UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571
`Filing Date: February 21, 2013
`Issue Date: February 25, 2014
`Title: Interactivity Model For Shared Feedback on Mobile Devices
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PATRICK BAUDISCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 1
`
`

`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`B.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 2
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ............................................................... 3
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ......................................................... 4
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ......................................................... 5
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’571 PATENT ........................................................... 9
`A.
`Technology Background ...................................................................... 9
`B.
`Summary of the ’571 Patent ................................................................. 9
`C.
`The ’571 Patent Prosecution History ................................................. 10
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 11
`E.
`Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’571 Patent ..................... 11
`F.
`Domestic Industry Products Alleged To Practice The ’571
`Patent .................................................................................................. 12
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 12
`G.
`The ’571 Patent Claims ...................................................................... 16
`H.
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ......................................................................................... 19
`A. U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al.
`(“Burrough”) ...................................................................................... 19
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg ’373”). .......... 46
`C.
`Rosenberg ’373 in Combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846
`to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’846”). ............................................ 76
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 80
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571.
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’373”).
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al.
`(“Burrough”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’846”).
`
`File history of U.S. Patent App. No. 13/472,698 (the “’698
`application”).
`
`Excerpts from Barron’s Dictionary of Mathematics Terms, 3rd ed.
`(2009).
`
`Excerpts from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language, 5th ed. (2011).
`
`Patent Owner Immersion’s disclosure of preliminary claim
`constructions (Jun. 3, 2016).
`
`Patent Owner Immersion’s claim chart regarding alleged
`infringement of the ’571 patent by certain Apple iPhone products
`(Exhibit 5 to Immersion’s supplemental response to Apple’s
`interrogatory no. 19 in the ITC investigation).
`
`Patent Owner Immersion’s second claim chart regarding alleged
`technical domestic industry for the ’571 patent (Exhibit 51 to
`Immersion’s ITC Complaint).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 3
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the patentability of claims 1-7, 12-18 and 23-29 and 5-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,659,571 (the “’571 patent”).
`
`2.
`
` I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $600 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this proceeding or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My resume is attached as Appendix A. As described in my resume, in
`
`1994, I earned a Diplom degree, which is the equivalent of a Master’s degree, from
`
`Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany. In 2001, I earned a Ph.D. from
`
`Darmstadt University of Technology.
`
`4.
`
`I have been a tenured professor in Computer Science and chair of the
`
`Human Computer Interaction Lab at the Hasso Plattner Institute at Potsdam
`
`University in Germany since 2008. My research at Potsdam University has
`
`focused on mobile devices and touch input, and currently focuses on fabrication
`
`and haptics.
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 4
`
`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`I also have been a Research Scientist at Xerox PARC and Microsoft
`
`for a combined total of nine years.
`
`6.
`
`I have been publishing in human-computer interaction since 1996 and
`
`in the specific sub-area of mobile devices and techniques since 2001. I have been
`
`publishing on touch input since 2003. Most of my approximately 100 technical
`
`publications deal with mobile devices, touch input, or both. I also have authored
`
`several CHI (Computer-Human Interaction) and UIST (User Interface Software
`
`and Technology) papers related to haptics.
`
`7.
`
`I was the Program Chair of the ACM Mobile HCI 2012 conference,
`
`which deals with Human Computer Interaction on mobile devices. I also served as
`
`Technical Co-Chair of the ACM CHI 2013 conference, which deals with Computer
`
`Human Interaction. I also served as Chair of the Subcommittee on Techniques and
`
`Devices at the ACM CHI 2009, 2011, and 2012 conferences.
`
`8.
`
`I was inducted into the ACM CHI Academy in 2013 and have been an
`
`ACM distinguished scientist since 2014.
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`9. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I
`
`have considered the materials identified in this declaration and in the Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 5
`
`

`
`
`
`10.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by Immersion. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that may
`
`have not yet been provided to me.
`
`11. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on
`
`my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`12.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article
`
`published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 6
`
`

`
`
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United Stated before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`B.
`16.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim via anticipation or obviousness.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`
`
`4
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 7
`
`

`
`
`
`19.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`20.
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`
`
`5
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 8
`
`

`
`
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit
`
`together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness
`
`analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`
`
`6
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 9
`
`

`
`
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`27. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
`
`person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is
`
`likely obvious.
`
`28.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 10
`
`

