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
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`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. 8,773,356
`Filing Date: January 31, 2012
`Issue Date: July 8, 2014
`Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`The Invention of the ’356 Patent .................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Claimed Lookup Table Need not “Contain Associations
`Between Interactions and Haptic Effect Data” .................................... 2
`The Lookup Table Need Not Be “In The Form Of A Table”
`Under the BRI ...................................................................................... 9
`The CHALLENGED Claims are Obvious Under All Proposed
`Constructions .................................................................................................. 9
`A.
`The record establishes that a LUT is an obvious design choice
`for many associations disclosed in Rosenberg 737 ............................ 10
`A LUT would have been an obvious design choice, even for the
`dynamic haptic application examples in Rosenberg 737 ................... 14
`Rosenberg 281’s LUT Includes Associations Between
`Interactions and Haptic Effect Data ................................................... 17
`PO’s attacks on Petitioner’s expert are without merit ........................ 19
`D.
`PO’s Expert’s Own Patents Confirms Petitioner’s Positions ............ 19
`E.
`Immersion Has Waived All Other Arguments ............................................. 20
`conclusion ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Anhydrides & Chem., Inc. v. United States
`130 F. 3d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 3
`
`CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc.
`780 F. Supp. 2d 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................................. 3
`
`In re Fulton
`391 F.3d 1195 (2004) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Gurley
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 11
`
`In re Keller
`642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) .......................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor
`253 U.S. 345 (1920) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`--- F. Appx. ---, 2017 WL 655440 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................... 11
`
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`i
`
`
`
`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 of “lookup table”
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. submits this reply pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) arguments in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”)
`
`are based on an improperly narrow claim construction and incorrect approach to
`
`the consideration of obviousness.
`
`PO’s construction of the simple and well known term “ lookup table”
`
`(“LUT”), improperly attempts to narrow that term to a data structure “containing
`
`associations between interactions and haptic effect data.” But there is no basis to
`
`narrow the claim in this manner, and PO does not create any genuine dispute that
`
`the challenged claims are obvious under ordinary meaning of LUT.
`
`Even under PO’s improperly narrow claim construction of LUT, it would
`
`have been obvious to implement the associations between interactions and haptic
`
`effects disclosed in Rosenberg 737 using a LUT, in view of Rosenberg 281. The
`
`parties agree that Rosenberg 737 does not disclose how the associations are
`
`implemented, so there is no question that a POSITA would have to implement the
`
`association based on a known prior art technique, like a LUT. PO’s primary
`
`argument, that there may be “some” instances in which a LUT is not the optimum
`
`solution ignores the fact that a POSITA would understand that there are instances
`
`where it is the most optimum. More importantly, PO’s argument misses the point
`
`that a LUT was an obvious design choice regardless of whether it was the optimal
`
`1
`
`
`
`one under any given hypothetical implementation. Such an admittedly well-
`
`known, predictable design choice cannot serve as a basis for patentability.
`
`II.
`
`THE INVENTION OF THE ’356 PATENT
`
`PO’s description of the ’356 patent at POR 3-5 is notable because no
`
`passage cited by PO describes the LUT as “containing associations between
`
`interactions and haptic effect data” as required by Immersion’s proposed
`
`construction. POR at 4-5 (citing 14:21-25, which recites “detected input data;”
`
`14:33-35, which recites “using the data obtained from monitoring the input
`
`device,” and 7:67-8:3, which recites “input signals.”).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`The Claimed Lookup Table Need not “Contain Associations
`Between Interactions and Haptic Effect Data”
`
`PO argues that the Board should adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s
`
`initial construction of LUT (POR at 6-7), but that initial determination is not
`
`binding on the ITC itself, much less this Board. The ALJ’s construction is also
`
`based on the Phillips standard rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`applicable in this proceeding. See Ex. 2008 at 6-8 (citing Phillips extensively).
`
`Inserting PO’s proposed construction of LUT into the claims results in the
`
`following (using the last limitation in claim 1 as an example):
`
`“generating an actuator signal based at least in part on the
`
`interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table data
`
`2
`
`
`
`structure in the form of a table containing associations
`
`between interactions and haptic effect data.”
`
`The claim language itself does not expressly require the LUT “contain
`
`associations between interactions and haptic effect data.” For example, the claim
`
`itself recites “the interaction” not “interactions” and PO’s attempt to
`
`simultaneously inject the plural “interactions” into the claim while failing to use
`
`“the interaction” for antecedent basis is completely unsupportable. Furthermore,
`
`the claim never recites any “associations” at all, much less “associations” that are
`
`contained within the LUT. PO’s wholesale manufacture of these limitations is
`
`inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained in the Petition.
