`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`________________
`
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Paper 8, the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to
`
`Modify Due Date 4, Paper 19, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012), Patent Owner Immersion Corporation
`
`(“Immersion”) respectfully brings this motion for observations on cross-
`
`examination of Apple’s expert witness, Dr. Patrick Baudisch. Immersion submits
`
`the following observations on Dr. Baudisch’s testimony:
`
`Observation # 1
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 54 lines 3-13, Dr. Baudisch testified: “Q: So it
`
`would be possible for two Rosenberg computers, Computer 10, to be coupled to
`
`one another? A: It certainly hasn't come up in the analysis or debate of -- or
`
`exchange of disclosures so far -- sorry -- declarations so far, but it doesn't seem to
`
`exclude that possibility.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 16-17
`
`of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraph 20 of Ex.
`
`1025) that “a POSITA would understand that no look-up table was used in the
`
`system of Ex. 200[7] 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.” This cross
`
`examination testimony is relevant because it shows that direct communication of
`
`information from one user to another was present in Rosenberg 737 through
`
`networked computing.
`
`102225581
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation # 2
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 52 line 13 through page 53 line 3, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that Rosenberg 737’s “host application programs that can be used with its
`
`system” can include a “video or computer game.” In Exhibit 2013, at page 54 lines
`
`15-21, Dr. Baudisch testified that he was “aware of network computer gaming
`
`before January 9, 2000,” which is the priority date of Rosenberg 737. This is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 16-17 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's
`
`corresponding opinion at paragraph 20 of Ex. 1025) that “a POSITA would
`
`understand that no look-up table was used in the system of Ex. 200[7] 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.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that direct communication of information from one user to another was
`
`present in Rosenberg 737 through networked computer gaming.
`
`Observation # 3
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 52 line 13 through page 53 line 3, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that Rosenberg 737’s “host application programs that can be used with its
`
`system” can include a “video or computer game.” In Exhibit 2013, at page 55 line
`
`8 through page 56 line 3, Dr. Baudisch testified that Exhibit 2011, the manual for
`
`the computer game StarCraft (which has a copyright date of 1998), states that the
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`game “allows for players from around the world to battle against each other.” This
`
`is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 16-17 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's
`
`corresponding opinion at paragraph 20 of Ex. 1025) that “a POSITA would
`
`understand that no look-up table was used in the system of Ex. 200[7] 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.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that direct communication of information from one user to another was
`
`present in Rosenberg 737 through gaming where users battle against each other.
`
`Observation # 4
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 56 lines 20-25, Dr. Baudisch testified that
`
`Rosenberg 737 teaches that its computer “can be a video game console.” In
`
`Exhibit 2013, at page 57 line 21 to page 58 line 2, Dr. Baudisch testified that
`
`Exhibit 2012 (which shows a copyright date of 1999) states that the video game
`
`Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64 video game console teaches a game mode
`
`that “is an all-out battle for any combination of two to four human or computer
`
`players.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 16-17 of its Reply (and
`
`Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraph 20 of Ex. 1025) that “a
`
`POSITA would understand that no look-up table was used in the system of Ex.
`
`200[7] because the system was directly communicating the information from one
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`user to another, which is a different system than that disclosed in Rosenberg 737
`
`where a stored haptic effect is output.” This cross examination testimony is
`
`relevant because it shows that direct communication from one user to another was
`
`present in Rosenberg 737 through multiplayer gaming in video game consoles,
`
`where players battle against one another.
`
`Observation # 5
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 12 lines 9-23, when asked whether he was aware of
`
`any examples in formal (or non-slang) English where a noun can function as an
`
`adjective, Dr. Baudisch testified: “Nothing comes to mind right now.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s interpretation of the claim language “based at
`
`least in part on the interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table” at pages 2-8
`
`of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraphs 8-11 of Ex.
`
`1025), and its argument on page 2 that “haptic effect data” was “the only ‘data’
`
`recited in the broader claim limitation at issue.” This cross-examination testimony
`
`is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Baudisch, in forming his interpretation
`
`of the claim language, was not aware of the possibility that the “interaction” could
`
`be an adjective modifying the word “data” in the claim language “based at least in
`
`part on the interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table,” such that the claim
`
`requires both “interaction data” and “haptic effect data” in a lookup table.
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation # 6
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 16 line 10 to page 17 line 6, when asked what
`
`“comprising” means in the context of claim 1, Dr. Baudisch testified: “Having
`
`spent some time with patents, all the word ‘comprising’ tells me is what follows
`
`are claim limitations. And each one of those has to be fulfilled.” This is relevant
`
`to Petitioner’s argument at page 4 of its Reply brief (and Dr. Baudisch's
`
`corresponding opinion at paragraph 9 of Ex. 1025) that “[t]he 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.” This cross examination testimony is relevant
`
`because it confirms that the fact that the claim recites “comprising” does not bear
`
`on the scope of other claim language reciting what the generation of the actuator
`
`signal is “based at least in part on.”
`
`Observation # 7
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 19 lines 2-5, Dr. Baudisch testified that “if part of
`
`the specification practices the claim, I would refer to it as an embodiment.” In
`
`Exhibit 2013, at page 23 lines 20-22 through page 23 line 3, Dr. Baudisch testified:
`
`“Q: So how do you know that dwell to select is an embodiment? A: I guess
`
`because the specification says so. I quote, ‘in the embodiment shown,’ comma.”
