at 1:56-
`
`60 (“Further, device sensor information is typically not used in combination with
`
`gestures to produce haptic feedback.”). The various ingredients may be combined
`
`and processed in several different ways to generate the dynamic interaction
`
`parameter. E.g., id. at Table 2 (listing 14 different example “methods of synthesis”
`
`that may be employed). The challenged claims require specific ingredients in
`
`specific numbers to be used to generate the dynamic interaction parameter. E.g.,
`
`id. at claim 7 (“receiving a first device sensor signal; receiving a second device
`
`sensor signal; and wherein generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises
`
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and the
`
`second gesture signal and the first device sensor signal and the second device
`
`sensor signal”).
`
`Once the dynamic interaction parameter has been generated using a first
`
`gesture signal, a second gesture signal, and potentially other ingredients, it is used
`
`to modify the haptic output of the system. Id. at 15:8-9 (“At 1313, a drive signal is
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`applied to a haptic actuator according to the interaction parameter.”); claim 1
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`(“applying a drive signal to a haptic output device according to the dynamic
`
`interaction parameter”). For example, in one embodiment, a user may scroll
`
`between different film frames on an electronic device with a touchscreen, and may
`
`receive haptic feedback for that interaction. Id. at 13:56-61.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art for the field of the ’571 patent would
`
`have at least: (1) a Bachelor’s of Science degree in an engineering discipline such
`
`as Mechanical Engineering or Computer Science, or (2) at least two years of
`
`experience working with human machine interface systems, graphical user
`
`interfaces, haptic feedback systems, robotics, biomechanics, or mobile devices or
`
`equivalent embedded systems. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 24. The conclusions regarding claim
`
`construction and validity contained herein would be the same regardless of whether
`
`Immersion’s or Apple’s proposed level of skill is adopted by the Board. Id. at ¶
`
`25.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During inter partes review, claims are given their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Michelle
`
`K. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2133 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The standard for
`
`claim construction at the Patent Office is different from that used during a U.S.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`District Court litigation. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Immersion expressly reserves the
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`right to argue a different claim construction in litigation for any term of the ’571
`
`patent, as appropriate in that proceeding.
`
`Apple has proposed seven different claim constructions. See Petition at 7-
`
`12. Apple’s overall approach to claim construction is seriously deficient for at
`
`least three separate reasons.
`
`First, in many situations neither Apple nor its expert alleges that the
`
`supposed “constructions” that it wants Immersion to “be held to” are the proper
`
`broadest reasonable construction that should be applied in this proceeding. See id.
`
`at 12 (refusing to state whether its proposed constructions constitute “an
`
`interpretation of the claims under the ‘broadest reasonable construction’ standard
`
`and/or under the Immersion’s [sic] infringement contentions and technical
`
`domestic industry contentions in the ITC Investigation”); id. at 9 (stating that
`
`Apple does not agree with the construction of “dynamic interaction parameter” that
`
`it asks the Board to adopt); id. at 10 (stating that “on-screen signal” and “physical
`
`model” should be construed “[b]ased on Immersion’s public contentions” but not
`
`arguing that those constructions are the broadest reasonable constructions); Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 46 (improperly basing proposed constructions “on the Immersion’s [sic]
`
`apparent belief about the scope of the claim terms” rather than the evidence
`
`applicable to the ’571 patent). Apple cites no authority for the proposition that a
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`claim construction that is not the broadest reasonable construction should be
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`applied.
`
`Second, in many situations Apple has not provided any claim construction at
`
`all, and instead has made arguments about what should be “encompassed” within a
`
`claim term. These arguments about what is “encompassed” within a term are not
`
`proper claim constructions at all. They do not provide any clarity to the Board
`
`about the actual meaning of a claim term.
`
`Third, Apple relies on Immersion’s claim charts in an ongoing ITC
`
`investigation to contend that Immersion has taken certain claim construction
`
`positions that it should be held to before the Board. This is improper. The claim
`
`charts do not purport to set forth a claim construction of any term, and no claim
`
`construction has yet been endorsed by the ITC. What Apple presents as the
`
`“constructions” in the charts are instead Apple’s speculations about what
`
`assumptions it thinks the charts must be making.
`
`Apple’s faulty claim constructions should be rejected, and Apple’s
`
`substantive arguments for obviousness should therefore be rejected as well due to
`
`the reliance on incorrect claim constructions. In addition to these global
`
`deficiencies, Immersion addresses the individual constructions below and provides
`
`its proposed claim constructions. Immersion may propose additional terms for
`
`construction in future filings.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`A.
