`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`
`I, Nathan J. Delson, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Nathan J. Delson. I am a Teaching Professor and the
`
`Director of the Mechanical Engineering Design Center at the University of
`
`California, San Diego (UCSD).
`
`2.
`
`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. 8,773,356 (the “’356 patent”) filed by Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”). I was engaged by Immersion as an expert in connection with a
`
`separate Inter Partes Review of the ‘356 patent filed by Amit Agarwal, IPR2016-
`
`00807, in which I provided an expert declaration. My understanding is IPR2016-
`
`00807 has concluded.
`
`3.
`
`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
`4.
`
`The ’356 Patent in general describes mobile devices such as mobile
`
`telephones or Personal Digital Assistants (“PDA”) and in particular discloses
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-2
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`providing tactile sensations in such devices when a user interacts with such
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`devices. Multiple embodiments are disclosed. Exhibit 1001, at Abstract,
`
`Summary. The Petition challenges claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 19-23, 25, and 26
`
`of the ’356 patent.
`
`5.
`
`The Petition argues the obviousness of claims 1-3, 9-13, 19-23, 25,
`
`and 26 of the ’356 patent over the combination of U.S. Patent Application Serial
`
`No. 09/487,737 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg 737”) and U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 09/103,281 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg ‘281”). Petition at 20. Based on
`
`studying the Petition, the exhibits cited in the Petition, the Institution Decision, and
`
`other documents, it is my opinion that claims 1-3, 9-13, 19-23, and 25, and 26 of
`
`the ’356 patent are not obvious over the cited references.
`
`6.
`
`The Petition also raises an obviousness ground of rejection for
`
`dependent claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 in view of the combination of Rosenberg 737,
`
`Rosenberg 281, and Apple Press, Newton 2.0 User Interface Guidelines, ISBN 0-
`
`201-48838-8, First Printing, May 1996 (“Newton 2.0”). Petition at 61. It is my
`
`opinion that the Petition’s challenge of claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 also fails.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`7.
`I obtained my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1994.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-3
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`8.
`
`I have worked for 20 years as a faculty teaching mechanical
`
`
`
`engineering design, first at Yale University and now at the University of California
`
`at San Diego. My current position is Associate Teaching Professor and Director of
`
`the Mechanical Engineering Design Center in the Department of Mechanical and
`
`Aerospace Engineering. I have performed research in Robotics, Medical Devices,
`
`and Design Education. I have lead a team that developed software that uses
`
`touchscreen user interfaces for the educational market. I have also worked for two
`
`years in the Aerospace Industry for United Technologies. I have consulted in
`
`mechanical engineering for companies such as Design Continuum, Sixense,
`
`DriveCam, and others. I have received awards from the National Inventors Hall of
`
`Fame and for teaching design.
`
`9.
`
`I was co-founder of Coactive Drive Corporation (“Coactive”), which
`
`developed and licensed technology for force feedback in computer gaming.
`
`Coactive licensed the technology to Sony and Immersion. I sold my share in
`
`Coactive in 2009. I hold a de minimis amount of Immersion stock as a result of
`
`my former association with Coactive and I also own shares of Apple stock. While
`
`at Coactive, I invented and co-invented several inventions, including an actuator
`
`arrangement and force feedback joystick and was awarded several patents:
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 6,002,184: Actuator With Opposing Repulsive Magnetic Forces
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 6,147,422: Actuator With Opposing Repulsive Magnetic Forces
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-4
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 6,307,285: Actuator With Repulsive Magnetic Forces
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 7,683,508: Vibration Device
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 7,919,945: Synchronized Vibration Device For Haptic Feedback
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 7,994,741: Vibration Device
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 8,384,316: Synchronized Vibration Device For Haptic Feedback
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 8,390,218: Synchronized Vibration Device For Haptic Feedback
`
`(cid:120) U.S. 8,981,682: Asymmetric and General Vibration Waveforms From
`Multiple Synchronized Vibration Actuators
`
`10. The vibration devices that were invented were controlled by a
`
`microprocessor to achieve a desired haptic effect. The force feedback joystick I
`
`invented has magnetic actuation that allows for stiffness control without the need
`
`for a high speed feedback loop. Based on my education, work, and experience, I
`
`am familiar with both microprocessor control for haptic applications as well as
`
`alternative control methods to deal with challenges and the limitations of haptic
`
`control.
