`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`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
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF YON VISELL, PH.D.
`
`IN SUPPORT OF IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Yon Visell, declare as follows:
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`2. My name is Yon Visell. I am an Assistant Professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Media Arts and
`
`Technology Graduate Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara
`
`(“UCSB”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been engaged by Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) as an
`
`expert in connection with matters raised in the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 (the “’571 patent”) filed by Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”).
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`5.
`
`The ’571 patent is entitled “Interactivity Model for Shared Feedback
`
`on Mobile Devices.” The ’571 patent is directed to a novel way of producing
`
`haptic effects in electronic devices. The fundamental insight that is described and
`
`claimed in the ’571 patent is that the user’s gesture interactions with the device
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-2
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`need to be tracked and analyzed in order to properly synchronize haptic feedback
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`with a user’s input. Reflecting this focus, the claims specify that both a first and a
`
`second gesture signal (each based on a user’s gestural inputs) are used to generate
`
`something called a “dynamic interaction parameter.” The petition challenges
`
`claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 of the ’571 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The petition raises three grounds, each based on obviousness under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ground 1 argues that claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 of
`
`the ’571 are obvious in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US
`
`2010/0156818 (“Burrough”), Ex. 1005. Based on studying the petition and the
`
`exhibits cited in the petition as well as other documents, it is my opinion that
`
`claims 1-7, 12-18, and 23-29 are not rendered obvious by Burrough.
`
`7.
`
`Ground 2 argues that claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 13, 15-18, 23, 24, and 26-29
`
`are obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 (“Rosenberg ’373”), Ex. 1004.
`
`Based on studying the petition and the exhibits cited in the petition as well as other
`
`documents, it is my opinion that claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 13, 15-18, 23, 24, and 26-29
`
`are not rendered obvious by Rosenberg ’373.
`
`8.
`
`Finally, ground 3 argues that claims 3, 14, and 25, which concern an
`
`“on-screen signal,” are obvious under the combination of Rosenberg ’373 and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,429,846 (“Rosenberg ’846”), Ex. 1006. Based on studying the
`
`petition and the exhibits cited in the petition as well as other documents, it is my
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-3
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`opinion that claims 3, 14, and 25 are not rendered obvious by the combination of
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`Rosenberg ’373 and Rosenberg ’846.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`9.
`I obtained my Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from McGill University in 2011. Before that, I received my MA in Physics from
`
`the University of Texas at Austin in 1999, and my BA in Physics from Wesleyan
`
`University in 1995.
`
`10. Since 2015, I have worked as an Assistant Professor at UCSB. From
`
`2013 to 2015, I worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at Drexel University.
`
`11. At UCSB, I lead the RE Touch Lab as its Director and Principal
`
`Investigator. The RE Touch Lab includes six Ph.D. students and numerous
`
`affiliated researchers and undergraduate students. Some of the topics that my
`
`teams at the RE Touch Lab have explored include computational perception, such
`
`as how the mechanical signatures of contact elicit conscious perception of touch,
`
`and the creation of novel haptic devices for simulating the feel of touched objects.
`
`12. My personal research focuses on haptic engineering, robotics, and the
`
`mechanics and neuroscience of touch. My work is motivated by creative
`
`applications in haptic human-computer interaction, sensorimotor augmentation,
`
`and interaction in virtual reality.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-4
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In addition to my research at the RE Touch Lab, I also teach classes,
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`including linear and nonlinear control systems, haptics, human-computer
`
`interaction, interactive arts, artificial intelligence, and robotics.
`
`14.
`
`I am the author of over 60 articles in journals and conference
`
`proceedings. I hold one issued patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,041,521 (“Floor-Based
`
`Haptic Communication System”), and one pending patent application (“Stretchable
`
`Tactile Sensing Array”), both pertaining to haptic technology. I am the editor of
`
`two books on virtual reality, including Human Walking in Virtual Reality. I have
`
`received several awards and honors, including the Google Faculty Research Award
`
`in 2016, and several best paper awards at haptics symposia. I have chaired and
`
`edited several conferences and symposia.
`
`15.
`
`I also have experience working in industry. Before receiving my
`
`Ph.D., I worked for several years as the Principal DSP developer, audio at Ableton,
`
`a renowned music software company. Before that I worked for several years as a
`
`Research Scientist investigating speech recognition at Loquendo Inc., which is
`
`now part of Nuance.
