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
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`BURROUGH DISCLOSES THE LIMITATON “GENERATING A
`DYNAMIC INTERACTION PARAMETER USING A FIRST
`GESTURE SIGNAL AND SECOND GESTURE SIGNAL” ....................... 2
`A.
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals.” ......................................... 3
`1.
`PO Misinterprets the Board’s Construction of “gesture
`signal.” ....................................................................................... 4
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals” under the
`Board’s Construction ................................................................. 7
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals” even under
`PO’s interpretation ................................................................... 10
`Each of Burrough’s signals S is a “gesture signal” under
`the Board’s construction .......................................................... 12
`Burrough teaches that the multi-touch zoom gesture
`comprises two substantially simultaneously occurring
`gestures ..................................................................................... 13
`PO’s Arguments Regarding Tinfo Mischaracterize the Petition
`and Dr. Baudisch’s Declaration ......................................................... 15
`III. BURROUGH DISCLOSES THE “DYNAMIC INTERACTION
`PARAMETER” LIMITATION .................................................................... 17
`IV. PO’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS ARE MISLEADING .................... 19
`V.
`BURROUGH DISCLOSES THE ADDITIONAL LIMITATION OF
`CLAIM 2....................................................................................................... 20
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 21
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`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) .
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Robert Williams in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Patrick Baudisch (“Baudisch Reply
`Decl.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Yon Visell
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. submits this reply pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As established in Apple’s Petition, the challenged claims of the ’571 patent
`
`are obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough et
`
`al. (“Burrough”), assigned to Petitioner Apple. Paper No. 1 (“Petition”) at 12-32.
`
`Specifically, Burrough discloses a multi-touch zoom gesture, in which an image
`
`can be zoomed in or out by moving two fingers apart or together, respectively.
`
`Burrough further discloses generating a haptic effect at each finger that varies as a
`
`function of the distance between the fingers, such that the magnitude of the haptic
`
`effect increases as the distance between the fingers increases, and decreases as the
`
`distance decreases. Petition at 12-15.
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) primary argument in its Patent Owner Response
`
`(“POR”) is that the signals generated by the touch screen during the course of
`
`Burrough’s zoom gesture are not “gesture signals,” as that term has been construed
`
`by the Board. PO’s argument is premised, however, on an incorrect interpretation
`
`of the Board’s construction that is inconsistent with the plain language of the
`
`construction, directly contradicts the Board’s rationale in adopting the
`
`construction, and excludes a preferred embodiment disclosed in the specification.
`
`Under the Board’s actual construction, Burrough clearly discloses the recited
`
`1
`
`
`
`“gesture signals.” Moreover, Burrough discloses the recited “gesture signals” even
`
`under PO’s incorrect interpretation.
`
`PO also contends that Burrough fails to disclose a “dynamic interaction
`
`parameter,” because the haptic profile (which defines the magnitude of the haptic
`
`response as a linear function of the distance between the user’s fingers) is
`
`predefined and static. However, Petitioner did not identify the haptic profile as the
`
`“dynamic interaction parameter.” Rather, Petitioner identified the haptic response
`
`H(d) (i.e. the output of the haptic profile function generated “by applying the
`
`haptic profile… to the distance d between the fingers”) as the “dynamic interaction
`
`parameter. Petition at 17-18. PO’s expert admits that while the haptic profile
`
`function may be predefined and static, the output of this function defines a haptic
`
`response H(d) which varies dynamically as a function of the distance between the
`
`user’s fingers during the course of Burrough’s zoom gesture.
`
`BURROUGH DISCLOSES THE LIMITATON “GENERATING A
`II.
`DYNAMIC INTERACTION PARAMETER USING A FIRST GESTURE
`SIGNAL AND SECOND GESTURE SIGNAL”
`
`As established in Apple’s Petition, Burrough discloses a multi-touch zoom
`
`gesture on a touch screen, in which a user can zoom in or zoom out of displayed
`
`content by moving two fingers apart or together, respectively. Petition at 12-15.