`
`11.
`
`In my classes at the University of California at San Diego, I teach
`
`machine design and mechatronics. Over the past 10 years, hundreds of students
`
`have built and analyzed microprocessor controlled mechanisms in my classes.
`
`12.
`
`I lead the development of a software package that uses touchscreens
`
`to teach spatial visualization and engineering sketching. In this package students
`
`sketch assignments on a touchscreen with their finger or a stylus, and an algorithm
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-5
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`automatically grades their sketches and provides individualized hints when
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`students are stuck. I helped develop the grading algorithms and supervised the
`
`programmers writing the code for the software. This work was published by the
`
`American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). Delson, Nathan and Van
`
`Den Einde, Lelli, “Tracking Student Engagement with a Touchscreen App for
`
`Spatial Visualization Training and Freehand Sketching,” 122nd ASEE Annual
`
`Conference, June 14 - 17, 2015 Seattle WA, Paper ID #13265. The paper was
`
`given the Engineering Design Graphics Division’s Chairs Award for 2015. This
`
`software was recently published on the Apple App store for iPads as “Spatial Vis”
`
`and “Spatial Kids.” As part of developing this software I addressed issues relating
`
`to the user interface, interpreting user inputs on a touchscreen, and developing
`
`responses to user inputs.
`
`13.
`
`In summary, I have experience in the design of actuators, force
`
`feedback devices, microprocessor control of haptic devices, design of software for
`
`touchscreen interfaces, and general mechanical and electromechanical design.
`
`14. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 2009.
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated by Immersion for my time spent in
`
`connection with this declaration at a rate of $400 per hour. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the substance of my opinions, the content of this declaration or
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-6
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of the inter partes review or any
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`other proceeding.
`
`16. 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 ’356 patent and its prosecution history, the prior art
`
`references and materials discussed in this declaration, and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`17.
`It is my understanding that when construing claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent a claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” I understand this standard is subject to several limitations. First, the
`
`interpretation must be consistent with the specification. Second, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claim must be consistent with the interpretation
`
`that "those skilled in the art would reach." Third, the interpretation must be
`
`"reasonable."
`
`B. Obviousness
`18. The following factors should be considered in analyzing obviousness:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the difference between the prior art
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-7
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`19. A claim is not rendered obvious by a combination of references if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field would not have combined the elements
`
`in the way the claimed invention does, such as when they would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so at the time of the claimed invention,
`
`or when the references or the state of the knowledge teach away from the
`
`combination. I understand that the test for whether combined teachings of
`
`references render a claim obvious is what the combined teachings of those
`
`references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims,
`
`the question under the obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences
`
`themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a
`
`whole would have been obvious. I am also informed that in conducting the
`
`obviousness analysis, one should take into consideration the predictability of the
`
`relevant field as well as the number of identifiable and predictable solutions. I am
`
`informed that a predictable solution refers not only to the expectation that prior art
`
`elements are capable of being physically combined, but also that the combination
`
`would have worked for its intended purpose. I am informed that whether an art is
`
`predictable or unpredictable turns on, for example, the degree of predictability of
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-8
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`technical variations in this field of art, such as the unpredictability in performance
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be obvious if it would have been
`
`“obvious to try.” However, for a claim to be obvious under this rationale, there
`
`must have been a recognized problem or need in the prior art and a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need. Obvious-to-
`
`try, however, is insufficient, when what was allegedly “obvious to try” was to
`
`explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field
`
`of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the
`
`particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it. Nor is obvious to try
`
`sufficient to justify a finding of obviousness where what would have been
`
`“obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous
`
`possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art
`
`gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to
`
`which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. Additionally, a person
`
`of ordinary skill must have been able to pursue the known potential solutions with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-9
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’356 PATENT
`22. The ’356 patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing
`
`Tactile Sensations.” The ’356 patent discloses embodiments of mobile devices
`
`such as mobile telephones and PDAs, including mechanical and non-mechanical
`
`embodiments. Exhibit 1001 Figs. 2, 3, 5. A mechanical embodiment is shown in
`
`Figure 2 where the device 60 has mechanical buttons 10, 11, and 12 and can detect
`
`the level of pressure applied to each button. Id., Col. 5:46-65. The device 60
`
`includes an actuator 61 that can provide tactile sensations to a user contacting
`
`device 60 based on an interaction with a button. Id., Col. 8:4-30. The ’356 patent
`
`teaches that the device includes memory that contains a table where interactions
`
`with the device are associated with various haptic effect data for providing tactile
`
`sensations to a user, as shown in Figs. 9-10. Id., Col. 7:66-8:3.