`
`16. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 2007.
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated by Immersion for my time spent in
`
`developing this declaration at a rate of $400 per hour, and for any time spent
`
`testifying in connection with this declaration at a rate of $500 per hour. My
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-5
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the substance of my opinions, the content of
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`this declaration or any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of the inter partes
`
`review or any other proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I have no financial interest in Immersion, and have financial interests
`
`of less than $3000 in Apple through long-term mutual fund investments
`
`representing less than 1% of my portfolio.
`
`19. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on the petition
`
`and exhibits cited in the petition, and other documents and materials identified in
`
`this declaration, including the ’571 patent and its prosecution history, the prior art
`
`references and materials discussed in this declaration, and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I am aware of information generally available to, and relied upon by,
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including, for example, textbooks,
`
`manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical standards).
`
`21.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-6
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`22.
`It is my understanding that the ’571 patent should be interpreted based
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`on how it would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`effective filing date of the application. It is my understanding that factors such as
`
`the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art.
`
`23.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’571 patent.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the ’571 patent, its file
`
`history, and my knowledge of the field of the art, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art for the field of the ’571 patent would have at least: (1) a Bachelor's of Science
`
`degree in an engineering discipline such as Mechanical Engineering or Computer
`
`Science, or (2) at least two years' experience working with human machine
`
`interface systems, graphical user interfaces, haptic feedback systems, robotics,
`
`biomechanics, or mobile devices or equivalent embedded systems. This level of
`
`skill is commensurate with the interdisciplinary nature of the ’571 patent, which
`
`combines knowledge of computer software and user interface design with
`
`knowledge of electrical and/or mechanical systems for producing haptic effects.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-7
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I have considered the issues discussed in the remainder of this
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`declaration from this perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although
`
`I use this perspective, I do not believe that any of my opinions would change if a
`
`slightly higher or lower level of skill were assumed. For example, I understand
`
`that Apple contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have both a
`
`Bachelor's degree and two to three years of professional experience. Petition at
`
`6. My opinions concerning the validity of the ’571 patent would not change under
`
`Apple’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, it is my opinion that
`
`Immersion’s proposed claim constructions should be adopted under either
`
`Immersion or Apple’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`26.
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I
`
`believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on the
`
`patent documents. I use the principles below, however, as a guide in formulating
`
`my opinions.
`
`27. My understanding is that a primary step in determining validity of
`
`patent claims is to properly construe the claims to determine claim scope and
`
`meaning.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-8
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In an inter partes review proceeding, as I understand from Immersion
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`counsel, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction (“BRC”) in
`
`light of the patent’s specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In other forums, such as
`
`in federal courts, different standards of proof and claim interpretation control,
`
`which are not applied by the patent office for inter partes review. Accordingly, I
`
`reserve the right to argue for a different interpretation or construction of the
`
`challenged claims in other proceedings, as appropriate.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the patent office must construe the
`
`claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification. For the purposes of this review, I have construed each claim term in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable construction.
`
`B. Anticipation
`30.
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either expressly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference. I understand that anticipation is a
`
`question of fact. I further understand that the requirement of strict identity
`
`between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or limitation
`
`required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-9
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`C. Obviousness
`31.
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that the
`
`determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole,
`
`not separate pieces of the claim. I understand that obviousness is a question of law
`
`based on underlying factual issues. I also understand that an obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention, and the existence of secondary consideration such as
`
`commercial success or long-felt but unresolved needs.
`
`VI. THE ’571 PATENT
`32.
`I have read and reviewed the ’571 patent and have an understanding
`
`of its background as well as its particular improvements over the prior art. I
`
`understand that the ’571 patent is entitled “Interactivity Model for Shared
`
`Feedback on Mobile Devices.” In my opinion, the ’571 patent is directed to a
`
`novel way of producing haptic effects in electronic devices. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that the fundamental insight that is described and
`
`claimed in the ’571 patent is that the user’s gestural interactions with the device
`
`need to be tracked and analyzed in order to properly synchronize haptic feedback
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-10
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`with a user’s input. Reflecting this focus, the claims specify that both a first and a
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`second gesture signal (each based on a user’s gestural inputs) are used to generate
`
`something called a “dynamic interaction parameter.” Ex. 1001 at claim 1
`
`(“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”). I understand that given the format of the claims, a single gesture signal is
`
`insufficient to form the dynamic interaction parameter.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, the dynamic interaction parameter is meant to
`
`accurately and responsively track the user’s behavior. As such, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the dynamic interaction parameter
`
`changes or reacts in real time to the user’s interactions, and is used to alter the
`
`haptic effects produced by the device. This allows the device to provide
`
`responsive haptic feedback to the user. Ex. 1001 at 1:29-33 (“[V]ibrotactile haptic
`
`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.”). A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would recognize that the approach of the ’571 patent is an improvement
`
`over the prior art because the ’571 patent’s techniques can improve the timing
`
`and/or nature of haptic feedback: “[B]ecause these user gestures and system
`
`animations have variable timing, the correlation to haptic feedback [in the prior art]
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-11
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`may be static and inconsistent and therefore less compelling to the user.” Id. at
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`1:49-56.
