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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,659,571
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-100, ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4) ....................... 1
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Backup Counsel ......................................................... 2
`4.
`Service Information.................................................................... 2
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner .................................................. 2
`B.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 2
`C.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 3
`D.
`Fees ....................................................................................................... 3
`E.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................. 3
`II.
`III. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ............ 4
`A.
`Technology Background ...................................................................... 4
`B.
`Summary of the ’571 Patent ................................................................. 4
`C.
`The ’571 Patent Prosecution History ................................................... 5
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 6
`E.
`Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’571 Patent ....................... 6
`F.
`Domestic Industry Products Alleged to Practice the ’571 Patent ........ 7
`G.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 7
`1.
`“gesture signal” .......................................................................... 8
`2.
`“dynamic interaction parameter” ............................................... 9
`3.
`“vector signal” ............................................................................ 9
`4.
`“on screen signal” .................................................................... 10
`5.
`“generating a dynamic interaction parameter using… a
`physical model” ........................................................................ 10
`“generating a dynamic interaction parameter using… an
`animation” ................................................................................ 10
`“module” .................................................................................. 11
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`H. Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Burrough ............................... 12
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 13, 15-18, 23, 24, and 26-29
`are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of
`Rosenberg ’373 ................................................................................... 32
`Ground 3: Claims 3, 14 and 25 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Rosenberg ’373 and Rosenberg
`’846 ..................................................................................................... 53
`IV. THE GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ARE NOT REDUNDANT ............... 56
`V.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 57
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571.
`
`Declaration of expert Dr. Patrick Baudisch (“Baudisch Decl.”).
`
`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) .
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter partes review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 (the “’571 patent”). Ex. 1001. The’571 patent
`
`generally relates to providing “dynamic” haptic feedback in response to signals
`
`representing user gestures on a user interface device, such as a touchscreen or
`
`joystick. The claims of the ’571 patent challenged in this Petition are invalid in
`
`view of Apple’s patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et
`
`al. (“Burrough”). Most of the challenged claims also are invalid in view Patent
`
`Owner Immersion’s (“Patent Owner” or “Immersion”) earlier patents, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’373”), which issued over a decade
`
`before the ’571 patent was filed. The remaining claims directed to on-screen
`
`gesture signals are invalid in view of Rosenberg ’373 in combination with another
`
`of Immersion’s patents from the same lead inventor, U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 to
`
`Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’846”).
`
`I.
`
`
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`Apple is the real party-in-interest.
`
`2.
`Related Matters
`The ’571 patent is subject to the following actions: 1) Certain Mobile
`
`Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and
`
`Smartwatches) and Components Thereof, U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-990; and 2) Immersion Corporation v. Apple Inc., et al.,
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00077 (D. Del.).
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`3.
`Lead counsel is James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828, of DLA Piper LLP (US),
`
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300; Reston, VA 20190; Apple-Immersion-
`
`IPRs@dlapiper.com, 703-773-4148 (phone), 703-773-5200 (fax). Backup counsel
`
`is Robert Buergi, Reg. No. 58,125, of DLA Piper LLP (US); 2000 University Ave;
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94330; robert.buergi@dlapiper.com, 650-833-2407 (phone),
`
`650-687-1144 (fax).
`
`Service Information
`
`4.
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above.
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`
`B.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition in
`
`
`
`its entirety is being served to the Patent Owner’s attorney of record at the address
`
`listed in the USPTO’s records by overnight courier pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`C.
`Powers of attorney are being filed with designation of counsel in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Standing
`
`D.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’571
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Fees
`
`E.
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any additional fees that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-1442.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner requests cancelation of
`
`claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 of the ’571 patent in view of the following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`(pre-AIA) in light of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al.
`
`(“Burrough”).
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12, 13, 15-18, and 23, 24, 26-29 are obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg et
`
`al. (“Rosenberg ’373”).
`
`C.
`
`Claims 3, 14 and 25 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
`
`in light of Rosenberg ’373 and U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 to Rosenberg et al.
`
`(“Rosenberg ’846”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`III. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`A. Technology Background
`“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.
`
`Summary of the ’571 Patent
`
`B.
`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
`
`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
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`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, they should never have been granted.