`
`23. The ’356 patent also discloses a touchscreen embodiment. In this
`
`embodiment, the controller displays on the display 33 graphical objects such as a
`
`plurality of softkeys 36a-i and other graphical outputs 37. Id., Col. 11:40-52; Fig.
`
`5. As an object, such as a user’s finger, touches or contacts a graphical object
`
`(e.g., a softkey 36), the controller is capable of receiving a sensor signal indicating
`
`that an object has contacted the touch-sensitive display, determining the location
`
`on the display that is touched by the object, Id., Col. 11:56-61, and determining an
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-10
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`interaction between the user contacting the touch-sensitive display 33 and the
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`graphical object being displayed on the display 33. Id., Col. 12: 33-46.
`
`24. To facilitate providing tactile sensations based on different
`
`interactions on the device, the ’356 patent discloses the use of a table of
`
`associations between the interaction and the haptic effect data. This is exemplified
`
`in Figures 9 and 10 of the ’356 patent. Id., Col. 14:15-50; Figs. 9, 10.
`
`25. As the ’356 patent describes, “In one embodiment, this information is
`
`in the form of associations among the detected input data, the functions of the
`
`electronic device or apparatus, and the tactile sensations. An exemplar[y] group of
`
`associations is represented in tabular form in FIG. 9.” Id., Col. 14:21-25. For
`
`
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-11
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`example, the controller may detect a pressure level 1 applied to a particular
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`location on the touchscreen corresponding to a graphical object to perform a
`
`particular function. The controller then accesses the lookup table in Figure 9 and
`
`determines the tactile sensation that is associated with the interaction with the
`
`graphical object (e.g.., Tactile Sensation 13). Id., Col. 14:36-43. “The controller
`
`uses the information for distinct tactile Sensation 13 to produce Sensation 13 in an
`
`input device 56, by for example, causing an actuator to cause the input device to
`
`vibrate at a frequency associated with Sensation 13.” Id., Col. 14:46-50.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`26.
`I understand that the specification and claims must be read through
`
`the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`27. Based on my background and experience, a POSITA in the field of
`
`the ’356 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical
`
`engineering (or other engineering discipline), or at least two years of experience
`
`working with human machine interface systems, graphical user interfaces, haptic
`
`feedback systems, robotics, biomechanics, or mobile devices, or equivalent
`
`embedded systems.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-12
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`28.