`
`Pet. at 19. PO does not even argue that there is an express definition, disclaimer or
`
`any other legally cognizable basis that would justify adding its proposed
`
`limitations to the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`A LUT itself has an ordinary meaning that does not include PO’s proposed
`
`associations. Ex. 1029 at 603 (IEEE). And, under the rules of ordinary grammar,
`
`the phrase “in a lookup table” applies only to the immediately preceding phrase
`
`“haptic effect data” pursuant to “the rule of the last antecedent.” Anhydrides &
`
`Chem., Inc. v. United States, 130 F. 3d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997); CA, Inc. v.
`
`Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). Moreover, a
`
`POSITA would understand that the phrase “in a lookup table” here modifies only
`
`3
`
`
`
`“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
`
`POSITA would understand that the recitation of “the interaction” itself in the
`
`claim, as opposed to “interaction data,” particularly when 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 LUT. Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power
`
`Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348 (1920) (series-qualifier doctrine only applies if a
`
`clause is applicable as much to the first words and other words as to the last
`
`words). Ex. 1025 ¶ 8.
`
`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 signal 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`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
`
`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. Ex.
`
`1025 ¶ 9.
`
`PO’s own expert agrees. PO’s expert admitted at his deposition that the
`
`claimed actuator signal can be additionally based at least in part on information
`
`that is not represented in the claimed LUT. Ex. 1028 at 28:24-35:6. For example,
`
`PO’s expert admitted that the claimed actuator signal can additionally be based at
`
`least in part on additional haptic effect data that is not represented in the LUT at
`
`all. Ex. 1028 at 33:12-16. Therefore, there is no basis for PO and its expert to
`
`argue that the LUT must logically contain their proposed “associations” in order
`
`for the actuator signal to be based at least in part on the interaction.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PO then argues its construction is “supported” by intrinsic evidence, but the
`
`very evidence it cites refutes its proposed construction. POR 8-9. PO’s weak
`
`assertion of “support” highlights that PO is unable to find a legally relevant
`
`definition or disclaimer that would justify narrowing the broad claim language at
`
`issue, and betrays the fact that PO is merely attempting to read in aspects from the
`
`preferred embodiment.
`
`But in fact, 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. Ex. 1001 at
`
`12:28-51; Ex. 1028 at 42:8-9 (“So here the word ‘position’ corresponds to amount
`
`of pressure.”); Ex. 1025 ¶ 10. But this association between “position” information
`
`and haptic effect in a LUT is precisely what is disclosed in Rosenberg 281, which
`
`PO argues is insufficient to satisfy this limitation. POR at 31.
`
`6
`
`
`
`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” 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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 11.
`
`PO then argues that the generation of an actuator signal in one embodiment
`
`is “controlled” by the haptic effect data in a LUT in order to argue that everything,
`
`including its proposed “associations” must be represented in the LUT. POR at 9.
`
`But the claims only require that the actuator signal be “based at least in part” on
`
`the haptic effect data in the lookup table. Ex. 1001 at (claim 1). And again, PO’s
`
`expert admitted that the claimed actuator signal can additionally be based on
`
`information that is not in the LUT at all. Ex. 1028 at 28:24-35:6.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PO then tries and fails to find support for its construction in the file history.
`
`POR 10. Again, PO merely argues that claim scope is “confirmed” by the file
`
`history, highlighting that PO cannot find a legally relevant definition or disclaimer.
`
`The statements cited by PO merely highlight the fact that the applicant did not
`
`amend the preexisting “the interaction” limitation or otherwise require that
`
`“associations” between “interactions” and haptic effect data be in the LUT. To the
`
`contrary, the file history shows that the addition of the phrase “and haptic effect
`
`data in a lookup table” as a unitary concept, without modification to the preexisting
`
`“based at least in part on the interaction,” confirms Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction. Finally, the file history passage cited by PO specifically refers to the
`
`claimed “data,” and the only claimed “data” is the haptic effect data. POR at 10,
`
`citing Ex. 1004 at 50.
`
`PO then returns to its original argument and incorrectly argues that
`
`Petitioner reads out “based at least in part on the interaction.” POR at 11; Ex. 2005
`
`P38. Petitioner does not read out any limitation because, as established above, and
`
`as admitted by PO’s expert, an actuator signal can be based at least in part on
`
`numerous factors, and not all factors need to be associated with each other in a
`
`LUT.
`
`8
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Lookup Table Need Not Be “In The Form Of A Table” Under
`the BRI
`
`PO proposes a construction that requires the data structure be “in the form of
`
`a table.” POR at 11. However, in the ITC investigation, PO proposes a broader
`
`construction that would include any data structure containing the proposed
`
`associations whether or not in the form of a table. Ex. 1003. PO does not address
`
`this phrase in its POR, other than to note that it exists in the ALJ’s construction.
