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 RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`WITNESS PATRICK BAUDISCH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`WITNESS PATRICK BAUDISCH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. submits the following responses to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observation (Paper No. 27) regarding the August 15, 2017 deposition
`
`of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Patrick Baudisch (Exhibit 2012).
`
`II. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`(“Motion”) is improper, and should not be entered. The Motion improperly
`
`advances new arguments not addressed in Patent Owner’s Response. See Paper
`
`No. 8 (Scheduling Order) at 3 (“any arguments for patentability not raised in the
`
`response will be deemed waived.”). For example, in Observation #4, Patent
`
`Owner argues that “if Petitioner is relying on Tinfo as a ‘gesture signal’ of claim 1,
`
`only one ‘gesture signal’... would be necessary to determine whether a zoom in or
`
`zoom out gesture is occurring…” Patent Owner’s Response does not include any
`
`such argument. Similarly, in Observations #5 and 6, Patent Owner argues that
`
`“Petitioner’s claim interpretation conflicts with the Board’s interpretation, when
`
`the Board previously rejected Petitioner’s argument for Rosenberg 373…”
`
`However, Patent Owner’s Response includes no such argument. Indeed, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response does not even mention Rosenberg 373. Accordingly, Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion is improper and should not be entered.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS #1-6
`Should the Board choose to enter the Motion, Petitioner provides the
`
`following responses to Observations #1-6:
`
`1. Observation #1
`
`Patent Owner’s selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s testimony (24:20-23) is
`
`not relevant to the stated issue of whether the signals S and Tinfo are, or can be,
`
`the same gesture signal. As Dr. Baudisch testified, “I think someone skilled in the
`
`art would understand that, from the perspective of Claim 1, S and Tinfo both fulfill
`
`the purpose of gesture signal, given that they are in some embodiments really just
`
`repackaged versions of each other.” Ex. 2012 at 24:14-18 (emphasis added). Dr.
`
`Baudisch further testified that “‘in some embodiments,’ Tinfo can be more…” Id.
`
`at 24:20-23 (emphasis added). This is consistent with the cited portion of the
`
`Reply and Dr. Baudisch’s declaration that “signals S and Tinfo may simply be
`
`different representations of the same gesture signal.” Reply at 16, Ex. 1014, ¶ 28
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`2. Observation #2
`
`Patent Owner’s selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s testimony (25:9-12) is
`
`irrelevant to the stated issue of whether Burrough’s signal S are the only signals
`
`identified in the Petition as the recited “gesture signal.” The cited testimony
`
`simply confirms that “S1 is definitely one representation of a form of gesture
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`signal.” Ex. 2012 at 25:9-12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s observation
`
`ignores other gesture signals identified by Petitioner and Dr. Baudisch. See Reply
`
`at 15-17; Ex. 1014, ¶¶26-28. In addition, Patent Owner’s argument that “Dr.
`
`Baudisch’s testimony above that Tinfo contains different information than S1…”
`
`misrepresents Dr. Baudisch’s testimony for the reasons discussed above in
`
`connection with Observation #1.
`
`3. Observation #3
`
`Patent Owner’s selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s testimony (20:12-21:13)
`
`is taken out of context. Dr. Baudisch testified as follows: “Q. So does S1 signal
`
`always include direction information? A. … I think, in the simplest case, the
`
`gesture signal or touch signal S1 may just contain position or pressure, probably
`
`both. Depending on how the system is designed, I could envision that the
`
`electronic interface maybe processes the sequence of those and may add direction
`
`information… So, in some very unusual embodiments, the sensor itself might be
`
`capable of producing such information, and if that were the case, then I would
`
`assume that to be also packaged into S1.” Ex. 2012 at 20:12-21:13 (emphasis
`
`added). Patent Owner’s selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s testimony is also
`
`irrelevant to the stated issue of whether the first and second gesture signals
`
`comprise vector signals, because the testimony relates solely to signals S1 and not
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`to “signals representing finger motion ( T/ x, T/ y)” referenced at the cited
`
`portion (page 21) of the Reply.