`
`34. Other ingredients may be used in addition to a first gesture signal and
`
`a second gesture signal to generate the dynamic interaction parameter. For
`
`example, additional device sensor signals may be used. Id. at claim 7. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using these additional ingredients is
`
`another improvement over the prior art. E.g., id. at 1:56-60 (“Further, device
`
`sensor information is typically not used in combination with gestures to produce
`
`haptic feedback.”). The various ingredients may be combined and processed in
`
`several different ways to generate the dynamic interaction parameter. See, e.g., id.
`
`at Table 2 (listing 14 different example “methods of synthesis” that may be
`
`employed). In my opinion, the dependent claims of the ’571 patent show that the
`
`generation of the dynamic interaction parameter using both a first gesture signal
`
`and a second gesture signal, including the selection and processing of the
`
`ingredients, is the inventive focus. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the
`
`patent would understand that the claims require specific ingredients in specific
`
`numbers to be used to generate the dynamic interaction parameter. E.g., id. at
`
`claim 7 (“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
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-12
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`second gesture signal and the first device sensor signal and the second device
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`sensor signal”).
`
`35. Once the dynamic interaction parameter has been generated using a
`
`first gesture signal, a second gesture signal, and potentially other ingredients, it is
`
`used to modify the haptic output of the system. Id. at 15:8-9 (“At 1313, a drive
`
`signal is applied to a haptic actuator according to the interaction parameter.”); see
`
`also claim 1 (“applying a drive signal to a haptic output device according to the
`
`dynamic interaction parameter”). For example, in one embodiment, a user may
`
`scroll between different film frames on an electronic device with a touchscreen,
`
`and may receive haptic feedback for that interaction. Id. at 13:56-61 (“By using
`
`gestures or device sensor data, a user may scroll the filmstrip from left to right or
`
`right to left, and the filmstrip application may then dynamically provide a haptic
`
`effect for a first photograph 1101 which is different from a haptic effect for a
`
`second photograph 1103 based upon the gestures or device sensor data.”).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`36.
`I have reviewed Apple and Immersion’s proposed claim constructions
`
`and evaluated them from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. It is my opinion that Immersion’s proposed claim
`
`constructions best reflect the broadest reasonable construction from the relevant
`
`terms, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-13
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`“gesture signal” (claims 1-7, 12-18, 23-29)
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`
`
`A.
`37.
`
`“gesture signal” in view of the relevant evidence is “an electronic signal,
`
`representing a recognized movement of the body that conveys meaning or user
`
`intent.” It is also my opinion that all relevant claim construction factors, including
`
`the plain meaning of the term, the specification, the prosecution history, and the
`
`extrinsic evidence, support this construction.
`
`38. A person of ordinary skill in the art would draw a distinction between
`
`the claimed “gesture signal” and the claimed “device sensor signal.” Further, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inclusion of the word
`
`“gesture” within “gesture signal” indicates that the gesture signal is associated with
`
`a user gesture.