`
`POR at 6-7. PO’s expert was unable to explain why this phrase appears in his
`
`construction at all, and was unable to provide a single example of a data structure
`
`that would be excluded by this phrase. Ex. 1028 at 17:17-26:23.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS UNDER ALL
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree that Rosenberg 737 does not disclose the programming
`
`technique used to implement its disclosed associations between interactions with
`
`graphical objects and haptic effects, as PO’s expert admitted in his deposition. Ex.
`
`1028 at 47:7-52:2. Thus, there is no dispute that 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.
`
`Ex. 1025 ¶ 12. PO’s repeated assertion that there are “numerous” alternatives is
`
`unsupported by any evidence in the record.
`
`9
`
`
`
`PO and its expert’s primary error, repeated throughout its analysis, is to
`
`argue that Petitioner was required to analyze every theoretical way of
`
`implementing the associations in Rosenberg 737 and provide a “compelling
`
`reason” why a LUT would always be used under every possible hypothetical
`
`scenario. POR at 12, 17. This is not the law. Under a proper analysis, there is no
`
`question that it would have been obvious to implement the associations disclosed
`
`in Rosenberg 737 using a LUT.
`
`A.
`
`The record establishes that a LUT is an obvious design choice for
`many associations disclosed in Rosenberg 737
`
`It would have been obvious to implement the associations between
`
`interactions disclosed in Rosenberg 737 and haptic effects by combining them in a
`
`LUT in view of Rosenberg 281 as established by the Petition. Pet. at 38-50.
`
`PO first argues that the Petition has not established the obviousness of
`
`combining Rosenberg ’281’s disclosure of obtaining haptic effect data from a look-
`
`up table with Rosenberg ’737 because Dr. Baudisch testified at deposition that a
`
`look-up table was more efficient than other alternatives was true only in certain
`
`circumstances and that a POSITA might consider other options as well. POR at
`
`21. This argument fails because it relies on a flawed understanding of what is
`
`required for obviousness.
`
`Dr. Baudisch testified that the look-up table would be preferable for many
`
`cases:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Q· ·Do you refer to any benefits of using the table lookup in your
`declaration? ·
`A· ·So my report in paragraph 105 I mention that -- and I'm
`quoting -- "moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that obtaining force values from a lookup table
`would have been more efficient than other alternatives such as
`calculating force values each time one was needed."
` And maybe adding this to the discussion we had earlier, you
`know, that's in many cases. Right? In some cases. You know,
`for trivial cases such as, like, we have to have different effects.·
`You probably -- you know, you might consider other options as
`well.
`
`Ex. 2006 at 33:4-17 (emphasis added).
`
`The fact that there are some hypothetical cases for which another alternative
`
`might be more desirable does not defeat a showing of obviousness as Immersion’s
`
`argument implies. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A known or
`
`obvious combination does not become patentable simply because it has been
`
`described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use”); Slot
`
`Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc., --- F. Appx. ---, 2017 WL 655440, at *6
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017)(non-precedential) (“The relevant inquiry is whether a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`modifying Tomonori in light of Sadaie . . . [i]t is irrelevant whether Tomonori and
`
`Sadaie together would have been less effective than Sadaie alone at avoiding the
`
`11
`
`
`
`absorption of certain low frequencies); cf. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`
`202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“The fact that the motivating benefit
`
`comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to
`
`modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”). Indeed,
`
`under Federal Circuit case law, the proposed combination need not be the most
`
`efficient for any purpose:
`
`[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination
`must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination
`described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the
`current invention. “[T]he question is whether there is something
`in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
`obviousness, of making the combination,” not whether there is
`something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the
`combination is the most desirable combination available.
`
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (2004)(citations omitted). Thus, even if
`
`Immersion could show that there were no cases for which a look-up table would be
`
`the most efficient solution, this would not be sufficient to demonstrate that this
`
`combination was not obvious. Of course, Immersion does not even attempt to
`
`dispute Dr. Baudisch’s testimony that a LUT would be the most efficient for many
`
`applications.
`
`For example, the very first example cited in the Petition and Dr. Baudisch
`
`are user defined associations between graphical objects and haptic effects. Pet. at
`
`12
`
`
`
`39 (citing Ex. 1007 at 18:5-6); Ex. 1002 at ¶ 96. PO simply ignores this example
`
`because 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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 13. In the fifth
`
`and sixth examples, 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. Pet. 40; Ex. 1025 ¶ 14. PO’s argument that
`
`there could be many different menu 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; Ex. 1025 ¶ 14. PO simply skips these examples to
`
`focus on examples involving time-dependent variables. But as will be established
`
`below, even for those examples a LUT would have been an obvious choice.