`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`32.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`
`
`8
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 11
`
`

`
`
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’571 PATENT
`A. Technology Background
`34.
`“Haptics” generally refers to the use of the sense of touch, especially
`
`in computer systems. As the ’571 patent explains, haptic feedback such as
`
`vibration effects, can provide cues that enhance and simplify the user interface.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:22-33. Such 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. Id.
`
`In electronic devices, vibration effects may be generated using an actuator, a type
`
`of motor that converts electricity into motion. Id. at 1:34-41.
`
`B.
`Summary of the ’571 Patent
`35. The ’571 patent is titled “Interactivity Model For Shared Feedback On
`
`Mobile Devices.” Ex. 1001 at cover. The ’571 patent states that “[t]raditional
`
`architectures that provide haptic feedback only with triggered effects are
`
`available,” and they “must be carefully designed to make sure the timing of the
`
`haptic feedback is correlated to user initiated gestures or system animations.” Id.
`
`at 1:49-52. “However, because these user gestures and system animations have
`
`variable timing, the correlation to haptic feedback may be static and inconsistent
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 12
`
`

`
`
`
`and therefore less compelling to the user.” Id. at 1:53-56. “Further, device sensor
`
`information is typically not used in combination with gestures to product haptic
`
`feedback.” Id. at 1:56-57. The ’571 patent states that, therefore, “there is a need
`
`for an improved system of providing a dynamic haptic effect that includes multiple
`
`gesture signals and device sensor signals.” Id. at 1:58-60. To solve these
`
`problems, the ’571 patent discloses a system for providing “dynamic” haptic
`
`effects based upon gesture signals and/or device sensor signals. Id. at 1:66-2:5. A
`
`“dynamic haptic effect refers to a haptic effect that evolves over time as it responds
`
`to one or more input parameters.” Id. at 2:65-67.
`
`C. The ’571 Patent Prosecution History
`36. The claims of the ’571 patent originally appeared in previously filed
`
`application, U.S. Patent App. No. 13/472,698 (the “’698 application”). Ex. 1007 at
`
`815-820 (Aug. 24, 2012 Amendment). The Examiner, Grant Sitta, rejected these
`
`claims as anticipated or obvious in view of another Immersion patent application,
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0017489 (“Birnbaum”). Id. at 842-853 (Nov. 28, 2012
`
`Rejection). Immersion eventually abandoned the ’698 application after two more
`
`rejections, each finding amended claims obvious. Id. at 932-945 (Jun. 8, 2013
`
`Rejection); 995-1013 (Dec. 24, 2013 Rejection); 1044 (Jun. 30, 2014 Notice of
`
`Abandonment).
`
`
`
`10
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 13
`
`

`
`
`
`37. While the ’698 application was pending, Immersion filed the ’571
`
`patent application with identical claims to those that stood rejected in the ’698
`
`application. Compare Ex. 1003 at IMMR-ITC-00001020-25 with Ex. 1007 at 815-
`
`820. The ’571 patent application was examined by a different Examiner, Stephen
`
`Sherman. Ex. 1001 at cover. However, Immersion did not inform Mr. Sherman
`
`that identical claims had been rejected in the ’698 application. See generally Ex.
`
`1003. Because the claims challenged in this Petition had been found to be
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of Birnbaum, I understand that they should not have
`
`been granted.
`
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`38. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’571 patent would have had a Bachelors’ degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus
`
`approximately two to three years of professional experience with software
`
`engineering, haptics programming, or other relevant industry experience.
`
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience and
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`
`E. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’571 Patent
`39.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC investigation
`
`involving Immersion and Apple, Immersion has alleged that claims 1-7, 12-18, and
`
`
`
`11
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 14
`
`

`
`
`
`23-29 of the ’571 patent are practiced by certain Apple iPhone products. Ex. 1011.
`
`To support these allegations, Immersion provided claim charts purporting to show
`
`how Apple’s iPhone 6s and 6s Plus products allegedly practice these claims of the
`
`’571 patent. Id.
`
`F. Domestic Industry Products Alleged To Practice The ’571 Patent
`40.
`I understand from Apple counsel that a patent owner is required to
`
`show “technical domestic industry” in an ITC investigation. I understand from
`
`Apple counsel that, to do so, the patent owner must show that it or one of its
`
`licensees practice as least one claim of an asserted patent.
`
`41.
`
`I understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC investigation
`
`involving Immersion and Apple, Immersion has alleged that at least claims 12 and
`
`14 of the ’571 patent are practiced by mobile devices that use Patent Owner’s
`
`TouchSense software. Ex. 1012 at 2, 71. To support this allegation, Immersion
`
`provided two claim charts purporting to show how its TouchSense software on a
`
`mobile device allegedly practices these claims of the ’571 patent. Ex. 1012
`
`(Immersion’s technical domestic industry claim charts).
`
`G. Claim Construction
`42.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in an inter partes review, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
`
`
`
`12
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 15
`
`