`I understand that Petitioner's proposed construction for “generating an
`
`actuator signal based at least in part on the interaction and haptic effect data in a
`
`lookup table” is “generating an actuator signal based at least in part on (1) the
`
`interaction and (2) haptic effect data in a lookup table.” As explained below, I
`
`disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction for the “generating an actuator
`
`signal . . .” limitation under the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “generating an actuator signal based on at least in part
`
`on the interaction [between the object contacting the touch-sensitive input device
`
`and the graphical object] and haptic effect data in a lookup table” requires that the
`
`referenced “lookup table” is a “data structure in the form of a table containing
`
`associations between interactions and haptic effect data.” I understand that the
`
`Chief ALJ in the underlying ITC proceeding adopted this construction, Ex. 2008 at
`
`30 (explaining that “the lookup table contains an association between the
`
`interaction and the haptic effect data, as claimed in the patent”). I agree that this is
`
`the correct construction, and also the broadest reasonable construction, because a
`
`POSITA would understand that information about both “the interaction and haptic
`
`effect data” must be in the lookup table.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-13
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Petitioner suggests that the lookup table in the
`
`
`
`context of the claim language need only include “haptic effect data,” and that the
`
`claim can be practiced if the lookup table contains no information whatsoever
`
`about “the interaction.” See Petition at 18. As explained in further detail below,
`
`this proposed construction is inconsistent with the practical import of the claim
`
`language, the specification, and the file history of the ‘356 patent.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, the wording of claim 1 itself requires an association
`
`between the claimed interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table. Claim 1
`
`of the ‘356 patent recites:
`
`A method, comprising:
`1.
`outputting a display signal configured to display a graphical
`object on a touch-sensitive input device;
`receiving a sensor signal from the touch-sensitive input device,
`the sensor signal indicating an object contacting the touch-sensitive
`input device;
`determining an interaction between the object contacting the
`touch-sensitive input device and the graphical object; and
`generating an actuator signal based at least in part on the
`interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table.
`32. Claim 1 requires the actuator signal to be generated based at least in
`
`part on both the interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table. Because the
`
`claim requires that both types of data are used to generate the actuator signal, the
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-14
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`two types of data must be associated somehow such that the haptic effect data
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`reflects the interaction in some way.
`
`33.
`
`Immersion’s proposed construction is also supported by the
`
`specification of the ‘356 patent. For example, the ’356 patent describes the lookup
`
`table as a data structure located in memory. Ex. 1001 at 14:16-20 (“[T]he
`
`controller then accesses a memory device 54 in which is stored at least one
`
`database containing information necessary to produce the desired function in the
`
`electronic device and the predetermined tactile sensation in an input device, and
`
`accesses this information 55.”) (emphasis added). The ’356 patent also explains
`
`that the lookup table contains associations. Id. at 14:23-25 (“An exemplars [sic]
`
`group of associations is represented in tabular form in FIG. 9.”) (emphasis added).
`
`For example, the specification teaches:
`
`[B]ased upon the information in the table associated with Pressure 1,
`the controller obtains the associated function information for selecting
`the number ‘2’, and information for distinct tactile
`Sensation 13. . . . The controller uses the information for distinct
`tactile Sensation 13 to produce Sensation 13 in an input device 56, by
`for example, causing an actuator to cause the input device to vibrate at
`a frequency associated with Sensation 13.
`
`Id. at 14:40-50 (emphasis added).
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-15
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`34. Figure 9, which discloses an embodiment of the lookup table, reflects
`
`
`
`this association between Pressure 1 and Sensation13. I have highlighted the
`
`association in red.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In this example, the “PRESSURE DATA” column describes how the
`
`user object (e.g., a user’s finger) interacts with a particular graphical object, and
`
`the associated haptic effect data is contained in the “TACTILE SENSATION”
`
`column. A POSITA would understand that because the actuator signal is
`
`controlled by the haptic effect data that is retrieved from the lookup table, the
`
`lookup table must associate the “interaction” with the haptic effect data in order for
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-16
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`the resulting actuator signal to be generated “based at least in part on the
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table.”
`
`36. A POSITA would also understand that Immersion’s claim scope is
`
`confirmed by the file history of the ‘356 patent. During prosecution of the ‘356
`
`patent, the applicant added the phrase “and haptic effect data in a lookup table” to
`
`the independent claims to overcome a rejection over the prior art. In doing so, the
`
`applicant stated:
`
`Rosenberg may discuss outputting haptic effects based on user inputs
`(or graphical objects), but it does not discuss determining which
`specific haptic effect to output for given a (sic) user input (or
`graphical object) based on data in a lookup table.