`
`And, although this Petition does not rely upon Birnbaum, this Petition
`
`demonstrates that the challenged claims are also obvious in view of three other
`
`references, Burrough, Rosenberg ’373 and Rosenberg ’864.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`D.
`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. Ex. 1002, ¶38.
`
`E. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’571 Patent
`In the ITC investigation, Immersion has alleged that claims 1-7, 12-18, and
`
`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. Id.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`F. Domestic Industry Products Alleged to Practice the ’571 Patent
`A patent owner is required to show “technical domestic industry” in an ITC
`
`investigation. To do so, the patent owner must show that it or one of its licensees
`
`practice at least one claim of an asserted patent.
`
`In the ITC investigation, Immersion has alleged that at least claims 12 and
`
`14 of the ’571 patent are practiced by mobile devices that use Immersion’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. Ex. 1012 (Immersion’s technical
`
`domestic industry claim charts).
`
`G. Claim Construction
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner provides the
`
`following statement regarding construction of the ’571 patent claims. A claim
`
`subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`
`(“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`In the ITC investigation referenced above, Immersion has proposed claim
`
`constructions for one claim term (“dynamic interaction parameter”) of the ’571
`
`patent. Ex. 1010 at 2. Immersion also has submitted to the ITC technical domestic
`
`industry claim charts showing how Immersion believes that certain claims of
`
`the’571 patent encompass aspects of Immersion’s technology, and claim charts
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`showing how Immersion believes that the ’571 patent’s claims allegedly
`
`encompass certain of Petitioner Apple’s products, as described above. Exs. 1011,
`
`1012. For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`Immersion be held to constructions at least as broad as those set forth by
`
`Immersion in these claim charts and in its proposed claim constructions as
`
`discussed below.
`
`“gesture signal”
`
`1.
`The term “gesture signal” (claims 1-7, 12-18, 23-29) should be broadly
`
`construed to encompass “a signal indicating user interaction with a user interface
`
`device.” The ’571 patent describes a “gesture” as “any movement of the body that
`
`conveys meaning or user intent.” Ex. 1001 at 3:35-36. The patent further
`
`describes a “gesture” as “any form of hand movement recognized by a device
`
`having an accelerometer, gyroscope, or other motion sensor, and converted to
`
`electronic signals.” Id. at 3:56-59. The specification describes various exemplary
`
`user interface devices that produce gesture signals, including “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.” Id. at 4:59-
`
`63. Thus, in the context of the specification, a “gesture signal” is described as a
`
`signal indicating user interaction with a user interface device. Petitioner submits
`
`that the BRI of “gesture signal” should encompass these descriptions.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Immersion may argue that a “gesture signal” has a special meaning limited
`
`to signals resulting from the interaction of fingers on touchscreens when
`
`performing finger movements such as swipes. However, this argument must be
`
`rejected because limiting “gesture signal” in this manner is contrary to the broad
`
`definition of “gesture” discussed above, and reads out embodiments involving
`
`systems that do not include touchscreens but instead use devices such as
`
`minijoysticks, mouses, and trackballs as user input devices as discussed at 4:59-63.
`
`“dynamic interaction parameter”
`
`2.
`In the ITC Investigation, Immersion has proposed that “dynamic interaction
`
`parameter” (claims 1, 4-7, 12, 15-18, 23, 26-29) be construed to mean “an
`
`interaction parameter that changes over time or reacts in real time.” Ex. 1010 at 2.
`
`Although Petitioner disagrees with this construction, Petitioner submits that
`
`Immersion should be held to a construction at least as broad as the construction it
`
`proposed in the ITC investigation.
`
`“vector signal”
`
`3.
`The term “vector signal” (claims 2, 13, 24) should be construed to
`
`encompass “a signal that includes both a magnitude and direction.” 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`a magnitude and a direction”).
`
`“on screen signal”
`
`4.
`Based on Immersion’s public contentions, Immersion should be held to a
`
`construction of this claim limitation (claims 3, 14, 25) that encompasses a signal
`
`generated based on interactions with a touch screen. See Ex. 1011 at 78-79
`
`(Immersion contending that “gesture signals generated when a user touches” the
`
`touchscreen of accused Apple products satisfies this limitation).