`
`“gesture signal” (claims 1-7, 12-18, 23-29)
`1.
`The broadest reasonable construction of the term “gesture signal” in view of
`
`Immersion’s Construction Tracks the Intrinsic Record
`
`the relevant evidence is “an electronic signal, representing a recognized movement
`
`of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.” Immersion’s proposed
`
`construction is supported by every level of the claim construction hierarchy: the
`
`plain meaning, the specification, the prosecution history, and the relevant extrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
`To begin, the plain meaning of “gesture signal” suggests that it must be
`
`related to a user’s gesture. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 38.
`
`Additionally, the specification describes a “gesture” as a “movement of the
`
`body that conveys meaning or user intent.” Ex. 1001 at 3:34-35 (emphasis
`
`added); see also 3:56-59 (“A gesture can also be any form of hand movement
`
`recognized by a device having an accelerometer, gyroscope, or other motion
`
`sensor, and converted to electronic signals.”) (emphasis added). The specification
`
`thus refers to: the movement of the body; the movement conveys meaning or user
`
`intent; the device recognizes the movement; and the recognized movement is
`
`converted to electronic signals. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 39.
`
`The specification uniformly refers to full body movements—and specifically
`
`to hand movements over a period of time—as producing a gesture signal:
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`It will be recognized that simple gestures may be combined to form
`more complex gestures. For example, bringing a finger into contact
`with a touch sensitive surface may be referred to as a “finger on”
`gesture, while removing a finger from a touch sensitive surface may
`be referred to as a separate “finger off” gesture. If the time between
`the “finger on” and “finger off” gestures is relatively short, the
`combined gesture may be referred to as “tapping” . . . .
`
`Id. at 3:36-52; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 40. This comports with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “gesture.”
`
`Importantly, the specification discloses that there are movements of the body
`
`and/or the hand that are not full gestures and could not comprise an entire gesture
`
`signal. Id. at ¶ 41. This depends on the implementation of a particular system.
`
`For example, in one embodiment disclosed in the specification, swiping a finger
`
`across a touch screen does produce multiple position signals (i.e., “device sensor
`
`signals”) from the touchscreen hardware at different times, but those position
`
`signals are together the constituents of a single “swipe” gesture:
`
`Multiple inputs from the index finger are received from the single
`gesture. Each of the multiple inputs may occur at a different time and
`may indicate a different two dimensional position of the contact point
`of the index finger with the touch sensitive display.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1001 at 10:36-43 (emphasis added); see also id. at 14:18-22 (a single “scrolling
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`gesture” is detected based on moving a finger across the touchscreen over time).
`
`See also Ex. 2001 at ¶ 41.
`
`The common element to these embodiments disclosed in the specification is
`
`that the gestures that are recognized by a given system and encapsulated in the
`
`claimed “gesture signals” depend on how the system is programmed and
`
`designed. Id. at ¶¶ 42-43. The specification discloses that it is possible to develop
`
`a system that recognizes separate “finger on” and “finger off” gestures and has no
`
`concept of “compound” gestures. Ex. 1001 at 3:34-62. Similarly, a different
`
`system could use the same hardware as the first, could be manipulated with the
`
`same user hand movements, and could process the same underlying sensor signals
`
`from the touchscreen, but instead may be configured to recognize only a “swiping”
`
`gesture. Id. at 3:37-52 (explaining that “finger on” and “finger off” gestures could
`
`be interpreted as a single, more complex gestures such as “tapping,” “long
`
`tapping,” “swiping,” “smearing,” “smudging,” or “flicking”); 14:18-22 (describing
`
`a single “scrolling gesture” that implicitly involves subsidiary “finger on,” “finger
`
`off,” and “swipe” actions). If the software in this different system is not equipped
`
`to track and package the underlying sensor signals into distinct “finger on” and
`
`“finger off” gestures, then the system does not detect a “gesture signal” for those
`
`gestures. Immersion’s proposed construction preserves this important aspect of the
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`claimed “gesture signals” by requiring the signals to represent a recognized
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`movement of the body. Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 42-43.
