`
`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. 8,773,356
`Filing Date: January 31, 2012
`Issue Date: July 8, 2014
`Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF PATRICK BAUDISCH
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356 (“’356 patent”)
`Declaration of Patrick Baudisch
`Immersion’s Preliminary Proposed Constructions
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/335,493 (“First Provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/399,883 (“Second Provisional”)
`Certified copy of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/487,737, as filed
`on January 19, 2000 and as published by the World Intellectual
`Property Organization on July 26, 2001 (“Rosenberg 737”)
`WO01/54109, as published by the World Intellectual Property
`Organization on July 26, 2001 (“WO 01/54109”)
`U.S. Pat No. 6,429,846 (“Rosenberg 846”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,808,488 (the “’488 patent”), filed
`as U.S. Pat. App. No. 11/693,117 (the “’117 application”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US2008/0068350 (“Rosenberg 350”)
`U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/253,132 to Rosenberg (issued as 6,243,078),
`which is incorporated by reference by Rosenberg 737 (“Rosenberg
`132”)
`U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/103,281 to Rosenberg (issued as 6,088,019),
`which is incorporated by reference by Rosenberg 737 (“Rosenberg
`281”)
`Newton 2.0 User Interface Guidelines, Apple Press, ISBN 0-201-
`48838-8, First Printing, May 1996 (“Newton 2.0”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/160,401 to Braun et al., which is
`incorporated by reference by Rosenberg 737 (“Braun 401”)
`U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/585,741 to Shahoian (“Shahoian 741”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,977,867
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,019
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`i
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`MPEP 8th ed. 2001, Appendix T Patent Cooperation Treaty
`MPEP 7th ed. 1998, Appendix T Patent Cooperation Treaty
`MPEP 8th ed. Revised 2004, Appendix T Patent Cooperation Treaty
`IPR2016-00807, Paper No. 15, Immersion Corporation’s Corrected
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00807, Exhibit 2009, Corrected Declaration of Nathan J.
`Delson, Ph.D.
`Affidavit of Mr. Robert Williams in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission; Exhibit to Rob Williams Pro Hac application
`Reply Declaration of Patrick Baudisch
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,592,999 to Rosenberg et. al.
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,002,184 to Delson et. al.
`Delson Deposition Tr.
`IEEE Dictionary - Definition for “Lookup Table”
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`ii
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17, 19-23, 25-26 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8.773,356 (the “’356 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of 600 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of the petition for inter
`
`Partes Review or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My background and qualifications were submitted in Exhibit 1002,
`
`including my resume, which was attached as Appendix A thereto.
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`4. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I
`
`have considered the materials identified in this declaration, as well as Paper 7,
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, and Immersion Corporation’s
`
`Patent Owner Response, including exhibits submitted with same, in particular
`
`Exhibit 2005, Declaration of Nathan J. Delson, Ph.D. in Support of Immersion
`
`Corporation’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`5.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by Immersion. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`1
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that may
`
`have not yet been provided to me.
`
`6. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on
`
`my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`7.
`The legal standards I apply are set forth in Exhibit 1002 and
`
`incorporated by reference herein.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Claimed Lookup Table Need not “Contain Associations
`Between Interactions and Haptic Effect Data”
`
`8.
`
`A LUT itself has an ordinary meaning. Ex. 1029 at 603 (IEEE).
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would understand that the phrase “in a lookup table” here
`
`modifies only “haptic effect data” because that is the only “data” recited in the
`
`broader claim limitation at issue. In contrast, the claim recites that “the
`
`interaction” is something that is determined between the claimed contact and the
`
`graphical object. Thus, a POSTIA would understand that the recitation of “the
`
`interaction” itself in the claim, as opposed to “interaction data,” particularly when
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`2
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`juxtaposed to the recitation of “haptic effect data,” would indicate that “the
`
`interaction” is not the type of thing that would be stored in a lookup table.
`
`9.
`
`PO’s primary claim construction argument is based on the logical
`
`fallacy that its proposed “associations” must be contained in the LUT in order for
`
`the actuator signal to be “based at least in part” on both the interaction and haptic
`
`effect data. POR at 7-8, 10-11; Ex. 2005 PP31-32, 38. But nothing logically
`
`requires everything on which an actuator signal is based be associated in a LUT
`
`with everything else on which the actuator signals is based. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the “based at least in part” claim language
`
`encompasses any causal relationship or dependency between the recited factors
`
`and the generation of the actuator signal, particularly when viewed in light of the
`
`open-ended “comprising” nature of the claims themselves. The actuator signal
`
`could be based at least in part on a dozen additional factors, each of which could be
`
`considered in series by a program before or after retrieving the haptic effect data
`
`that is stored in the LUT. For example, a program could evaluate an interaction
`
`using executable code and, based on the results of that evaluation, determine
`
`whether to access a LUT to obtain haptic effect data, which LUT to access, or the
`
`timing related to when the actuator signal is generated. In this instance, the
`
`actuator signal that is generated based at least in part on the interaction, even
`
`though there is no association between any interaction and any haptic effect data in
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`3
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`any LUT. Thus, a POSTA would understand that the actuator signal can be based
`
`on numerous factors, and there is no need for each factor to be associated with
`
`each other factor in a LUT simply because one of the factors is in a LUT.
