`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`THE INVENTION OF THE '571 PATENT ................................................ 2
`
`III. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6, 23-26 AND 28 ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`OVER BURROUGH .................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose Claims 1 and 23 Because
`Two Gesture Signals Are Not Used To Form A Single
`Dynamic Interaction Parameter .......................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Burrough does not teach generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter using a first gesture signal and a second gesture
`signal ........................................................................................ 5
`
`Dr. Baudisch’s new argument that multiple Tinfo signals could
`constitute the claimed gesture signals is inaccurate .............. 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose Claim 1 Because It Does
`Not Teach “Generating” a "Dynamic Interaction
`Parameter" ........................................................................................ 20
`
`Burrough Does Not Render Obvious Claim 1 Because
`There Is No Evidence a POSITA Would Have Modified
`Burrough ........................................................................................... 24
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious Claim 2
`Because the Supposed “Gesture Signals” of Claim 1 Do
`Not Include Magnitude And Direction ............................................ 25
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 29
`
`10180235
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple,
`Slip Op. 16-1174 ................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`10180235
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2001
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2002
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2003
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2004
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2005
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2006
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2007
`Immersion
`Ex. 2008
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2009
`Immersion
`Ex. 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Yon Visell, Ph.D. in Support of Immersion
`Corporation’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response, dated
`October 13, 2016
`
`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
`
`Declaration of Yon Visell, Ph.D., dated May 31, 2017
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Patrick M. Baudisch
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Patent Owner Immersion Corporation (“Immersion” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`submits this Response to the Board’s Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`(Paper 7) (“Decision”), entered January 11, 2017 to institute Inter Partes Review
`
`of United States Patent No. 8,659,571 (“the '571 patent”) filed by Apple, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”).
`
`The ’571 claims recite applying a drive signal to a haptic output device
`
`according to a dynamic interaction parameter. The dynamic interaction parameter
`
`is generated using a first gesture signal and a second gesture signal. The Board
`
`determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-4, 6, 23-26 and 28
`
`of the ’571 patent were obvious over Burrough.
`
`Burrough discloses a system where signals S are generated by a sensing
`
`device. Each signal S merely represents a position of a finger (e.g. x/y position) at
`
`a moment in time. These S signals are what Petitioner points to as the first and
`
`second gesture signals. However, this mapping is at odds with the Board’s
`
`construction of “gesture signal” as “a signal indicating a movement of the body
`
`that conveys meaning or user intent.” See Institution Decision at 12. In particular,
`
`each signal S does not indicate a movement of the body that conveys meaning or
`
`user intent, because an x/y position, standing alone in Burrough’s system, does not
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`include sufficient information from which to discern a meaning or user intent.
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert admitted that a user action such as touching the screen
`
`with two fingers (thus generating two of the signals S Petitioner points to as the
`
`gesture signals) does not constitute a gesture unless the intent can be clearly
`
`discerned. Ex. 2010 at 50:20-24 (explaining that moving a cursor may not be a
`
`gesture because "[i]t's not clear what the intent is"). Because the signals S that
`
`Petitioner points to do not indicate a movement of the body that conveys meaning
`
`or user intent in Burrough’s system, they cannot constitute the claimed gesture
`
`signals. Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 34-47.
`
`Furthermore, Burrough does not disclose "generating" the dynamic
`
`interaction parameter based on the statements of Petitioner’s own expert.
`
`Petitioner points to the haptic profile H(d) as the supposed dynamic interaction
`
`parameter, but Burrough clearly teaches that H(d) is stored in memory and
`
`retrieved from a database, and thus not “generated.” Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 53-60.
`
`II. THE INVENTION OF THE '571 PATENT
`
`The ‘571 patent is directed to a novel way of producing haptic effects in
`
`electronic devices. Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 29-32 As noted in the Background of the ‘571
`
`patent “[t]raditional architectures that provide haptic feedback only with triggered
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`effects are available, and must be carefully designed to make sure the timing of the
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`haptic feedback is correlated to user initiated gestures or system animations.