`
`During the course of the multi-touch zoom gesture, the touch screen generates
`
`2
`
`
`
`various signals, including signals S associated with the position of each finger on
`
`the touch screen at any given moment in time. Id. at 15-16.
`
`In its Response, PO contends that the signals S are not “gesture signals”
`
`under the Board’s construction of that term for three reasons, none of which
`
`withstand scrutiny. POR at 5-20. PO’s arguments are premised upon an incorrect
`
`interpretation of the Board’s construction and mischaracterize Burrough’s
`
`teachings.
`
`A.
`
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals.”
`
`PO’s primary argument is that the signals S generated during the course of
`
`Burrough’s zoom gesture are not “gesture signals” under the Board’s construction
`
`of that term, because these signals allegedly do not convey meaning or user intent.
`
`POR at 5-12. However, PO’s argument is premised on a fundamental
`
`misinterpretation of the Board’s construction. PO’s interpretation is inconsistent
`
`with the plain language of the construction, the Board’s analysis in arriving at its
`
`construction and the ’571 patent specification. Under a proper interpretation of the
`
`Board’s construction, Burrough’s touch screen signals S are “gesture signals.”
`
`Even if PO’s incorrect interpretation were adopted (which it should not be),
`
`Burrough’s touch screen signals S are nonetheless “gesture signals” under PO’s
`
`interpretation.
`
`3
`
`
`
`1.
`
`PO Misinterprets the Board’s Construction of “gesture
`
`signal.”
`
`The Board construed the term “gesture signal” to mean “a signal indicating a
`
`movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.” Paper No. 7 (“ID”) at
`
`12. PO interprets this construction as imposing two requirements on each recited
`
`gesture signal: (1) the signal must indicate a movement of the body, and (2) the
`
`signal must convey meaning or user intent. For example, PO argues that the
`
`recited dynamic interaction parameter must be generated “based on a first signal
`
`that conveys meaning or user intent and a separate second signal that conveys
`
`meaning or user intent.”) Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, PO contends that the
`
`signals S disclosed by Burrough are not gesture signals, because “individual senses
`
`of touch (such as S1 and S2) do not convey meaning or user intent...” POR at 9.
`
`At deposition, PO’s expert, Dr. Yon Visell, confirmed that this was the
`
`interpretation of the Board’s construction that he applied in his analyses:
`
`Q. In your analysis you have assumed that the board's construction
`requires that the signal indicated movement of the body, right?
`A. Correct.
`Q. You've assumed that the signal also must convey meaning or user
`intent, right?
`A. Correct.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. 1015 at 153:6-12; see also 151:24-152:10 (same); 115:22-116:16 (under the
`
`Board’s construction, “the signal must convey meaning or user intent”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The interpretation of the Board’s construction applied by PO and its expert
`
`is inconsistent with both the plain language of the construction and the Board’s
`
`rationale in adopting the construction. In the Board’s construction, i.e. “a signal
`
`indicating a movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent” (ID at 12),
`
`the clause “that conveys meaning or user intent” modifies the phrase “movement
`
`of the body.” Thus, the plain language of the construction requires that the
`
`movement of the body—not the signal—must convey meaning or user intent.
`
`To the extent there is any ambiguity in the Board’s construction, the Board’s
`
`rationale in adopting this construction clearly resolves any such ambiguity.
`
`Specifically, the Board explained that the ’571 patent expressly defines a gesture as
`
`“any movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.” ID at 8 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:34-35). The Board further explained:
`
`As described in the Specification and indicated by the plain language
`of the claim term, a “gesture signal” is simply a signal indicating a
`“gesture.” See, e.g., id. at col. 10, ll. 36–43 (describing that multiple
`inputs in time from a finger being swiped across a touch screen
`indicate the positions of the contact point of the finger moving along
`the touch screen in a swipe gesture). In other words, a “gesture
`
`5
`
`
`
`signal” is simply “a signal indicating a movement of the body that
`conveys meaning or user intent.”