`
`Ex. 1004, February 10, 2014 Applicant Response, at 43, 50 (emphasis added). In
`
`my opinion, the applicant distinguished the Rosenberg reference at issue because it
`
`did not disclose determining which haptic effect to output based on a given
`
`interaction between the user and a graphical object using a lookup table.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has argued that “generating an actuator
`
`signal based at least in part on the interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup
`
`table” should be construed to mean “generating an actuator signal based at least in
`
`part on (1) the interaction and (2) haptic effect data in a lookup table.” Petition at
`
`17. Petitioner further clarified that its construction means that “the only thing the
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-17
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`claimed lookup table must include is ‘haptic effect data.’” Petition at 18. I
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`disagree with the Petitioner on this point.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s argument fails to recognize that
`
`information about “the interaction” is necessary to identify the appropriate haptic
`
`effect data if the resulting actuator signal is to be based at least in part on the
`
`interaction. For instance, in order to obtain haptic effect data that is based on an
`
`interaction using a lookup table, the lookup table must use the data related to the
`
`interaction as an input. The input is used to determine the appropriate haptic effect
`
`data from the lookup table. If “the interaction” is not used as an input to the
`
`lookup table, the resulting haptic effect data will not take the interaction into
`
`account. In other words, by contending the claim can be satisfied with a lookup
`
`table containing no information about the interaction, Petitioner effectively reads
`
`out “the interaction” from the claims in a manner that would cause the last
`
`limitation of claim 1 to read: “generating an actuator signal based at least in part
`
`on the interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table.”
`
`VIII. ROSENBERG 737 AND ROSENBERG 281 DO NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CLAIMS OF THE ’356 PATENT
`39. Petitioner’s Ground 1 relies only upon Rosenberg 281 for a lookup
`
`table. Ex. 2006 at 31:25-32:6 ("the 737 does not disclose any lookup tables").
`
`However, in my opinion, Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would use
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-18
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`Rosenberg 281’s lookup table, modify it substantially so that it met the
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`requirements of the ‘356 patent, and then incorporate it into Rosenberg 737’s
`
`system. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Baudisch, agreed that a POSITA would
`
`not always use a lookup table. Ex. 2006 at 19:19-20:1 ("it depends on a variety of
`
`factors"). He further testified that before deciding whether a lookup table was
`
`appropriate for any specific situation, a POSITA would have considered numerous
`
`requirements for a particular system such as "run-time behavior" or “speed,”
`
`“available memory on the system,” “maintenance” of the system, and suitability to
`
`the particular application at hand. Ex. 2006 at 20:18-21:5; 52:5-9; 54:3-18. Out of
`
`all of these factors, Petitioner considered only one (run-time behavior), and even in
`
`that instance Dr. Baudisch admitted that it was not always true. See Pet. at 44
`
`(contending that a "lookup table would be more efficient than other alternatives");
`
`Ex. 2002 at ¶ 105 (same); Ex. 2006 at 33:4-17 (clarifying that this greater
`
`efficiency of a lookup table would only be true “[i]n some cases,” and that a
`
`POSITA designing a system would have considered options other than a lookup
`
`table).
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner has not shown that a POSITA would have
`
`modified Rosenberg 737 to incorporate a lookup table. For example, even if a
`
`POSITA may have had the skill necessary to implement a lookup table as taught
`
`by Rosenberg 281 in Rosenberg 737’s system, Petitioner has identified no reason
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-19
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`why a POSITA would have modified Rosenberg 737 in this manner. In
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`considering Petititioner’s arguments, it appears that Petitioner has merely shown
`
`that a lookup table is one of many alternatives that may have been considered by a
`
`POSITA in designing a haptic feedback system. However, all design choices are
`
`not created equal, and as discussed in further detail below in Section VIII.B, a
`
`POSITA considering the relevant factors and Rosenberg 737’s system would likely
`
`have been discouraged from modifying Rosenberg 737 to incorporate a lookup
`
`table.