`
`However, because these user gestures and system animations have variable timing,
`
`the correlation to haptic feedback may be static and inconsistent and therefore less
`
`compelling to the user.” Ex. 1001 at 1:49-56; Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 31-32. The ‘571
`
`patent discloses a dynamic haptic effect that is created using an interaction
`
`parameter. Ex. 1001, 10:22-26. The interaction parameter is generated with
`
`gesture signals. Ex. 1001, 15:3-7. A drive signal is then applied to a haptic output
`
`device in accordance with the interaction parameter. Ex. 1001, 15:8-9, Fig. 14. By
`
`way of example, the interaction parameter can be synthesized with one of the
`
`methods shown in Table 2 reproduced below.
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`The interaction parameter is dynamic which provides the following
`
`advantages:
`
`
`
`The effect of providing or modifying a dynamic haptic effect in real-
`time during and even after a user gesture is that no two gestures such
`as page turns or finger swipes will feel the same to the user. That is,
`the dynamic haptic effect will always be unique to the user gesture,
`thereby creating a greater sense [of] connectedness to the device and
`more compelling user interface experience for the user as compared to
`a simple static haptic effect provided by a trigger event.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:62-11:3.
`
`Claim 1 recites:
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`1.
`
`A method for producing a haptic effect comprising:
`
`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; and
`
`applying a drive signal to a haptic output device according to the dynamic
`
`interaction parameter.
`
`III. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6, 23-26 AND 28 ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`OVER BURROUGH
`
`A. Burrough Does Not Disclose Claims 1 and 23 Because Two
`Gesture Signals Are Not Used To Form A Single Dynamic
`Interaction Parameter
`
`1.
`
`Burrough does not teach generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter using a first gesture signal and a second gesture signal
`
`Claim 1 requires “generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first
`
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal”—in other words, the dynamic
`
`interaction parameter must be generated using both “a first gesture signal” and “a
`
`second gesture signal.” The dynamic interaction parameter is then used to provide
`
`a haptic output. See Ex. 1001 at Claim 1 (“applying a drive signal to a haptic
`
`output device according to the dynamic interaction parameter”).
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`The Board construed the term gesture signal as "a signal indicating a
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent." Decision at 12.
`
`Inserting this construction for gesture signal into the claims, the dynamic
`
`interaction parameter must be generated with a first signal indicating a movement
`
`of the body that conveys meaning or user intent and a separate second signal
`
`indicating a movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent. That is, a
`
`single haptic output must be based on a first signal that conveys meaning or user
`
`intent and a separate second signal that conveys meaning or a user intent.
`
`Petitioner points to “signal(s) S,” which are “signals representing each touch
`
`on the touch screen” (Paper 7 at 25) as the claimed first and second gesture signals.
`
`In particular, Burrough teaches:
`
`In response to the pressure applied by the user during touch event T,
`sensing device 124 generates touch signal S1 (and any other signal
`consistent with a multi-touch event). Touch signal S1 can be
`monitored by an electronic interface (not shown) and passed to
`processor 106. Processor 106, in turn, can convert the number,
`combination and frequency of the signal(s) S into Touch information
`Tinfo that can include location, direction, speed and acceleration
`information of touch event T.
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46. This portion of Burrough teaches that for each touch in a multi-
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`touch event, a signal S is generated. For instance, in a single-finger touch event,
`
`signal S1 would be generated at a moment in time to reflect the one-finger touch.
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶ 36. For a two-finger touch event, both signals S1 and S2 would be
`
`generated at a moment in time to reflect the two-finger touch. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 36.
`
`This is confirmed by Burrough’s disclosure that sensing device 14 produces “an
`
`electrical signal . . . each time a finger (or other appropriate object) passes a
`
`sensor.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 42. In other words, each signal (such as signals S1, S2,
`
`etc.) is a representation of a finger passing a sensor at a given moment in time. Ex.
`
`2009 at ¶ 36. When these signals are considered collectively, information such as
`
`speed and direction can be determined. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 36; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 42 (“the
`
`more signals, the more the user moved his or her finger”); Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46
`
`(“Processor 106 . . . can convert the number, combination and frequency of the
`
`signal(s) S into touch information Tinfo that can include location, direction, speed
`
`and acceleration information of touch event T.”). But taken in isolation, each
`
`signal S1 and S2 merely indicates that a finger has passed a sensor on sensing
`
`device 124 at a particular moment in time. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 42, 46; Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶ 36.