`ID at 9 (emphases added). Accordingly, the Board’s construction requires that a
`
`gesture signal simply indicate a gesture, where a gesture is a movement of the body
`
`that conveys meaning or user intent. In other words, the movement of the body—
`
`not the signal—must convey meaning or user intent.
`
`PO’s interpretation is also inconsistent with the ’571 patent specification.
`
`As the Board recognized, the specification describes an embodiment in which
`
`multiple gesture signals are generated in response to a swipe gesture on a touch
`
`screen. ID at 9 (citing Ex. 1001 at 10:36-43). In this embodiment, the user
`
`swiping a finger across the touchscreen is a gesture, i.e. a movement of the body
`
`(swiping a finger across the touchscreen) that conveys meaning or user intent
`
`(scrolling among displayed photographs). Ex. 1014, ¶12; Ex. 1001 at 10:36-39
`
`(describing the swipe interaction as a gesture: “Fig. 9B shows a screen view of a
`
`user gesture using a single index finger being swiped across the touch sensitive
`
`display…”) (emphasis added). The ’571 patent teaches that multiple inputs from
`
`the finger are generated during the course of the swipe gesture, and that each of
`
`these inputs “may occur at a different time and may indicate a different two
`
`dimensional position of the contact point of the index finger with the touch
`
`sensitive display.” Ex. 1001 at 10:39-43. The ’571 patent continues:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Based upon the one or more inputs from the one or more user
`gestures in FIG. 9B, a dynamic haptic effect is provided during the
`user gesture and continuously modified as determined by the
`interaction parameter.
`Ex. 1001 at 10:45-49. Thus, the ’571 patent teaches that multiple inputs from the
`
`index finger during a swipe gesture may include first and second gesture signals
`
`used to generate a dynamic interaction parameter. Id.; Ex. 1014, ¶12. The
`
`multiple inputs from the index finger are “gesture signals” under the Board’s
`
`construction, because they are signals that indicate a movement of the body
`
`(swiping a finger across the touchscreen) that conveys meaning or user intent
`
`(scrolling among displayed photographs). Id. Yet, under PO’s erroneous
`
`interpretation of the Board’s construction, these signals presumably would not be
`
`“gesture signals.” See POR at 9 (arguing that “a single indication that a finger has
`
`contacted a screen at a particular location… is not an indication of intent”). PO’s
`
`interpretation therefore cannot be correct. See, e.g., SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex
`
`Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that
`
`excludes a preferred embodiment [] is ‘rarely, if ever, correct.’”) (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals” under the
`2.
`Board’s Construction.
`
`The signals S generated during the course of Burrough’s zoom gesture are
`
`“gesture signals” under a proper interpretation of the Board’s construction. As
`
`7
`
`
`
`established in the Petition, Burrough discloses a multi-touch zoom gesture, in
`
`which an image can be zoomed in or out by moving two fingers apart or together,
`
`respectively. Petition at 13-14; Ex. 1005 at [0080]; Figs. 11, 12A-12H. The zoom
`
`embodiment is illustrated in a series of Figures, including Figs. 12B and 12C,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Id. at Figs. 12B, 12C; [0082]. As illustrated in these figures, a user can zoom in on
`
`the displayed map by moving two fingers apart. Petition at 13-14; Ex. 1005 at
`
`[0080]. Likewise, a user can zoom out on a map by moving two fingers closer
`
`together. Id.; Ex. 1015 at 108:3-18.
`
`PO does not appear to dispute that the user’s interaction with the touch
`
`screen in this embodiment is a “gesture,” i.e. “a movement of the body that
`
`conveys meaning or user intent.” PO’s expert admits that this user interaction is a
`
`movement of the body, i.e. a movement of one or both fingers. Ex. 1015 at
`
`8
`
`
`
`112:16-20; see also Ex. 1014, ¶14. And, the movement of the user’s fingers
`
`conveys an intent to zoom in or zoom out on the displayed map. Id.; see also Ex.
`
`1015 at 135:11-20 (admitting that the action a user performs to zoom in or zoom
`
`out is to move two fingers apart or together, respectively).
