`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`________________
`
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order in IPR2016-01372, Paper 8, the Parties’
`
`Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Date 4, Paper 19, and the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012), Patent Owner
`
`Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) respectfully brings this motion for
`
`observations on cross-examination of Apple’s expert witness, Dr. Patrick
`
`Baudisch. Immersion submits the following observations on Dr. Baudisch’s
`
`testimony:
`
`Observation # 1
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 24 lines 20-23, Dr. Baudisch testified that the Tinfo
`
`signal in Burrough can contain more information than signal S1 in Burrough: “Q:
`
`So then, if they're just a repackage of each other, then S1 is the same as Tinfo? A: I
`
`said, ‘in some embodiments.’ Tinfo can be more. More processing can happen
`
`along the way.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at page 16 of its Reply
`
`(and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraph 28 of Ex. 1014) that
`
`“signals S and Tinfo may simply be different representations of the same gesture
`
`signal.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it shows that S and
`
`Tinfo are not the “same” and thus are not the “same gesture signal.”
`
`Observation # 2
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 25 lines 9-12, Dr. Baudisch confirmed that “S1 is
`
`definitely one representation of a form of gesture signal.” This is relevant to
`
`102225581
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Petitioner’s argument at page 15 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding
`
`opinion at paragraph 26 of Ex. 1014) that “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.” This cross
`
`examination testimony, in conjunction with Dr. Baudisch’s testimony above that
`
`Tinfo contains different information than S1, is relevant because it shows that
`
`Patent Owner did not mischaracterize the Petition as identifying the claimed “first
`
`gesture signal” and “second gesture signal” in Burrough as the signal(s) S.
`
`Observation # 3
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 20 line 12 through page 21 line 13, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that Burrough does not expressly disclose that S1 includes direction
`
`information, speed information, or acceleration information because “Burrough
`
`doesn’t really say what exactly is contained in S,” and “in the simplest case, the
`
`gesture signal or touch signal S1 may just contain position or pressure, probably
`
`both.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at page 21 of its Reply (and Dr.
`
`Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraphs 33-35 of Ex. 1014) that the first
`
`and second gesture signals comprise vector signals because they contain
`
`information about “magnitude” and “direction.” This cross examination testimony
`
`is relevant because it establishes that the signals “S” that Petitioner alleges are first
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`and second gesture signals for purposes of claim 1 are not described by Burrough
`
`as including information about speed or direction.
`
`Observation # 4
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 19 line 24 through page 20 line 10, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that Burrough’s Tinfo signal can contain information showing whether the
`
`distance between the fingers is increasing or decreasing. This is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s argument at page 16 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding
`
`opinion at paragraph 28 of Ex. 1014) that “Burrough discloses that signals
`
`representing the motion of the user’s fingers may be included in a Tinfo signal.”
`
`This cross examination testimony is relevant because it shows that if Petitioner is
`
`relying on Tinfo as a “gesture signal” of claim 1, only one “gesture signal” (rather
`
`than a “first gesture signal” and a “second gesture signal”) would be necessary to
`
`determine whether a zoom in or zoom out gesture is occurring as shown by Figure
`
`11 of Burrough.
`
`Observation # 5
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 41 lines 21-23, Dr. Baudisch testified: “Q: So then
`
`it’s your opinion that S1 always conveys user intent? A: . . . Following you down
`
`the path of Patent Owner’s misinterpretation of claim constructions, I could
`
`certainly imagine cases where [Burrough's] S1 indicates an accidental gesture, like
`
`an accidental touching of the screen. And we’re really deep in hypotheticals at that
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`point. I can imagine cases where it seems to convey meaning where, in reality, the
`
`touch was accidental, situations like this.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument
`
`at pages 4-7 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraphs
`
`9-12 of Ex. 1014) that a gesture signal need only indicate a gesture, and need not
`
`itself convey meaning or user intent. This cross examination testimony is relevant
`
`to whether Petitioner’s interpretation accurately reflects the “conveys meaning or
`
`user intent” portion of the Board’s claim construction, because it shows that
`
`accidental touches do not convey meaning or user intent. This cross examination
`
`testimony is also relevant as to whether Petitioner’s claim interpretation conflicts
`
`with the Board’s interpretation, when the Board previously rejected Petitioner’s
`
`argument for Rosenberg 373 on the ground that “the Petition contains no
`
`discussion of any meaning or user intent that may be conveyed by the ‘sensor data’
`
`of Rosenberg 373.” Paper 7 at 43.
`
`Observation # 6
`
`In Exhibit 2012, at page 45 lines 17-22, Dr. Baudisch testified: “So every
`
`touching of the screen generates a gesture signal in the Burrough system; correct?
`
`Well, that's what the inventor calls the simplest case.” This is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s argument at pages 4-7 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding
`
`opinion at paragraphs 9-12 of Ex. 1014) that a gesture signal need only indicate a
`
`gesture, and need not itself convey meaning or user intent. This cross examination
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner’s interpretation accurately reflects the
`
`“conveys meaning or user intent” portion of the Board’s claim construction,
`
`because the testimony shows that Petitioner is interpreting “gesture signal” such
`
`that signals that indicate accidental movements of the body (as discussed above)
`
`constitute gesture signals. This cross examination testimony is also relevant as to
`
`whether Petitioner’s claim interpretation conflicts with the Board’s claim
`
`interpretation, when the Board previously rejected Petitioner’s argument for
`
`Rosenberg 373 on the ground that “the Petition contains no discussion of any
`
`meaning or user intent that may be conveyed by the ‘sensor data’ of Rosenberg
`
`373.” Paper 7 at 43.
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /s/ Michael R. Fleming
`Michael R. Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`
`
`Babak Redjaian, Esq., Reg. 42,096
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Immersion Corporation
`
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on August 28,
`
`2017, a copy of the foregoing IMMERSION CORPORATION’S MOTION
`
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION and EXHIBIT 2012 was
`
`served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, upon the following:
`
`
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`703-773-4148 (phone)
`703-773-5200 (fax)
`Apple-Immersion-IPRs@dlapiper.com
`
`Robert Buergi
`Reg. No. 58,125
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650-833-2407
`Fax: 650-687-1144
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Pia Kamath
`By:
` Pia Kamath
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10234437
`
`
`
`
`
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