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, many disclosed embodiments would improperly be
`
`excluded by PO’s proposed construction. For example, PO would exclude the
`
`“dwell to select” embodiment wherein executable code determines whether a user
`
`has held a pressure long enough to exceed a predetermined time. Ex. 1001 at 10:7-
`
`27, 12:50-51. Here, the haptic effect is based at least in part on the time of the
`
`interaction, but there is no “association” between time and a haptic effect in the
`
`LUT as required by PO’s proposed construction. Instead, the input to the LUT is
`
`“pressure” which in one embodiment is merely the position to which the user has
`
`depressed the touchscreen—i.e., the position of the input device.
`
`11.
`
`In my opinion, PO’s proposed construction also would exclude the
`
`embodiment disclosed in Figure 8 and accompanying text. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 8 and
`
`accompanying text. As shown in Figure 8, the haptic effect is not provided until
`
`step 56, and the generation of the actuator signal is “based at least in part” on each
`
`preceding step in the disclosed algorithm. Id. For example, executable code will
`
`determine whether a “function failure” condition occurred in response to an
`
`interaction with a graphical object and, if so, will output a corresponding haptic
`
`effect. Id. at Fig. 8, Step 58, 59, 56; 17:51-18:3. Here, even a “function failure”
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`4
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`haptic effect is based at least in part on “the interaction,” i.e., the haptic effect
`
`would not have occurred unless the user had performed the interaction. But “the
`
`interaction” with the graphical object is not the input to the LUT, because the input
`
`in this case is “function failure.” Id. at Fig. 9, bottom row.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS UNDER ALL
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
`12. Rosenberg 737 does not disclose the programming technique used to
`
`implement its disclosed associations between interactions with graphical objects
`
`and haptic effects. Thus, a POSITA would have to determine how to implement
`
`those associations, which would need to be implemented using either executable
`
`code or a data structure, i.e., a lookup table.
`
`B.
`
`The record establishes that a LUT is an obvious design choice for
`many associations disclosed in Rosenberg 737
`13. Rosenberg 737 discloses user-defined associations between graphical
`
`objects and haptic effects. Ex. 1007 at 18:5-6; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 96. A LUT would be
`
`the most efficient from a design perspective because it is the most convenient way
`
`for a designer to support and maintain unknown associations that will be arbitrarily
`
`defined by the user.
`
`14. A POSITA would have understood that associating a handful of
`
`graphical object types with a handful of haptic effects would have been efficiently
`
`implemented in a LUT. PO’s argument that there could be many different menu
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`5
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`selections with many different haptic effect levels is inconsistent with the
`
`PDA/touchscreen embodiment which a POSITA would understand would
`
`normally only have a handful of options at any given time given the size of the
`
`screen and the user’s finger. Ex. 1007 at Figs. 8a, 8b and accompanying text (Palm
`
`Pilot, Apple Newton, etc.); Ex. 1026 at Figs. 8a, 8b, 15:24-28, claims 1 and 18.
`
`C. A LUT would have been an obvious design choice, even for the
`dynamic haptic application examples in Rosenberg 737
`15. The POR states that Rosenberg 737 teaches haptic effects based on
`
`time-varying parameters like the velocity of a finger and the frequency of use of a
`
`menu item that could change rapidly. POR at 26. However, when the parameter
`
`on which a haptic effect changes rapidly, a POSITA would recognize that it can be
`
`desirable to utilize a look-up table to obtain haptic effect data rather than
`
`alternative techniques such as calculating the haptic effect data using a calculation
`
`because a look-up table can decrease the execution time needed to obtain the haptic
`
`effect data as compared to such alternatives.
`
`16. For example, using a look-up table can often be faster (i.e., more
`
`efficient) than calculating a non-linear equation based on a time varying parameter.
`
`17.