`
`Burrough discloses that the user’s interaction with the touch screen during
`
`the zoom gesture is captured by one or more signals S generated by the touch
`
`screen sensors. Petition at 15-16; Ex. 1015 at [0046], [0079]. The parties’ experts
`
`agree that at any given moment in time, the touch screen sensors generate at least
`
`one signal S for each finger. Ex. 1014, ¶15; Ex. 1015 at 173:21-174:1. For
`
`example, in Fig. 12B, the touch screen sensor generates two signals, which Dr.
`
`Visell refers to as S1 and S2, associated with the position of each finger. Ex. 1014,
`
`¶15; Ex. 1015 at 183:8-17. Similarly, after the user’s fingers have moved to the
`
`positions depicted in Fig. 12C, the touch screen sensor generates two additional
`
`signals, which Dr. Visell refers to as S3 and S4, associated with the new positions
`
`of each finger. Ex. 1014, ¶15; Ex. 1015 at 183:8-17.
`
`The signals S (e.g. S1, S2, S3 and S4) generated by the touch screen sensor
`
`are gesture signals under a proper interpretation of the Board’s construction,
`
`because these signals indicate the zoom gesture, which is a movement of the body
`
`(i.e. the movement of the user’s fingers) that conveys meaning or user intent (i.e.
`
`the intent to zoom in or zoom out). Ex. 1014, ¶16.
`
`9
`
`
`
`3.
`interpretation.
`
`Burrough’s signals S are “gesture signals” even under PO’s
`
`As discussed above, Burrough discloses a zoom gesture involving two
`
`fingers illustrated, in part, in Figures 12B and 12C. A POSITA would appreciate
`
`that the zoom gesture described by Burrough is a complex gesture that comprises
`
`multiple simple gestures, including, for example, individual finger down gestures
`
`and finger motion gestures. Ex. 1014, ¶17.
`
`In this regard, the ’571 patent expressly contemplates that complex gestures
`
`may be comprised of multiple simple gestures. Ex. 1001 at 3:35-56; Ex. 1014,
`
`¶18. For example, the ’571 patent discloses that “bringing a finger into contact
`
`with a touch sensitive surface may be referred to as a ‘finger on’ gesture, while
`
`removing a finger from a touch sensitive surface may be referred to as a separate
`
`‘finger off’ gesture.” Id. at 3:37-43. Further in this passage, the ’571 patent
`
`specification states “any number of… simple or complex gestures may be
`
`combined in any manner to form any number of other gestures…” Id. at 3:52-55.
`
`Burrough similarly contemplates that the multi-touch zoom gesture may
`
`comprise multiple simple gestures, such as finger down and finger move gestures.
`
`For example, Burrough discloses that “the set down of the fingers will associate or
`
`lock the fingers to a particular GUI object being displayed.” Ex. 1005 at [0081];
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶19. Burrough further discloses that “when the fingers are moved apart,
`
`the zoom-in signal can be used to increase the size of the embedded features in the
`
`10
`
`
`
`GUI object and when the fingers are pinched together, the zoom-out signal can be
`
`used to decrease the size of embedded features in the object.” Ex. 1005 at [0081];
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶19.
`
`The signals S generated during the course of Burroughs’ zoom gesture are
`
`gesture signals even under PO’s interpretation of the Board’s construction, because
`
`these signals indicate (1) a movement of the body and (2) convey meaning or user
`
`intent of simple gestures that comprise the zoom gesture. Ex. 1014, ¶20. For
`
`example, Fig. 12B depicts a user bringing two fingers into contact with the touch
`
`screen. The parties’ experts agree that when a user brings two fingers into contact
`
`with the touch screen as illustrated in Fig. 12B, at least two signals (which PO’s
`
`expert refers to as S1 and S2) are generated. Id.; Ex. 1015 at 183:8-17. Signals S1
`
`and S2 are each “gesture signals” under PO’s interpretation of the Board’s
`
`construction, because each signal (1) indicates a movement of the user’s body (i.e.