`
`39. A person of ordinary skill in the art would consult the specification for
`
`guidance, and would utilize the disclosures in column 3 of the ’571 patent to craft
`
`the appropriate construction. See Ex. 1001 at 3:34-35 (“A gesture is any
`
`movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.”); 3:56-59 (“A gesture
`
`can also be any form of hand movement recognized by a device having an
`
`accelerometer, gyroscope, or other motion sensor, and converted to electronic
`
`signals.”). It is my opinion that these two quotations from the specification
`
`effectively set forth a definition of “gesture signal,” which is appropriately
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-14
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`captured by Immersion’s proposed construction, and not by Apple’s proposed
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`construction.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, the specification consistently refers to movements of
`
`the body as the genesis of a gesture signal, which agrees with the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “gesture”:
`
`It will be recognized that simple gestures may be combined to form
`more complex gestures. For example, 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. If the time between
`the “finger on” and “finger off” gestures is relatively short, the
`combined gesture may be referred to as “tapping”; if the time between
`the “finger on” and “finger off” gestures is relatively long, the
`combined gesture may be referred to as “swiping”; if the distance
`between the two-dimensional (x,y) positions of the “finger on” and
`“finger off” gestures is relatively small, the combined gesture may be
`referred to as “smearing”, “smudging” or “flicking”.
`Id. at 3:36-52.
`
`41.
`
`It is also my opinion that there are movements of the body that are not
`
`full gestures and could not comprise an entire gesture signal. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that the ability of a particular system to parse
`
`gestures would depend on the implementation of that system. For example, in one
`
`embodiment disclosed in the specification, swiping a finger across a touch screen
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-15
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`does produce multiple position signals (i.e., a “device sensor signals”) from the
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`touchscreen hardware at different times, but a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that those position signals are together the constituents of a
`
`single “swipe” gesture:
`
`FIG. 9B shows a screen view of a user gesture using a single index
`finger being swiped across the touch sensitive display from right to
`left in order to display the next photograph. Multiple inputs from the
`index finger are received from the single gesture. Each of the
`multiple 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.
`Id. at 10:36-43; see also id. at 14:18-22 (a single “scrolling gesture” is detected
`
`based on moving a finger across the touchscreen over time). Therefore, it is my
`
`opinion that recording the position of a contact of a user’s finger at one point in
`
`time is not sufficient in this embodiment to recognize a full gesture. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not think that position data, standing alone, has
`
`enough information to “convey meaning or user intent.” Id. at 3:35-36.
`
`42.
`
`It is further my opinion that the number and type of gesture signals
`
`that are present in a system varies based on how the system is implemented. The
`
`same movements of the body may result in one, two, or more gesture signals,
`
`depending on the system. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:37-52 (explaining that “finger on”
`
`and “finger off” gestures could be interpreted as a single, more complex gestures
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-16
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`such as “tapping,” “long tapping,” “swiping,” “smearing,” “smudging,” or
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`“flicking”); 14:18-22 (describing a single “scrolling gesture” that implicitly
`
`involves subsidiary “finger on,” “finger off,” and “swipe” actions).
`
`43. A person of ordinary skill in the art would identify the common
`
`element among these embodiments as the fact that the gestures that are recognized
`
`by a given system and encapsulated in the claimed “gesture signals” depend on
`
`how the system is programmed and architected. For example, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would realize that the specification discloses that it is
`
`possible to develop a system that recognizes separate “finger on” and “finger off”
`
`gestures and has no concept of “compound” gestures. Cf. id. at 3:34-62. Similarly,
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from this that a different
`
`system could use the same hardware as the first, could be manipulated with the
`
`same user hand movements, and could process the same underlying sensor signals
`
`from the touchscreen, but instead may be configured to recognize only a “swiping”
`
`gesture. Id. at 3:46-49. In sum, it is my opinion that if the software in this
`
`different system is not equipped to track and package the underlying sensor signals
`
`into distinct “finger on” and “finger off” gestures, then the system does not detect a
`
`“gesture signal” for those gestures. In my opinion, Immersion’s proposed
`
`construction preserves this aspect of the claimed “gesture signals,” while Apple’s
`
`construction does not.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-17
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`44.
`
`It is also my opinion that this distinction between simple position
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`information and a gesture signal was also made by the applicant during
`
`prosecution. See Ex. 2003 at 9 (August 2, 2012 Applicant Remarks in prosecution
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,279,193, a prior patent in the same family as the ’571 patent)
`
`(“[Prior art reference raised by the examiner] Marvit describes gestures in the
`
`context of motion sensor engagement for a handheld device. For example, input
`
`movement may be in the form of translation and/or gestures. Translation-based
`
`input focuses on a beginning point and endpoint of a motion and difference
`
`between such beginning points and endpoints.”). A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading this section of the prosecution history would understand that the
`
`applicant’s comments, in addition to the disclosure of the Marvit reference, show
`
`that a translation-based input is not necessarily a gesture.
`
`45.