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`The “signal(s) S” such as S1, S2, etc., representing each touch at a moment
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`in time as applied to the zoom embodiment of Burrough are what Petitioner maps
`
`to the gesture signals in Petitioner’s claim 1 analysis. For instance, Petitioner
`
`specifically equates the two signals S1 and S2 resulting from sensing device 124
`
`and representing two different touches as a first gesture signal and second gesture
`
`signal respectively. Pet. at 15-16 (quoting Ex. 1005 at explaining that “touch
`
`signal S1” is a “gesture signal”); id. at 16 (explaining that in “a multi-touch zoom
`
`gesture,” “sensing device 124 generates signals representing each touch on the
`
`touchscreen,” and that “a POSITA would understand that the sensing device
`
`generates a first gesture signal representing one of the two fingers on the touch
`
`screen, and a second gesture signal representing the other finger on the
`
`touchscreen”). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Baudisch, confirms that the only signals he
`
`points to as the “first gesture signal” and “second gesture signal” come from
`
`sensing device 124. Ex. 2010 at 16:9-12 (agreeing that “the gesture signals then
`
`are created by sensing device 124”).
`
`Petitioner’s contention that signals S1 and S2 in a multi-touch zoom gesture
`
`are the claimed “first gesture signal” and “second gesture signal” is unfounded,
`
`because neither of the S1 or S2 signals is a “signal indicating a movement of the
`
`body that conveys meaning or user intent.” Each of S1 and S2 is merely an
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`indication that a user object (such as a finger) has come into contact with a sensor
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`at a particular moment in time. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 38.
`
`Petitioner’s expert admits that a single indication that a finger has contacted
`
`a screen at a particular location (such as that provided by S1 or S2) is not an
`
`indication of intent in Burrough’s zoom gesture embodiment. See Ex. 2010 at
`
`43:17-44:15 (explaining that intent is only determined once the distance between
`
`two fingers can be understood as increasing or decreasing). The fact that
`
`individual senses of touch (such as S1 and S2) do not convey meaning or user
`
`intent is confirmed by Figure 11 of Burrough. Figure 11, reproduced below, is a
`
`flow-chart “diagram of a zoom gesture method” (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 79)—the same
`
`embodiment that Petitioner relies upon for obviousness. See, e.g., Pet. at 16.
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 11
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`111210
`
`the presence efet
`least a first finger
`and a second finger
`
`1102
`
`an: deleeled
`
`
`I: e presence affine
`twn fingers. represents
`a gestm'e
`
`
`
`HEM-
`
`ltsptit: devices nearest the
`touch point an: set to eclin
`made in antler to provide a
`vibrataetile
`
`distanee between at least the
`
`hm fingers is emnpered
`
`Distance increasing?
`
`
`
`1114
`
`
`
`111$
`
`
`
`Generate mum in signal
`
`Generate 2mm trut signal
`
`
`
`
`Generate mum in haptie
`signal
`
`Generate zoom out haptie
`signal
`
`
`
`10180235
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Figure 11 shows that the process does not begin until the presence of a first
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`finger and the presence of a second finger is detected. Such a detection would
`
`generate at least two signals (e.g., an S1 signal and an S2 signal). Ex. 2009 at ¶ 40;
`
`Ex. 2010 at 36:10-13 (agreeing that “when two fingers touch a screen, . . . there
`
`must be more than one S1 signal being produced”). Accordingly, for Burrough's
`
`system to even begin the decision flow to determine whether a zoom in or zoom
`
`out gesture may occur, at least two signals S must be generated by sensing device
`
`124. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 40.
`
`After the presence of two fingers is detected (as a result of two separate
`
`signals S1 and S2 detected simultaneously), the distance between the two fingers is
`
`compared in step 1108. This step likewise requires a comparison between two S
`
`signals—the position associated with a first signal S1 can be compared with the
`
`position of a second signal S2 to calculate a distance. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 41; see Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶ 42 (“an electrical signal is produced each time a finger (or other
`
`appropriate object) passes a sensor”).
`
`Then, in step 1110, the process determines whether the distance between
`
`fingers is increasing or decreasing. Because movement for each finger is
`
`represented by multiple signals S, the determination of whether distance is
`
`increasing or decreasing would require knowing even more signals S. Ex. 2009 at
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`¶ 42; see also Ex. 1005 at ¶ 42 (explaining that multiple signals need to be
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`examined to determine the distance a user moved a single finger—“the more
`
`signals, the more the user moved his or her finger”). For example, if S1 and S2
`
`represent a first distance at a first moment in time, and S3 and S4 represent a
`
`second distance at a second moment in time, the system can compare the two
`
`distance values to determine whether the distance is increasing or decreasing.