`
`bringing a finger into contact with the touchscreen) and (2) conveys meaning or
`
`user intent (i.e. to contact the touchscreen in a particular position). Ex. 1014, ¶20.
`
`Similarly, Fig. 12C depicts a user moving two fingers to new positions. The
`
`parties’ experts agree that when a user moves two fingers to new positions as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 12C, at least two signals (which PO’s expert refers to as S3 and
`
`S4) are generated. Id.; Ex. 1015 at 183:8-17. Signals S3 and S4 are each “gesture
`
`signals” under PO’s interpretation of the Board’s construction, because each signal
`
`11
`
`
`
`(1) indicates a movement of the user’s body (i.e. moving the finger to a new
`
`location) and (2) conveys meaning or user intent (i.e. to zoom in or zoom out). Ex.
`
`1014, ¶20.
`
`Each of Burrough’s signals S is a “gesture signal” under the
`4.
`Board’s construction.
`
`PO next argues that, in Burrough, the intent to zoom in or zoom out is based
`
`upon a calculation that requires multiple signals S generated at different times, and
`
`that therefore, each individual signal S cannot convey meaning or user intent. POR
`
`at 9-14. For example, PO argues that “the user intent of zooming in or zooming
`
`out in Burrough cannot be determined by a single data point … provided by just
`
`one of the fingers – information from numerous signals S must be considered
`
`together.” Id. at 12. PO’s argument is flawed for two reasons.
`
`First, PO’s argument is premised on an interpretation of the Board’s
`
`construction, which requires that the gesture signal (as opposed to a movement of
`
`the body) convey meaning or user intent. As established above, PO’s
`
`interpretation of the Board’s construction is incorrect. See Section II.A.1.
`
`Second, PO’s argument incorrectly assumes that each gesture signal must
`
`itself convey meaning or user intent. As the Board noted, its construction of
`
`gesture signal “does not exclude conveying meaning and user intent in conjunction
`
`with other gesture signals.” ID at 26-27. This conclusion is undoubtedly correct,
`
`and is well supported by the teachings of the ’571 patent. For example, as
`
`12
`
`
`
`established above, the ’571 patent discloses generating multiple gesture signals
`
`during the course of a user’s swipe gesture, each of which “may occur at a
`
`different time and may indicate a different two-dimensional position” of the user’s
`
`finger. See Section II.A.1; Ex. 1001 at 10:39-43. While an individual signal
`
`indicating the position of the finger may not itself convey the user intent to scroll,
`
`in conjunction with other signals generated during the course of the gesture, each
`
`signal indicates a movement of the body that conveys the user’s intent to scroll.
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶23. Thus, the ’571 patent contemplates that individual gesture signals
`
`need not in and of themselves convey the full meaning or user intent of the gesture
`
`that they indicate. Id. Rather, the gesture signals may convey a position or
`
`movement that may ultimately comprise a gesture or portion of a gesture. Id.
`
`Burrough teaches that the multi-touch zoom gesture
`5.
`comprises two substantially simultaneously occurring gestures.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Burrough’s teaching of “at least two substantially
`
`simultaneously occurring gestures using at least two different fingers or other
`
`object[s]” involves “two separate gestures with two separate intents,” and does not
`
`describe multiple signals generated by two fingers in the zoom embodiment. POR
`
`at 15. PO’s argument mischaracterizes the teachings of Burrough.
`
`Burrough teaches that “one aspect of the invention describes a touch
`
`sensitive input device able to recognize at least two substantially simultaneously
`
`occurring gestures using at least two different fingers or other objects (hereinafter
`
`13
`
`
`
`referred to as a multi-touch event).” Ex. 1005 at [0035] (emphasis added).