`
`5.
`
`“generating a dynamic interaction parameter using… a
`physical model”
`
`The ’571 patent describes a “physical model” as a “mathematical model
`
`related to a real-world physical effect such as gravity, acceleration, friction or
`
`inertia.” Ex. 1001 at 12:38-44. Thus, Petitioner submits that this limitation
`
`(claims 5, 16, 27) should encompass generating a dynamic interaction based on
`
`such a mathematical model.
`
`Moreover, based on Immersion’s public contentions, Immersion should be
`
`held to a construction that also encompasses generating a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter using a model of properties of a human finger on a touchscreen. See Ex.
`
`1011 at 78-79 (contending that a model of “properties of the human finger,
`
`including expected dimensions, behavior, average force of a touch, and electrical
`
`properties” on a touchscreen satisfies this limitation).
`
`6.
`
`“generating a dynamic interaction parameter using… an
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`animation”
`
`Based on Immersion’s public contentions, Immersion should be held to a
`
`construction of this limitation (claims 6, 17, 28) that encompasses generating a
`
`dynamic interaction parameter that is coordinated with an animation. For example,
`
`Immersion contends that the accused Apple products “generate a dynamic
`
`interaction parameter corresponding to the amount of pressure exerted on the touch
`
`screen.” Ex. 1011 at 38-39. Immersion contends that the first gesture signal is
`
`received when a user “presses lightly” on, e.g., an email (referred to as a “Peek”
`
`gesture) and the second gesture signal is received when a user “presses deeply to
`
`pop into” the email (referred to as a “Pop” gesture). Id. at 4-6, 22-24.
`
`Immersion further contends that the use of “animations relevant to Peek and Pop”
`
`satisfies this limitation. Ex. 1011 at 83.
`
`“module”
`
`7.
`The term “module” (claims 12, 15-18) should be construed to encompass “a
`
`set of instructions executed by a processor.” “Module” is used in the larger tern
`
`“drive module” twice in the ’571 patent specification. Ex. 1001 at 4:33; Fig. 1.
`
`The patent describes drive module 22 as “instructions that, when executed by a
`
`processor 12, generate drive signals for actuator 18.” Id. at 4:33-35; see also Fig. 1
`
`(depicting drive module 22 as a part of memory 20). Thus, while “module” is a
`
`broad term that could include other things, in light of the specification it must be
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`broad enough to include a set of instructions executed by a processor.
`
`Because the BRI standard is different from that used in district court
`
`litigation, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004), the interpretation of the claims presented either implicitly or explicitly
`
`herein should not be viewed as constituting Petitioner’s own interpretation and/or
`
`construction of such claims for the purposes of the underlying litigation. Instead,
`
`such constructions in this proceeding should be viewed only as constituting an
`
`interpretation of the claims under the “broadest reasonable construction” standard
`
`and/or under the Immersion’s infringement contentions and technical domestic
`
`industry contentions in the ITC Investigation.
`
`H. Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) in Light of Burrough.
`
`Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et al. (“Burrough”), assigned to
`
`Petitioner Apple. Burrough was published on Jun. 24, 2010, more than one year
`
`before the earliest possible priority date of the ’571 patent (Aug. 23, 2012), and is
`
`therefore prior art to the ’571 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) (pre-AIA). Ex.
`
`1005 at cover.
`
`Burrough discloses “providing multi-touch haptic feedback” on a device
`
`with a multi-touch touch based input device, such as touch screen. Id. at [0010];
`
`[0017]. An example of such a device is shown in Fig. 1B:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1B. Burrough discloses that the touch screen can “recognize at least two
`
`substantially simultaneously occurring gestures using at least two different fingers
`
`or other object.” Id. at [0035]. Such gestures include gestures associated with
`
`“zooming, panning, scrolling, rotating, enlarging… and/or the like.” Id. at [0017].
`
`Burrough further discloses providing “dynamic” haptic feedback in response to
`
`gestures on the touch screen. Id. at [0051]. For example, “vibrations can be
`
`adjusted based on a change in touch characteristics (i.e. speed, direction location,
`
`etc.).” Id. at [0051].