`
`This step 1110, which determines whether the distance is increasing or
`
`decreasing, makes the determination regarding user intent, because it determines
`
`whether a zoom in or a zoom out signal should be generated. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 43;
`
`Fig. 11 (showing step 1110 branching between two options—“Generate zoom in
`
`signal” 1112 and “Generate zoom out signal” 1114). The user intent of zooming in
`
`or zooming out in Burrough cannot be determined by a single data point (such as
`
`S1 or S2) provided by just one of the fingers—information from numerous signals
`
`S must be considered together. Accordingly, one signal S1 (and even two signals
`
`S1 and S2) cannot indicate a movement of a body that conveys meaning or user
`
`intent in Burrough's zoom gesture. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 43.
`
`Petitioner does not explain how each individual signal, such as S1 or S2,
`
`could supposedly constitute a gesture signal in the zoom gesture embodiment of
`
`Burrough. Indeed, the fact that each individual S signal does not indicate a
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent is further confirmed by
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Petitioner’s own expert, Dr. Baudisch. He agreed that in Burrough’s zoom gesture
`
`embodiment, no conclusion about user intent to zoom in or zoom out can be made
`
`until step 1110 in Figure 11, which considers the position of at least two fingers
`
`over some time period:
`
`But the main decision in figure 11 seems to be shown in figure—in
`1110, where it’s actually checking if the distance is increasing or
`decreasing. That certainly is a point at which the system, you know,
`seems to draw conclusions about user intent, which is whether to
`zoom in or zoom out.
`
`Ex. 2010 at 43:17-44:15. Accordingly, based upon Dr. Baudisch's own testimony,
`
`even looking at two S signals simultaneously is insufficient to indicate a movement
`
`of the body that conveys meaning or user intent in Burrough’s zoom embodiment.
`
`Rather, a greater number of S signals must be examined over time before that
`
`intent can be determined. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 44.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Baudisch admitted that there are instances in Burrough
`
`where placing two fingers on the screen simultaneously conveys an entirely
`
`different intent than an intent to zoom. For instance, Burrough teaches that “a first
`
`object can be dragged with one finger while a second object can be dragged with
`
`another finger.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 45. Dr. Baudisch admits that these are two
`- 13 -
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`simultaneously occurring gestures. Ex. 2010 at 52:14-22. Accordingly, even
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`looking at two individual S1 and S2 signals, indicating that there are two fingers
`
`touching the screen, is insufficient to determine that any sort of zoom will be
`
`initiated—other gestures, such as dragging objects across the screen, could also be
`
`possible. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 45.
`
`Because each S signal cannot individually indicate a movement of the body
`
`that conveys a meaning or user intent in Burrough's zoom gesture embodiment, it
`
`is clear that each S signal is not a "gesture signal" as the term was construed by the
`
`Board. Petitioner may argue, however, that each signal S still conveys some
`
`meaning or user intent, even if it does not necessarily convey an intent to zoom.
`
`This argument, however, is contradicted by Dr. Baudisch, who testified that even a
`
`movement of a finger across a screen (which would generate numerous signals S
`
`over time) might not indicate a movement of the body that conveys meaning or
`
`user intent. For instance, he stated that “moving a cursor with [a] finger” may not
`
`be a gesture because “[i]t’s not clear what the intent is.” Ex. 2010 at 50:18-51:2.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s own expert admits that meaning or user intent must be
`
`discernable for a gesture to occur, and that not every signal S (or even a series of
`
`signals S over time) allows meaning or user intent to be discerned. Petitioner has
`
`not identified any meaning or intent that would be conveyed by a single signal S in
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`Burrough's zoom embodiment, and a POSITA would not understand these signals
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`to individually convey meaning or user intent. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 46.