`
`It is also my opinion that Immersion’s interpretation is also consistent
`
`with the use of the term “gesture” in the art of human-computer interaction. In this
`
`field, which I am very familiar with, a “gesture” represents a movement of the
`
`body that expresses a full interaction with or command to a device—not merely a
`
`partial or inchoate interaction. See Ex. 2002 at 1
`
`(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gesture?s=t) (“gesture . . . 4. Digital
`
`Technology. a particular movement of the body, typically the fingers or hand, used
`
`to control or interact with a digital device (often used attributively): a gesture
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-18
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`command; Use a two-finger pinching gesture on your touchscreen to zoom in or
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`out.”). The design of real products follows this definition. For example, electronic
`
`devices typically include haptic feedback that is delivered once a gesture has been
`
`recognized. Providing feedback based on intermediate changes in position or
`
`pressure is certainly possible, but a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`automatically characterize that as based on the recognition or processing of a
`
`“gesture signal”—it would depend on how the particular system treated those
`
`intermediate changes.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, Apple’s construction of gesture signal (“a signal
`
`indicating user interaction with a user interface device”) is inappropriate and casts
`
`a net that is too wide. First, Apple’s construction is not limited to a movement of
`
`the hand, or even the body. For example, a user could “interact” with a “user
`
`interface device” via electrodes attached to the scalp that measure voltage
`
`fluctuations resulting from ionic current within the neurons of the brain (i.e., using
`
`electroencephalography (EEG) to measure thoughts). Ex. 1001 at 11:13, 11:29.
`
`But a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think that the ’571 patent
`
`contemplates referring to that as a “gesture.” A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would instead turn to the section of the specification that clarifies that a gesture is a
`
`“movement of the body.” Ex. 1001 at 3:35-36. In my opinion, Apple’s proposed
`
`construction goes beyond the specification to encompass any user interaction,
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-19
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`including interactions that do not involve hand or body movement. A person of
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not consider these interactions to be gestures, nor
`
`would they consider signals based on those interactions to be “gesture signals.”
`
`47.
`
`It is further my opinion that Apple’s proposed construction does not
`
`require that the gesture signal correspond to a particular recognized gesture—i.e. to
`
`an action that demonstrates “meaning or user intent.” Ex. 1001 at 3:35-36 (“A
`
`gesture is any movement of the body that conveys meaning or user intent.”). A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that not every movement of the
`
`body has an ascertainable meaning. Therefore, monitoring movement over time
`
`may be necessary to determine the user’s intent. In my opinion, Apple’s
`
`construction does not preserve this important aspect of the term “gesture signal.”
`
`48.
`
`It is additionally my opinion that Apple’s proposed construction
`
`conflates a “device sensor signal,” which is separately described and claimed (e.g.,
`
`id. at claim 7) with a “gesture signal.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that there are many user interactions that could result in a “device sensor
`
`signal” that would also qualify as a “gesture signal” under Apple’s construction,
`
`but which have no direct relationship to a purposeful, gestural movement of the
`
`body. See, e.g., id. at 11:11-14 (device sensor signals that are based on some form
`
`of user interaction include, in addition to EEG signals, “any type of bio monitor
`
`such as skin or body temperature, blood pressure (BP), heart rate monitor
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-20
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01372
`
`
`
`
`(HRM), . . . or galvanic skin response (GSR)”). Further, in the case where a device
`
`Case IPR2016-01372
`Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`sensor signal is used in the recognition of a gesture, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that the specification draws a distinction between that
`
`signal and the gesture itself. Ex. 1001 at 3:16-18 (“A device sensor signal may be
`
`generated by any means, and typically may be generated by capturing a user
`
`gesture with a device.”).
`
`49. Moreover, it is my opinion that Apple’s construction does not respect
`
`the claim requirements that both a “first gesture signal” and a “second gesture
`
`signal” be received by the system. Under Apple’s construction, several underlying
`
`sensor signals that corresponded to only a single user gesture could be interpreted
`
`as the “first gesture signal” and the “second gesture signal.” In my opinion, one
`
`inventive focus of the ’571 patent was the recognition and processing of two
`
`separate underlying gestures, which is reflected in the claim requirements for a
`
`“first gesture signal” and “second gesture signal.”
`
`50.
`
`In sum, it is clear to me that the practical effect of Apple’s proposed
`
`construction is to replace “gesture signal” with “interaction signal” in the claim
`
`language. But a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this
`
`directl