`
`In one embodiment, Burrough discloses a multi-touch zoom gesture, in
`
`which an image can be zoomed in or out by moving two fingers apart or together,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`respectively. Id. at [0080]; Fig. 11. Burrough discloses that “the amount of
`
`zooming and the associated haptic effect varies according to the distance between
`
`the two [fingers].” Id. at [0081]. For example, the haptic effect “can be, for
`
`example, faster (or slower) or more intense (or less intense) vibration as the
`
`distance between the two fingers increases.” Id. at [0080].
`
`As illustrated in Figs. 12C and 12D, the haptic effect associated with a
`
`multi-touch zoom gesture can be a function of the distance between the two
`
`fingers1:
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 12C, 12D; [0082]. In these figures, the “magnitude of the haptic
`
`response H(d) at each finger is denoted by the size of the circle for each response.
`
`In this case, as the distance between the two fingers increases, the haptic effect H
`
`
`1 In its technical domestic industry contentions in the ITC Investigation, Immersion
`
`likewise identifies haptic effects associated with a multi-touch zoom gesture as
`
`practicing claims 12 and 14. See e.g. Ex. 1012 at 35-36, 45-47.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`for each finger increases with distance d.” Id.
`
`As discussed below, Burrough discloses and/or renders obvious all of the
`
`limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`Claim Language
`1.pre. A method of
`producing a haptic
`effect comprising:
`
`1.a. receiving a first
`gesture signal;
`
`Burrough
`Burrough discloses that “the invention relates, in one
`embodiment, to an apparatus and method for providing
`multi-touch haptic feedback.” Ex. 1005 at [0010]; [0003].
`
`Burrough further discloses that “the described embodiments
`generally pertain to gestures and methods of implementing
`gestures with associated physical feedback with touch
`sensitive devices.” Id. at [0035].
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶55-56.
`Burrough discloses a “touch sensitive surface is arranged to
`receive different types of user touch events each being
`characterized by an amount of pressure applied on the touch
`sensitive surface by a user.” Ex. 1005 at [0016].
`
`Burrough discloses “gestures” on the touch sensitive screen,
`such as “gestures [] associated with zooming, panning,
`scrolling, rotating, enlarging, floating controls, zooming
`targets, paging, inertia, keyboarding, wheeling, and/or the
`like.” Id. at [0017]
`
`For example, Burrough discloses a “zoom gesture method
`1100” “where the presence of at least a first finger and a
`second finger are detected on a touch sensitive surface of the
`surface 126 at about the same time.” Id. at [0079]; see also
`Fig. 11, 12A-H.
`
`Burrough further discloses that “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. … 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-
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`1.b. receiving a
`second gesture
`signal;
`
`touch event)” (gesture signal). Id. at [0046].
`
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶57-60.
`See limitation 1.a.
`
`As established above, Burrough discloses a multi-touch zoom gesture in
`
`which first and second fingers are detected on the touch screen at the same time.
`
`Burrough further discloses that sensing device 124 generates signals representing
`
`each touch on the touchscreen. Thus, a POSITA would understand that the sensing
`
`device generates a first gesture signal representing one of the two fingers on the
`
`touchscreen, and a second gesture signal representing the other finger on the
`
`touchscreen. Ex. 1002, ¶62.
`
`Claim Language
`1.c. generating a
`dynamic interaction
`parameter using the
`first gesture signal
`and the second
`gesture signal; and
`
`Burrough
`Burrough discloses that “[o]ne 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… For example,
`vibrations can be adjusted based on a change in touch
`characteristics (i.e., speed, direction, location, etc.).” Ex.
`1005 at [0051].
`
`As one example, Burrough discloses a “zoom gesture
`method 1100,” in which “the distance between at least the
`two fingers is compared… If the distance between the two
`fingers increases (spread apart) at 1110, a zoom-in signal is
`generated at 1112, otherwise a zoom out signal is generated
`at block 1114. The zoom-in signal, in turn, causes the
`haptic devices associated with the two fingers to provide a
`zoom-in haptic signal at 1116. Such a zoom in haptic signal
`can be, for example, faster (or slower) or more intense (or
`less intense) vibration as the distance between the two
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`fingers increases.” Id. at [0080]; see also [0034].