`
`Finally, the portion of Burrough which the Board relied upon in the
`
`Institution Decision does not contradict the understanding that the signal(s) S are
`
`not the claimed gesture signals. In particular, the Board correctly recognized that
`
`Burrough teaches that it is capable of recognizing "at least two substantially
`
`simultaneously occurring gestures using at least two different fingers or other
`
`object[s]." Decision at 25. This passage, however, does not support Petitioner’s
`
`contention that each signal representing a touch in Burrough’s zoom embodiment
`
`is a separate gesture signal. Rather, it simply indicates that, in the event the user
`
`performs two separate gestures with two separate intents simultaneously, Burrough
`
`can recognize those gestures. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 47. For example, Burrough teaches
`
`that “a first object can be dragged with one finger while a second object can be
`
`dragged with another finger.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 45. As Petitioner’s own expert
`
`admits, these are two simultaneously occurring gestures. Ex. 2010 at 52:14-22;
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶ 47. Accordingly, the portion of Burrough that teaches that two
`
`separate gestures can occur simultaneously does not indicate that Burrough’s zoom
`
`embodiment is comprised of two separate gestures, and certainly does not indicate
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`that each particular S signal such as S1 or S2 indicates a movement of the body
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`that conveys meaning or user intent.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Baudisch’s new argument that multiple Tinfo signals could
`constitute the claimed gesture signals is inaccurate
`
`In the Petition and in the declaration of Dr. Baudisch, Petitioner pointed to only
`
`the “signal(s) S” generated by sensing device 124 as constituting the first and
`
`second gesture signals. Pet. 15-16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57-62. As explained above, these
`
`signals indicate only that a user’s finger has passed a sensor at a particular moment
`
`in time, and do not indicate a movement of the body that conveys meaning or user
`
`intent in Burrough’s zoom embodiment. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 48.
`
`After being questioned about the signals S generated by sensing device 124, it
`
`became clear that Dr. Baudisch sought to change his position with respect to what
`
`constitutes Burrough’s gesture signals. During his deposition, Dr. Baudisch was
`
`instructed to read from Paragraph 46 of Burrough, which recites in relevant part:
`
`In the simplest case, a touch event T is initiated each time an
`
`object, such as a user's finger, is placed on upper surface 126 over, or
`in close proximity to, sensing region 128. Pressure generated by touch
`event T is transmitted through protective layer 120 at sensing region
`128 to sensing device 124. In response to the pressure applied by the
`user during touch event T, sensing device 124 generates touch signal
`S1 (and any other signal consistent with a multi-touch event). Touch
`- 16 -
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`signal S1 can be monitored by an electronic interface (not shown) and
`passed to processor 106. Processor 106, in turn, can convert the
`number, combination and frequency of the signal(s) S into touch
`information Tinfo that can include location, direction, speed and
`acceleration information of touch event T. Processor 106 can then
`pass touch information Tinfo to micro-controller 132.
`
`Ex. 2010 at 16:4-25; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46.
`
`After reading this portion of Burrough, Dr. Baudisch testified that, contrary
`
`to his report, signal(s) S were not the only signals he would like to identify as the
`
`first and second gesture signals. He stated that a “Tinfo” signal generated by
`
`processor 106 could merely just be a repackaging of one of the S signals (such as
`
`S1 or S2), such that Tinfo could also constitute a gesture signal. Ex. 2010 at
`
`28:23-29:9.
`
`By raising the new argument that Tinfo is merely a “repackaged” S1 signal,
`
`Dr. Baudisch presumably seeks to imply that signal(s) S could also contain
`
`information concerning direction, speed, and acceleration. In particular, Burrough
`
`teaches that Tinfo “can include location, direction, speed and acceleration
`
`information” (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46), and thus equating Tinfo with signals such as S1
`
`and S2 would imply that S1 and S2 also can include direction, speed, and
`
`acceleration. See, e.g., Ex. 2010 at 27:2-12 (implying that signals originating from
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`sensing device 124 could include a variety of information because “the inventor
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`leaves this largely open what exactly comes out of that sensor”). Petitioner may
`
`intend to argue that if S1 is equivalent to Tinfo, S1 would provide sufficient
`
`information to indicate a movement of the body that conveys meaning or user
`
`intent.
`
`To the extent Petitioner seeks to raise the argument that Tinfo signals are
`
`effectively the same as the signal(s) S, it should not be considered because it was
`
`not properly raised in the Petition. Furthermore, the argument is not supported by
`
`any evidence in Burrough. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 51. Burrough specifically teaches that
`
`processor 105 “can convert the number, combination and frequency of the signal(s)
`
`S into touch information Tinfo.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46. This plainly shows that Tinfo
`
`includes information in the aggregate about a series of signal(s) S, because the
`
`“number,” “combination,” and “frequency” of these signal(s) S must be taken into
`
`account for Tinfo to be calculated. Id.; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 51. Thus, even if Petitioner
`
`is allowed to raise the belated argument that “Tinfo” could be effectively the same
`
`as S1 or S2, which Petitioner identifies as the first and second gesture signals, the
`
`argument is contradicted by the express teachings of Burrough. Notably,
`
`paragraph 46 of Burrough specifically teaches that the signal(s) S must collectively
`
`processed to generate “touch information Tinfo.” Burrough clearly teaches, for
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`example, that Tinfo is determined by looking at “the number, combination and
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`frequency of the signal(s) S.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46.