`
`In this regard, it should be noted that Dr. Delson agrees that time-
`
`varying parameters can be used as the indices for look-up tables. Ex. 1028 at
`
`78:10-79:1. Thus, the fact that a time varying parameter could change rapidly
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`6
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`indicates that a look-up should be used instead of a run-time calculation, not the
`
`other way around.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`The POR also argues that using a look-up table for obtaining
`
`haptic effect data “would potentially require a great deal of memory and/or
`
`constant modification.” POR at 26 (emphasis added). The POR cites Ex. 2005
`
`(Delson Decl.) at ¶¶ 57-58 (referring to the possibility of as many as 3000 haptic
`
`effects) as support. This argument ignores the fact that a POSITA would
`
`understand that a PDA with a touchscreen disclosed in Rosenberg 737 is only
`
`going to implement a handful of menu items with associated haptic effects because
`
`of the size of the touchscreen and the user’s finger.
`
`19. This argument also ignores the simple truth that the quantization and
`
`resolution of the look-up table would be part of the design. Ex. 1028 at 79:16-
`
`80:19. For example, if a haptic effect were based on a time varying parameter such
`
`as the frequency of use of a menu item as discussed in the POR at 26, one can
`
`reduce the size of a look-up table used to retrieve haptic effect data based on that
`
`frequency by choosing to have each entry in the table represent multiple
`
`frequencies of use (e.g., the first entry in the table represents a haptic effect for
`
`frequencies between 1-10 uses per day, the second entry represents frequencies of
`
`11-20 uses per day, and so on) rather than a single frequency of use.
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`7
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`20. The system in Ex. 2007 involves a system “in which a first user
`
`provides some haptic input, and a corresponding haptic output (the “gesture
`
`output”) is provided to a second user to mimic the first user’s input. POR at 28;
`
`Ex. 2006 at 81:24-25. These facts do not indicate to a POSITA that a look-up table
`
`should not be used when a haptic effect depends on time-varying parameters in
`
`Rosenberg 737 as the POR argues at 30. Instead, a POSITA would understand that
`
`no look-up table was used in the system of Ex. 2006 because the system was
`
`directly communicating the information from one user to another, which is a
`
`different system than that disclosed in Rosenberg 737 where a stored haptic effect
`
`is output.
`
`D. Rosenberg 281’s LUT Includes Associations Between Interactions
`and Haptic Effect Data
`
`21.
`
` Rosenberg ’281 discloses a LUT that includes both force values (i.e.,
`
`haptic effect data) and position (i.e., data related to the interaction). Ex. 1013 at
`
`11:11-12 (“a look-up table of force values to be output based on the current
`
`position of the user object.”). The position of the user object is “data related to the
`
`interaction” just like the position of the touchscreen (i.e., pressure) is “data related
`
`to the interaction” in the 356 patent. Similarly, Rosenberg 737 discloses that the
`
`position of the touchpad or touchscreen as it moves in response to the pressure of
`
`the interaction can be part of the interaction data input to the computer. Ex. 1007
`
`at 13:6-23. Thus, the LUT in Rosenberg 281 (associating position of an input
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`8
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`device with haptic effects) could be bodily incorporated into Rosenberg 737 for
`
`those interactions defined in part by the position of the touchpad or touchscreen.
`
`E.
`PO’s Expert’s Own Patents Confirms Petitioner’s Positions
`22. Exhibit 1027 (filed in 1997, issued in 1999) is representative,
`
`disclosing a touchscreen “interface member” (1:29-41) that provides haptic
`
`feedback wherein the actuator signal may be generated based at least in part on
`
`haptic effect data in a LUT. Ex. 1027 at Figs. 14, 15 ,16, 24, 41, 42, 36:5-44:48.
`
`Exhibit 1027 at Fig. 16 shows that the actuator signal (e.g., signals I’ and I’’) can
`
`be based at least in part on everything in the program logic that proceeds signal
`
`generator 500 and haptic effect data in a lookup table 512. The inputs to the LUT
`
`are time-dependent variables K(t) and Xset(t), contradicting PO’s argument that
`
`LUTs would not be used for such variables. In fact, the LUTs are updated
`
`dynamically during operation to implement “high speed feedback loops.” Ex.
`
`1027 at Fig. 24, 42:25. Exhibit 1027 repeatedly emphasizes that executable code
`
`could be used if a simple calculation would suffice, or alternatively a LUT could
`
`be used. Ex. 1027 at 37:45-38:3.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`23.
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`9
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1101 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Executed on July 28, 2017 in Germany.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Patrick Markus Baudisch
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\277549370.1
`
`10
`
`APPLE Inc - IPR2016-01381
`Exhibit 1025 - Page 13
`
`
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