`
`Burrough’s description of the zoom embodiment mirrors this language and makes
`
`clear that the zoom gesture involves two substantially simultaneously occurring
`
`gestures: “In the described embodiment, the nature of the multi-touch event can
`
`be determined based upon either the presence of at least two fingers indicating that
`
`the touch is gestural (i.e., multi-touch) rather than a tracking touch based on one
`
`finger and/or by the pressure asserted by the fingers on the surface 126.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1014, ¶25. Moreover, Burrough teaches that in the zoom
`
`gesture embodiment, “the vibro-tactile response provided to each finger can have
`
`the same profile or different profiles. For example, if it the pressure applied by one
`
`finger is substantially greater than that applied by the other finger, then the vibro -
`
`tactile response for the two fingers can be different due to the varying pressure
`
`applied by each finger.” Ex. 1005 at [0079]. In other words, Burrough
`
`contemplates that the gestures performed by each finger may result in different
`
`haptic responses for each finger. Ex. 1014, ¶25. In view of these teachings, a
`
`POSITA would appreciate that the zoom embodiment involves two substantially
`
`simultaneously occurring gestures using two different fingers, each of which
`
`potentially resulting in a different haptic response. Id.
`
`14
`
`
`
`PO’s Arguments Regarding Tinfo Mischaracterize the Petition
`B.
`and Dr. Baudisch’s Declaration.
`
`PO contends that the “only” signals that the Petition and Dr. Baudisch’s
`
`declaration identify as the claimed “gesture signals” in Burrough are the signal(s) S
`
`generated by sensing device 124. POR at 16-20. However, PO’s argument
`
`misrepresents both the Petition and Dr. Baudisch’s declaration.
`
`While the Petition certainly identifies the signals S as “gesture signals,” the
`
`Petition’s identification of the recited gesture signal is not limited to only these
`
`signals. Rather, the Petition clearly indicates that Burrough discloses a touch
`
`screen arranged to receive different types of touch events. Petition at 15 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 at [1006]). These touch events may be used to implement a wide variety
`
`of gestures, including a zoom gesture. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 at [0017], [0079], Figs.
`
`11, 12A-H). The Petition further explains that Burrough discloses that in response
`
`to a touch event T, “sensing device 124 generates touch signal S1 (and any other
`
`signal consistent with a multi-touch event),” which the Petition expressly
`
`identifies as gesture signals. Petition at 15-16. In the context of dependent claim
`
`2, the Petition explains that such signals generated in response to a touch event T
`
`may include signals representing the motion of the finger ( T/ x, T/ y).
`
`Petition at 21 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0051]). Again, the Petition expressly identifies
`
`the motion of the user’s fingers during Burrough’s zoom gesture as gesture signals.
`
`Id. (“in each of these embodiments, Burrough discloses gesture signals…”). Dr.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Baudisch’s declaration likewise identifies each of these signals as gesture signals.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶57-60, 76-78.
`
`Burrough discloses that signals representing the motion of the user’s fingers
`
`may be included in a Tinfo signal. For example, Burrough teaches at [0046] (cited
`
`in Petition’s chart under the limitation “receiving a first gesture signal”), that the
`
`signal(s) S generated by the touch screen sensor may be “converted” into Tinfo
`
`signals, which “can include location, direction, speed and acceleration information
`
`of touch event T.” Ex. 1005 at [0046]. Indeed, the POR acknowledges this fact.
`
`POR at 17 (quoting Ex. 1005 at [0046]). As Dr. Baudisch explained at his
`
`deposition, signals S and Tinfo may simply be different representations of the same
`
`gesture signal originating from the touch screen (Ex. 2010 at 14:21-15:2), and thus
`
`he identified both representations as “gesture signals” in his declaration:
`
`Q. So in your declaration, what do you identify what signal is the
`
`gesture signal?
`
`A. So given that my role here is to apply the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, I would say that the -- both the kind of hardware signal
`
`itself and the package digital versions both are different stages of the
`
`gesture signal. It certainly is the same signal but at different moments
`
`in time, if you will.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 14:21-15:2; see also 15:3-10 (explaining that hardware signals S and
`
`the digital representation Tinfo “are different stages” of the same signal). A
`
`POSITA would appreciate that Tinfo signals must necessarily originate from the
`
`touch screen signals S, because sensing device 124 is the particular hardware
`
`component disclosed for sensing a user’s touch. Ex. 1014, ¶28. Thus, Dr.