`
`41. Additionally, it is my opinion that even if a POSITA had been
`
`motivated to combine Rosenberg 281’s lookup table with Rosenberg 737, such a
`
`combination would not arrive at the limitations of the challenged claims under
`
`either party's construction because the haptic effects retrieved from Rosenberg
`
`281’s lookup table are based on the position of a user object (in degrees of freedom)
`
`rather than on the interaction between an object contacting a touch-sensitive input
`
`device and a graphical object, as required by the ’356 patent. See IPR2016-00807
`
`at 17 (decision denying institution of a petition for review of the ‘356 patent, and
`
`explaining that the lookup table is based on “the position of a mouse or joystick”).
`
`Indeed, in Rosenberg 281, the single reference to a lookup table is contained in
`
`local memory 27, which is local to the interface device 14 (e.g., joystick), as shown
`
`below from Figure 1 of Rosenberg 281.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-20
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`Local memory 27, such as RAM and/or ROM, is preferably coupled
`to microprocessor 26 in interface device 14 to store instructions for
`microprocessor 26 and store temporary and other 10 data. For
`example, force profiles can be stored in memory 27, such as a
`sequence of stored force values that can be output by the
`microprocessor, or a look-up table of force values to be output based
`on the current position of the user object.
`
`Ex. 1013 at page 11, lines 9-12 (emphasis added).
`
`42. The local memory 27 in Rosenberg 281 would have no information
`
`about any purported interaction with a graphical object located on display device
`
`20 of the separate home computer system 12. In particular, interface device 14 has
`
`no knowledge of the position of any graphical object on the display device or
`
`whether the user object is interacting with any graphical object—that
`
`determination occurs in the host computer 12. A POSITA would understand that
`
`in Rosenberg 281’s local control loop (i.e., the embodiment that discusses the
`
`lookup table), the actuator signal would be generated when the user physically
`
`moves the user object (such as a joystick) in any direction, irrespective of whether
`
`there are graphical objects being displayed on the screen and irrespective of
`
`whether the user is interacting with any of the graphical objects.
`
`43. Because Rosenberg 281’s lookup table is not the claimed “lookup
`
`table” of the ‘356 patent, additional and substantial modification of Rosenberg
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-21
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`281’s lookup table would be necessary to satisfy the claims of the ‘356 patent
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`under either party's proposed claim construction. Neither Petitioner nor the
`
`references it relies upon provide a compelling reason that a POSITA would have
`
`engaged in these additional modifications, which are not taught or suggested by
`
`either Rosenberg 281 or Rosenberg 737.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner has provided no compelling reason for a POSITA to use
`a lookup table in Rosenberg 737’s system
`
`44.
`
`I understand that Petitioner does not contend that Rosenberg 737
`
`discloses a lookup table, and instead relies solely on a combination of Rosenberg
`
`737 with Rosenberg 281 to supposedly render the challenged claims obvious. See
`
`Ex. 2006 at 31:25-32:6 ("the 737 does not disclose any lookup tables"). In my
`
`opinion, Petitioner does not set forth any compelling reasons that a POSITA would
`
`have modified Rosenberg 737 to include Rosenberg 281’s lookup table. For
`
`example, although Dr. Baudisch testified that a POSITA would consider a variety
`
`of factors in implementing a haptic feedback system, the Petition addresses only
`
`one such factor, and even then in a conclusory way. See Ex. 2006 at 20:18-21:5;
`
`52:5-9; 54:3-18 (listing various factors a POSITA would have considered in
`
`determining how to implement haptic feedback in a system).
`
`45.
`
`I understand that at his deposition, Dr. Baudisch further admitted that
`
`there were several alternatives to using a lookup table. For example, one
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2005-22
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`
`alternative is to “do everything in code somehow, not have a particular data
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHAN J. DELSON
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`structure.” Ex. 2006 at 20:18-21. Another alternative is to “store haptic effects as
`
`a sequence of stored force values,” which Rosenberg 281 itself teaches is an
`
`alternative
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