`
`The prosecution history also supports Immersion’s construction. The
`
`distinction between position information and a gesture signal was made by the
`
`applicant during prosecution. See Ex. 2003 at 9 (August 2, 2012 Applicant
`
`Remarks in prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,279,193, a prior patent in the same
`
`family as the ’571 patent) (“[Prior art reference raised by the examiner] Marvit
`
`describes gestures in the context of motion sensor engagement for a handheld
`
`device. For example, input movement may be in the form of translation and/or
`
`gestures. Translation-based input focuses on a beginning point and endpoint of a
`
`motion and difference between such beginning points and endpoints.”) (emphasis
`
`added). A translation-based input (i.e., a change in position over time captured by
`
`sensors) is not necessarily a gesture. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 44.
`
`Immersion’s proposed construction is also consistent with the use of the
`
`term “gesture” in the art of human-computer interaction, where it represents a
`
`movement of the body that expresses a full interaction with or command to a
`
`device. See Ex. 2002 at 1 (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gesture?s=t)
`
`(“gesture . . . 4. Digital Technology. a particular movement of the body, typically
`
`the fingers or hand, used to control or interact with a digital device (often used
`
`attributively): a gesture command; Use a two-finger pinching gesture on your
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`touchscreen to zoom in or out.”); Ex. 2001 at ¶ 45.
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Professor Visell also explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that a “gesture signal” in the context of the ’571 patent would refer to
`
`“an electronic signal, representing a recognized movement of the body that
`
`conveys meaning or user intent.” Electronic devices typically include haptic
`
`feedback that is triggered once a gesture has been recognized. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s Construction Is Too Broad and Vitiates the
`Meaning of “Gesture”
`
`Apple’s construction of gesture signal (“a signal indicating user interaction
`
`with a user interface device”) is too broad. First, it is not limited to a movement of
`
`the hand, or even the body. Id. at ¶ 46. For example, a user could “interact” with a
`
`“user interface device” via electrodes attached to the scalp that measure voltage
`
`fluctuations resulting from ionic current within the neurons of the brain (i.e., using
`
`electroencephalography (EEG) to measure thoughts). Ex. 1001 at 11:13, 11:29.
`
`The ’571 patent does not contemplate referring to that as a “gesture.” Even the
`
`section of the specification that Apple hangs its proposed construction on (Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:35-36) requires a gesture to at least be a “movement of the body.”
`
`Apple’s proposed construction goes beyond that to encompass any user interaction,
`
`including interactions that do not involve hand or body movement. The claim term
`
`is “gesture signal,” not “interaction signal.”
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Second, Apple’s proposed construction does not require that the gesture
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`signal correspond to a particular recognized gesture—i.e. to an action that
`
`demonstrates “meaning or user intent.” Ex. 1001 at 3:35-36 (“A gesture is any
`
`movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.”); Ex. 2001 at ¶ 47.
`
`There is no linkage in Apple’s construction to any distinct expressed user intent or
`
`to the recognition of a gesture. Compare Ex. 1001 at 3:56-59 (gesture is
`
`“recognized by a device” and “converted to electronic signals”).
`
`Third, Apple’s proposed construction conflates a “device sensor signal,”
`
`which is separately described and claimed (e.g., id. at claim 7) with a “gesture
`
`signal.” Id. at ¶ 48. There are many user interactions that could result in a “device
`
`sensor signal” that would also qualify as a “gesture signal” under Apple’s
`
`construction, but which have no direct relationship to a purposeful, gestural
`
`movement of the body. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 11:11-14 (device sensor signals that
`
`are based on some form of user interaction include, in addition to EEG signals,
`
`“any type of bio monitor such as skin or body temperature, blood pressure (BP),
`
`heart rate monitor (HRM), . . . or galvanic skin response (GSR)”).
`
`Fourth, Apple’s construction effectively eliminates the requirement for both
`
`a “first gesture signal” and a “second gesture signal” to be received. E.g., id. at
`
`claim 1. The sections for Burrough and Rosenberg ’373 in this preliminary
`
`response provide more details. Apple is reading the claims of the ’571 patent on
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`systems that detect only a single user gesture (if any gesture at all). See also Ex.
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`2001 at ¶ 49.
`
`The effect of Apple’s proposed construction, therefore, is essentially to read
`
`out “gesture signal” from the claim language and replace it with “interaction
`
`signal.” Ex. 2001 at ¶ 50. This approach directly contradicts the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history, as well as the relevant extrinsic
`
`evidence. The challenged claims use “gesture signals” that correspond to
`
`recognized movements of the body. Immersion’s proposed construction of
`
`“gesture signal” should be adopted, and Apple’s proposed construction should be
`
`rejected. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(The Board should not “construe claims during IPR so broadly that its
`