`
`Baudisch’s identification of Tinfo signals as the recited “gesture signals” are not
`
`somehow “new” opinions, as PO incorrectly suggests. POR at 15-20.
`
`III. BURROUGH DISCLOSES THE “DYNAMIC INTERACTION
`PARAMETER” LIMITATION
`
`As established in Apple’s Petition, Burrough discloses a dynamic interaction
`
`parameter, haptic response H(d), whose magnitude varies as a function of the
`
`distance between the user’s fingers during the course of a zoom gesture. Petition at
`
`16-18. PO argues that the haptic profile H(d) is “neither dynamic nor generated,”
`
`because the haptic profile is stored in memory. POR at 20-24. PO’s argument,
`
`however, confuses the function that defines H(d), (referred to as the “haptic
`
`profile”), with the output of that function (referred to as the “haptic response”),
`
`which changes dynamically depending on the gesture signals it relies upon. Ex.
`
`1004, ¶29; Ex. 1005 at [0082], [0051]; Petition at 17-18.
`
`As PO correctly notes, Burrough teaches that haptic profiles may be
`
`predetermined static profiles that are stored in memory. POR at 22 (citing Ex.
`
`1005 at [0051]). However, in the context of Burrough’s zoom embodiment, the
`
`17
`
`
`
`haptic profile used for each finger is a linear function of the distance between the
`
`user’s fingers. Petition at 18; Ex. 1005 at [0082]. Figures 12B-H illustrate the
`
`relationship between distance d and the haptic response in a graphical format. For
`
`example, in Figure 12D (reproduced below), two graphs in the lower right corner
`
`show the linear relationship between distance d and haptic response output by H(d)
`
`for each finger touching the screen:
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 12D; [0082].
`
`PO’s expert admits that the haptic profiles described in the context of
`
`Burrough’s zoom embodiment are linear functions of the distance d. Ex. 1015 at
`
`160:13-22. As the distance changes, the magnitude of the haptic response H(d)
`
`changes as a linear function of the distance. For example, if the distance between
`
`the fingers increases, the magnitude of the haptic effect likewise increases. Ex.
`
`1005 at [0082]; Ex. 1002, ¶68. Similarly, if the distance between the fingers
`
`decreases, the magnitude of the haptic effect likewise decreases. Ex. 1005 at
`
`18
`
`
`
`[0082]; Ex. 1002, ¶68. Accordingly, while the linear function defining the haptic
`
`profile may remain static in some embodiments, the experts agree that the output
`
`of this function, i.e. haptic response H(d), is a parameter that changes over time
`
`based on the user’s interaction with the device. Ex. 1014, ¶31; see also Ex. 1015 at
`
`165:2-10. Thus, haptic response H(d) satisfies the Board’s construction of
`
`“dynamic interaction parameter, i.e. “a parameter that changes over time or reacts
`
`in real time based on a user’s interaction with a device.” ID at 13.
`
`Finally, Burrough expressly discloses that even the haptic profile itself, i.e.,
`
`the function which PO asserts is “static,” can change dynamically during the
`
`course of a zoom gesture. Petition at 18; Ex. 1005 at [0082] (“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 PO’s expert
`
`admits, changing the slope of the haptic profile as described by Burrough would
`
`require a different linear function. Id.; Visell Tr. at 167:25-168:6. Thus, contrary
`
`to PO’s argument (POR at 23), a POSITA would understand that even the haptic
`
`profiles associated with zoom embodiment may change in response to the user’s
`
`interaction. Ex. 1014, ¶32.
`
`IV. PO’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS ARE MISLEADING
`
`To the extent PO contends that Petitioner failed to address obviousness with
`
`respect to the independent claims of the ’571 patent, PO is incorrect. POR at 24;
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition at 20. In this regard, PO’s Response admits that Petitioner ha
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