`
`
`
`43.
`
`I also understand that in the ITC investigation involving Immersion
`
`and Apple, Immersion has provided proposed claim constructions for one claim
`
`term (“dynamic interaction parameter”) of the ’571 patent. Ex. 1010 at 2.
`
`44.
`
`I understand from Apple counsel, that Immersion also has submitted
`
`to the ITC technical domestic industry claim charts showing how Patent Owner
`
`believes that certain claims of the’571 patent encompass aspects of Patent Owner’s
`
`technology, and claim charts showing how Patent Owner believes that the ’571
`
`patent’s claims allegedly encompass certain of Apple’s products, as described
`
`above. Exs. 1011, 1012. I understand from Apple counsel that for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, it is proper to request that Immersion be held to claim constructions
`
`that are as broad as those that Immersion has publicly set forth in its claim charts
`
`from the ITC investigation. I therefore have considered those domestic industry
`
`and infringement claim charts in reaching my conclusions about what the claim
`
`terms mean.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the standards used in the ITC and in a district court
`
`to interpret patent claims are different than those used by the PTO in this
`
`proceeding. I understand that the main difference is that in this proceeding, the
`
`claims are to be read as broad as is reasonable based on the specification. I
`
`understand that this may cause the claims to cover certain things in this proceeding
`
`
`
`13
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 16
`
`

`
`
`
`that a court might find are not within the scope of the claims in the court
`
`proceeding.
`
`46.
`
`In the table below, I provide a scope of construction for certain claim
`
`terms based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification
`
`and based on the Immersion’s apparent belief about the scope of the claim terms
`
`from its technical domestic industry contentions and infringement contentions in
`
`Citation(s)
`Ex. 1001 at 3:35-36 (a
`“gesture” is “any
`movement of the body
`that conveys meaning
`or user intent.”); 3:56-
`59 (“any form of hand
`movement recognized
`by a device … and
`converted to electronic
`signals.”); 4:59-63 (“a
`touch sensitive surface,
`or … any other type of
`user interface such as a
`mouse, touchpad,
`minijoystick, scroll
`wheel, trackball, game
`pads or game
`controllers.”).
`Ex. 1010 at 2.
`(Immersion construing
`“dynamic interaction
`parameter” as “an
`interaction parameter
`
`the ITC investigation.
`
`Scope of Construction
`Based on the descriptions in the
`’571 patent, the claim term should
`encompass a signal generated in
`response to user interaction with a
`user interface device.
`
`Claim Term
`“gesture signal”
`(claims 1-7, 12-18,
`23-29)
`
`
`
`“dynamic
`interaction
`parameter” (claims
`1, 4-7, 12, 15-18,
`23, 26-29)
`
`Based on Immersion’s proposed
`claim construction, the claim term
`should encompass “an interaction
`parameter that changes over time
`or reacts in real time.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`“vector signal”
`(claims 2, 13, 24)
`
`Based on the plain meaning of
`vector, this claim term should
`encompass “a signal that includes
`both a magnitude and direction.”
`
`“on screen signal”
`(claims 3, 14, 25)
`
`“generating a
`dynamic
`interaction
`parameter using…
`a physical model”
`(claims 5, 16, and
`27)
`
`Based on Immersion’s public
`contentions, this term should
`encompass a signal generated
`based on interactions with a touch
`screen.
`
`Based on the descriptions in the
`’571 patent, this claim term should
`encompass generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter based on a
`mathematical model related to a
`real-world physical effect, such as
`gravity, friction or inertia.
`
`Based on Immersion’s public
`contentions, this term should also
`encompass generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter using a
`model of the properties of a
`human finger.
`
`
`
`15
`
`that changes over time
`or reacts in real time”).
`Ex. 1008 (Barron’s
`Dictionary of
`Mathematics) at 3
`(“vector: a vector is a
`quantity that has both
`magnitude and
`direction.”); Ex. 1009
`(American Heritage
`Dictionary) at 3
`(“vector… 1.
`Mathematics a. a
`quantity, such as
`velocity, completely
`specified by a
`magnitude and a
`direction”).
`Ex. 1011 at 78-79
`(Immersion contending
`that “gesture signals
`generated when a user
`touches” a touchscreen
`of accused satisfies this
`limitation).
`Ex. 1001 at 12:38-44
`(“interaction parameter
`may optionally
`incorporate a
`mathematical model
`related to a real-world
`physical effect
`such as gravity,
`acceleration, friction or
`inertia.”); Ex. 1011 at
`78-79 (Immersion
`contending that a
`model of “the
`properties of the human
`finger, including
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 18
`
`