`
`Furthermore, Burrough does not teach or suggest that, as Dr. Baudisch
`
`speculated in his deposition, that signals S originating from sensing device 124 can
`
`include information such as direction, speed, and acceleration. See Ex. 1010 at
`
`27:2-24 (equivocating as to what information is included in the signals generated
`
`from sensing device 124). To the contrary, Burrough clearly teaches that sensing
`
`device 124 produces an electrical signal "each time a finger (or other appropriate
`
`object) passes a sensor," and then the signal can be considered in aggregate to
`
`"indicate location, direction, speed and acceleration of the finger." Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 42. Burrough further teaches that each signal individually does not convey speed
`
`or magnitude of movement—rather, the number and frequency of signals must be
`
`considered to obtain that information. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 42 ("the more signals, the
`
`more the user moved his or her finger"); id. at ¶ 46 ("Processor 106, in turn, can
`
`convert the number, combination and frequency of the signal(s) S into touch
`
`information Tinfo that can include location, direction, speed and acceleration
`
`information of touch event T."); Ex. 2009 at ¶ 52. To the extent that Petitioner
`
`attempts to argue in its reply that each signal is capable of conveying meaning or
`
`user intent because it conveys more than a single position of a finger at a moment
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`in time, the argument should be rejected as unsupported by the Petition and
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`contrary to Burrough's teachings.
`
`B.
`
`Burrough Does Not Disclose Claim 1 Because It Does Not Teach
`“Generating” a "Dynamic Interaction Parameter"
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘571 patent requires “generating a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter using the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal.” As
`
`explained above, Petitioner cannot establish that the signals identified in the
`
`Petition are “gesture signals,” and thus cannot establish a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter derived from first and second gesture signals.
`
`This limitation is not taught by Burrough for the additional reason that the
`
`supposed “dynamic interaction parameter” identified by Petitioner is not
`
`“generated” or a "dynamic interaction parameter" as required by the ‘571 patent.
`
`The ’571 patent provides the following examples of ways to generate the
`
`interaction parameter.
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`A POSITA would understand that, based on the teachings of the '571 patent, the
`
`dynamic interaction parameter must be calculated using the two gesture signals.
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶ 55. For example, the '571 patent teaches that "any type of input
`
`synthesis method may be used to generate the interaction parameter," including the
`
`examples provided in Table 2 (copied above). Ex. 1001 at 15:3-7. Each of the
`
`examples in Table 2 involves a calculation, not merely a retrieval of a
`
`predetermined value from memory. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 55.
`
`Petitioner identifies H(d) as the supposed "dynamic interaction parameter"
`
`that it contends Burrough's system "generates." See Pet. at 19 ("The haptic
`
`response H(d) is a 'dynamic interaction parameter.'"). The Board instituted trial on
`
`10180235
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's representation that H(d) was the supposed dynamic interaction
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`parameter that is generated in Burrough's system. Institution Decision at 27-28.
`
`However, H(d) is neither "dynamic" nor "generated" in Burrough's system.
`
`First, Burrough does not "generate" haptic output H(d) in the manner that
`
`the "dynamic interaction parameter" of the '571 patent is generated. Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶ 57. As explained in Burrough, the function H(d) is merely a pre-determined (i.e.,
`
`not dynamic) haptic profile pulled directly from a database in memory. For
`
`example, Burrough teaches that haptic profiles H (such as H(d)) are predefined,
`
`static values that are stored in memory:
`
`One of the advantages of the invention lies in the fact that the
`relationship between a touch event or a class of touch events and
`corresponding haptic response can be dynamic in nature. By dynamic
`it is meant that although specific haptic profiles H stored in haptic
`profile data base 134 remain static, the haptic profile (or profiles)
`used to respond to a particular event T can be varied based upon any
`number of factors.
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 51. A POSITA would
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