`
`PO’s responses to the many basis for obviousness established in the Petition
`
`are not persuasive. First, PO’s argument that one would not “blindly” apply every
`
`teaching in Rosenberg 281 to Rosenberg 737 (POR at 23) is inapposite because PO
`
`does not dispute that a POSITA would consider the teachings in Rosenberg 281.
`
`Petition at 43-44. Second, PO does not dispute that the combination would have
`
`13
`
`
`
`been both predictable and within the skill of a POSITA. Petition at 44-45. Third,
`
`PO fails to address the express teaching in Rosenberg 737 to use the “architectures
`
`and control methods” in Braun 401, which include a LUT with haptic effect data,
`
`for “reading sensor signals and providing haptic feedback.” Petition at 45-46.
`
`Fourth, PO fails to address to address that Rosenberg 737 expressly teaches
`
`consideration of Rosenberg 132 techniques, which include LUTs, for providing
`
`haptic effects. Petition at 46-47. PO fails to rebut these motivations because PO
`
`merely argues that under some subset of hypothetical scenarios a LUT may not be
`
`the most optimal implementation.
`
`B.
`
`A LUT would have been an obvious design choice, even for the
`dynamic haptic application examples in Rosenberg 737
`
`PO asserts that some of the exemplary associations disclosed in Rosenberg
`
`737 that use time-dependent variables would “generally” have used calculations, as
`
`opposed to LUTs. POR at 25-30. Of course, it is irrelevant that a LUT may not be
`
`the “general” implementation technique for every association disclosed in
`
`Rosenberg 737, but in fact, a LUT would have been obvious even for these
`
`associations.
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 15. 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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 16. In this regard, it
`
`should be noted that PO’s expert 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 indicates that a look-up should be used
`
`instead of a run-time calculation, not the other way around. Ex. 1025 ¶ 17.
`
`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 ¶¶ 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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 18. This argument also ignores the simple truth
`
`that the quantization and resolution of the look-up table would be part of the
`
`design. Ex. 1025 ¶ 19; Ex. 1028 at 7916-80:19. For example, if a haptic effect
`
`15
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 19.
`
`The POR argues further than using a look-up table “could also be relatively
`
`complex to implement in software, relative to alternatives such as simply
`
`calculating the haptic effects before they are output by the system.” POR at 27
`
`(citing Ex. 2005 at ¶ 59). However, both the PO and its expert refer only to
`
`possibilities (POR at 27; Ex. 2005 at ¶ 59), and neither takes into account the fact
`
`that the POSITA would address the complexity of the system when considering
`
`quantization and resolution as part of the design process.
`
`Finally, the POR makes much of the fact that Dr. Baudisch chose not to use
`
`a look-up table for time-varying parameters when implementing the system
`
`described in Ex. 2007. POR at 28-30. But, as Immersion admits, 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1025 ¶ 20.
`
`C.
`
`Rosenberg 281’s LUT Includes Associations Between Interactions
`and Haptic Effect Data
`
`PO then argues that Rosenberg 281 does not disclose the claimed LUT (POR
`
`30-36), but this argument fails for at least three reasons.
`
`First, PO’s argument fails because it is based solely on PO’s improperly
`
`narrow claim construction, which should be rejected as established above.
`
`Second, PO’s argument is an improper attack on the references individually
`
`rather than on the combined teaching of the references. Institution Decision at 21
`
`(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)). There is no dispute that
`
`Rosenberg ’737 discloses a touchscreen, and as discussed in the Petition,
`
`Rosenberg ’737 further discloses determining contact with different types of
`
`graphical objects, the duration of contact with different graphical objects, and the
`
`amount of pressure applied to graphical objects. Petition at 38-41. Each of these
`
`parameters is at least partial interaction data. Rosenberg does not disclose how to
`
`obtain force values corresponding to such parameters, but applying Rosenberg
`
`17
`
`
`
`’281’s teaching concerning using a look-up table as a mechanism for obtain force
`
`values as a function of such parameters would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`Petition at 48-50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110-112. It is the ubiquitous programming
`
`technique of a LUT and its application to haptic effect feedback that is confirmed
`
`by the teaching in Rosenberg 281, as well as portions of Rosenberg 132 and Braun
`
`401 which are incorporated by reference into Rosenberg 737. The data
`
`programmed into the LUT will reflect the associations disclosed in Rosenberg 737.
`
`Thus, the “interaction data” in the LUT in the combined device would represen
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