`
`
`
`“generating a
`dynamic
`interaction
`parameter using…
`an animation”
`(claims 6, 17, 28)
`
`Based on Immersion’s public
`contentions, this term should
`encompass generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter that is
`coordinated with an animation.
`
`“module” (claims
`12, 15-18)
`
`Based on the descriptions in the
`’571 patent, this claim term should
`encompass a set of instructions
`executed by a processor.
`
`
`
`expected dimensions,
`behavior, average force
`of a touch, and
`electrical properties”
`on a touchscreen
`device satisfies this
`limitation).
`Ex. 1011 at 38-39
`(contending that “the
`amount of pressure
`exerted on the touch
`screen” in “Peek” and
`“Pop” operations in the
`accused Apple products
`corresponds to the
`claimed “dynamic
`interaction
`parameter.”); 83
`(contending that
`“animations relevant to
`Peek and Pop” satisfy
`this limitation). Ex.
`1011 at 83.
`Ex. 1001 at 4:33
`(describing drive
`module as “instructions
`that, when executed by
`a processor 12,
`generate drive signals
`for actuator 18.”); Fig.
`1 (depicting drive
`module 22 as a part of
`memory 20).
`
`H. The ’571 Patent Claims
`47. For reference, claims 1-7, 12-18 and 23-29 of the ’571 patent are
`
`recreated below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`1.pre
`1.a
`1.b
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7.a
`
`7.b
`7.c
`
`12.pre
`12.a
`12.b
`
`12.c
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`A method of 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.
`The method of claim 1 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises a vector signal.
`The method of claim 1 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises an on-screen signal.
`The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter from
`a difference between the first gesture signal and the second gesture
`signal.
`The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter
`using the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal and a
`physical model.
`The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter
`using the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal and an
`animation.
`The method of claim 1 further comprising:
`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.
`A haptic effect enabled system comprising:
`a haptic output device;
`a drive module electronically coupled to the haptic output device for
`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; and
`a drive circuit electronically coupled to the drive module and the
`haptic output device for applying a drive signal to the haptic output
`
`17
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 20
`
`

`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18.a
`
`18.b
`18.c
`
`23.pre
`
`23.a
`23.b
`23.c
`
`23.d
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`device according to the dynamic interaction parameter.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises a vector signal.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises an on-screen signal.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the drive module comprises a drive
`module for generating a dynamic interaction parameter from a
`difference between the first gesture signal and the second gesture
`signal.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the drive module comprises a drive
`module for generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal and a physical model.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the drive module comprises a drive
`module for generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal and an animation.
`The system of claim 12 wherein the drive module comprises a drive
`module for receiving a first device sensor signal,
`receiving a second device sensor signal,
`and 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.
`A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions
`stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, causes the
`processor to produce a haptic effect, the instructions 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.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`the first or second gesture signal comprises a vector signal.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`the first or second gesture signal comprises an on-screen signal.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a
`dynamic interaction parameter from a difference between the first
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`
`18
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 21
`
`

`
`
`
`28
`
`29.a
`
`29.b
`29.c
`
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a
`dynamic interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and the
`second gesture signal and a physical model.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a
`dynamic interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and the
`second gesture signal and an animation.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, further
`comprising:
`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.
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`A. U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al.
`(“Burrough”)
`48. Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al. (“Burrough”), a patent
`
`application assigned to Petitioner Apple. Burrough was filed on April 6, 2009 and
`
`published