`
`Burrough discloses that “the haptic profiles for each of the
`fingers relating the distance d between the two fingers
`corresponding to the haptic response H(d) experienced at
`each finger” are shown in Figs. 12A-12H. Id. at [0082].
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 12C-12D; see also Figs. 12A-B, E-H.
`
`Burrough discloses that “the magnitude of the haptic
`response H(d) at each finger is denoted by the size of the
`circle for each response. In this case, as the distance
`between the two fingers increases, the haptic effect H for
`each finger increases linearly with distance d.” Id. at
`[0082].
`
`Burrough further discloses that “as the zoom factor
`increases, the haptic profile H(d) can change by, for
`example, the slope becoming more steep as the resolution of
`the underlying map increases as shown in FIG. 12G.” Id.;
`see also Fig. 12G.
`
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶63-70.
`
`Thus, Burrough discloses that the haptic effect corresponding to each finger
`
`in a multi-touch zoom gesture is a function of the distance d between the two
`
`fingers. Ex. 1002, ¶68. For example, in one described embodiment, the “the
`
`haptic effect H for each finger increases linearly with distance d.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`[0082]. In other words, the magnitude of the haptic effect increases as the distance
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`increases, and decreases as the distance decreases. Ex. 1002, ¶68. The function
`
`that defines the relationship between the haptic effect and the distance is referred to
`
`as a haptic profile. Ex. 1005 at [0082]. Burrough discloses generating a haptic
`
`response H(d) by applying the haptic profile corresponding to each finger to the
`
`distance d between the fingers. Ex. 1002, ¶68.
`
`Burrough further describes an embodiment in which the haptic profile
`
`defining the haptic effect for each finger itself varies as a function of the zoom
`
`factor, for example, by increasing the slope as the resolution of the underlying map
`
`increases. Id. at [0082]. In other words, the rate at which the magnitude of the
`
`haptic effect may change in response to a change in distance between the two
`
`fingers can increase as the resolution of the map increases. Ex. 1002, ¶69.
`
`The haptic response H(d) is a “dynamic interaction parameter” under
`
`Immersion’s interpretation of that claim term, as discussed above in Section
`
`III.G.2, because it “changes over time or reacts in real time” based upon the user’s
`
`interaction with the touchscreen. Specifically, as the user’s fingers move apart, the
`
`distance between the fingers increases, and the haptic response likewise increases
`
`as a function of this distance. Similarly, as user’s fingers move together, the
`
`distance between the fingers decreases, and the haptic response likewise decreases
`
`as a function of this distance. Ex. 1002, ¶70.
`
`Claim Language
`1.d. applying a
`
`Burrough
`Burrough discloses that the “touch sensitive input device
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`drive signal to a
`haptic output device
`according to the
`dynamic interaction
`parameter.
`
`communicates with an array of haptic feedback devices
`(also referred to as haptic actuators) each arranged to
`provide haptic feedback according to a haptic profile in
`response to a multi-touch event.” Ex. 1005 at [0035].
`
`Burrough further discloses “[m]icrocontroller 132 can use
`touch information Tinfo to query haptic data base 134 that
`includes a number of predetermined haptic profiles each of
`which describes a specific haptic response H, in terms of
`duration of response, type of vibrotactile response, strength
`of response, etc. A particular haptic profile includes a set of
`instructions that cause microcontroller 132 to activate at
`least haptic actuator 136. Haptic actuator 136, in turn,
`creates haptic response Hx. In this way, the response of
`haptic actuator 136 can be controlled in real time by
`microprocessor 132 by establishing the duration, strength,
`type of vibrotactile response Hx.” Id. at [0047].
`
`Burrough discloses that “[h]aptic actuator 300 generates
`force F directly proportional to voltage V applied to the
`haptic actuator 300 by the controller” (drive signal). Id. at
`[0056].
`
`See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-75.
`
`Thus, Burrough discloses that microcontroller 132 supplies a voltage V (a
`
`drive signal) to one or more haptic actuators to generate haptic feedback in the
`
`form of vibration on the touchscreen. Ex. 1002, ¶74. The force of the haptic effect
`
`is directly proportional to the supplied voltage. Ex. 1005 at [0056].
`
`Microcontroller 132 uses touch information (e.g. the