`
`4. Observation #4
`
`Patent Owner’s selection portion of Dr. Baudisch’s testimony (19:24-20:10)
`
`is irrelevant to the stated issue of whether one or more than one Tinfo signal is
`
`necessary to determine whether a zoom in or zoom out gesture is occurring. Dr.
`
`Baudisch testified that depending on the specific embodiment, distance
`
`information may be included in Tinfo or it may be computed later: “Q. So a single
`
`Tinfo signal cannot show whether the distance between the fingers is increasing or
`
`decreasing? A. My sense is this depends on the specific embodiment. If distance
`
`information is computed as early as the processor, then I think Tinfo would contain
`
`that information. If distance information were to be computed at a later step, at the
`
`microcontroller, then I think that computation would happen or that determining of
`
`increasing or decreasing distances would have to happen a little later.” Ex. 2012 at
`
`19:24-20:10 (emphasis added).
`
`5. Observation #5
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes the selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s
`
`testimony (41:21-23). Dr. Baudisch did not testify that signals generated from
`
`“accidental touching” constitute gesture signals. Ex. 2012 at 41:12-42:1. The
`
`selected portion is also not relevant to the stated issue of the proper interpretation
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`of the Board’s construction of “gesture signal.” In the immediately preceding
`
`testimony omitted in Patent Owner’s Motion, Dr. Baudisch testified: “Q. So then
`
`it’s your opinion that S1 always conveys user intent? A. So, again, keeping in
`
`mind that we are talking about – talking from a perspective in which the board had
`
`not construed the term ‘gesture signal’ the way it did, because, otherwise, the
`
`question would be of no importance. If we think about what the board actually
`
`construed, this question is not relevant...” Ex. 2012 at 41:12-42:1 (emphasis
`
`added). The selected portion is also irrelevant, because neither Petitioner nor Dr.
`
`Baudisch identified signals generated from “accidental touching” as “gesture
`
`signals.” As Dr. Baudisch testified: “So I think we’re in the context of the
`
`misinterpretation here. Given that context, I can certainly imagine cases where S1
`
`indicates an accidental gesture, accidental touch of the screen, but I think this is
`
`really like a hypothetical at this point.” Id. at 42:11-22 (emphasis added).
`
` 6. Observation #6
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes the selected portion of Dr. Baudisch’s
`
`testimony (45:17-22). Dr. Baudisch did not testify that all signals generated from
`
`the touch screen constitute “gesture signals.” Dr. Baudisch instead testified as
`
`follows: “Q. So every touching of the screen generates a gesture signal in the
`
`Burrough system, correct? A. Well, that’s what the inventor calls the simplest
`
`case. It would take me a little bit longer to think about if there are other cases…”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2012 at 45:17-22 (emphasis added). As discussed above, Dr. Baudisch also
`
`testified that some signals may result from “accidental touching.” Id. at 41:12-
`
`42:1. The selected portion is also not relevant to the stated issue of the proper
`
`interpretation of the Board’s construction of “gesture signal” for the same reasons
`
`discussed above in connection with Observation #5.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`Reg. No. 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`Apple-Immersion-IPRs@dlapiper.com
`Phone: 703-773-4148
`Fax: 703-773-5200
`
`Robert Buergi
`Reg. No. 58,125
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`Phone: 650-833-2407
`Fax: 650-687-1144
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Response to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation was served on September 5, 2017, via
`
`email, directed to the attorneys of record for the patent at the following email
`
`address: mfleming@irell.com; bredjaian@irell.com; ImmersionIPR@irell.com;
`
`mwells@irell.com.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`Reg. No. 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`Apple-Immersion-IPRs@dlapiper.com
`Phone: 703-773-4148
`Fax: 703-773-5200
`
`Robert Buergi
`Reg. No. 58,125
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`Phone: 650-833-2407
`Fax: 650-687-1144
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`7
`
`
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