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 6-7 of its Reply (and Dr.
`
`Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraph 10 of Ex. 1025) that “many
`
`disclosed embodiments would improperly be excluded by PO’s proposed
`
`construction.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Baudisch assumed that all discussions in the specification
`
`that use the word “embodiment” must be included within the scope of claim 1,
`
`without performing an analysis of whether a particular disclosure is or is not an
`
`embodiment of a particular claim.
`
`Observation # 8
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 25 lines 12-19, Dr. Baudisch provided the following
`
`testimony: “Q: My question is just quite simply, is it possible that claim 1’s scope
`
`doesn’t encompass all the embodiments disclosed in the specification? A: As I
`
`tried to explain earlier, this has not been subject to my analysis. My analysis was
`
`on claim construction.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument at pages 6-7 of its
`
`Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at paragraph 10 of Ex. 1025) that
`
`“many disclosed embodiments would improperly be excluded by PO’s proposed
`
`construction.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Baudisch arrived at his opinion on claim construction
`
`without analyzing whether the embodiments he contends would be excluded by
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`Patent Owner’s construction are actually within the scope of the claim 1 of the
`
`‘356 patent.
`
`Observation # 9
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 37 lines 2-11 and page 39 lines 6-10, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that Immersion’s claim construction “may or may not be” the same as a
`
`construction that requires that “every entry in the lookup table contain an
`
`association between the interaction and [] haptic effect data.” This is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s argument at page 7 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding
`
`opinion at paragraph 11 of Ex. 1025) that “PO’s proposed construction also would
`
`exclude the embodiment disclosed in Figure 8 and accompanying text,” because
`
`for a single entry “the input . . . is ‘function failure.’” This cross examination
`
`testimony is relevant because it confirms that neither Patent Owner nor Dr.
`
`Baudisch put forth a construction that requires every entry in a lookup table
`
`contain an association between the interaction and haptic effect data.
`
`Observation # 10
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 67 lines 7-17, Dr. Baudisch testified that he agreed
`
`that “the PDA/touchscreen embodiment in Rosenberg ‘737 would have fewer
`
`options available than would be included on a personal computer screen.” This is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s argument at page 15 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's
`
`corresponding opinion at paragraph 18 of Ex. 1025) that a lookup table would not
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`require a great deal of memory or constant modification because “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.” This cross
`
`examination testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Baudisch interpret the complexity of Rosenberg 737’s PDA system to be low,
`
`contrary to Rosenberg 737’s teaching at Ex. 1007, 21:3-15 that “in some
`
`embodiments [PDA] screen 80 is as functional as any personal computer screen.”
`
`Observation # 11
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at 58:25-59:10 and 161:13-18, Dr. Baudisch testified that
`
`Rosenberg 737 teaches that haptic effects can be based, at least in part, on various
`
`factors including “an object's state,” “moveable portions of the housing of the
`
`computer device,” and “the current velocity of the user’s finger.” This is relevant
`
`to Petitioner’s argument at page 15 of its Reply (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding
`
`opinion at paragraph 18 of Ex. 1025) that a lookup table would not require a great
`
`deal of memory or constant modification because “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.” This cross examination testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates the complexity of Rosenberg 737’s system.
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation # 12
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 64 lines 13-20, when asked “In either of your
`
`declarations, do you identify any nonlinear equations that would be needed to
`
`calculated to output haptic effect[s] in Rosenberg ‘737?” Dr. Baudisch testified “I
`
`don’t recall identifying any in my declaration.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument on page 15 of its Reply brief (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion
`
`at paragraph 16 of Ex. 1025) that “using a lookup table can often be faster (i.e.,
`
`more efficient) than calculating a non-linear equation based on a time varying
`
`parameter.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`that Dr. Baudisch has not alleged that Rosenberg 737’s system would be used with
`
`nonlinear equations as implied by page 15 of Petitioner’s Reply brief.
`
`Observation # 13
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 74 line 8 through page 75 line 3, Dr. Baudisch
`
`testified that a number could be squared in an “arbitrarily small” number of clock
`
`cycles. Additionally, in Exhibit 2013 at page 72 lines 2-4, Dr. Baudisch testified
`
`that squaring a number is a nonlinear equation. This is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument on page 15 of its Reply brief (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion
`
`at paragraph 16 of Ex. 1025) that “using a lookup table can often be faster (i.e.,
`
`more efficient) than calculating a non-linear equation based on a time varying
`
`parameter.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`that certain nonlinear equations such as those discussed on page 15 of Petitioner’s
`
`Reply brief could be calculated quickly without using a lookup table.
`
`Observation # 14
`
`In Exhibit 2013, at page 66 lines 13-17, Dr. Baudisch testified “Q: Did your
`
`counsel explain to you that ‘design choice’ has a special meaning? A: This has not
`
`come up, no. Please tell me about it.” This is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in
`
`its Reply at Sections IV.A and IV.B (and Dr. Baudisch's corresponding opinion at
`
`Sections IV.B and IV.C of Ex. 1025) that a lookup table “is an obvious design
`
`choice.” This cross examination testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`Dr. Baudisch did not consider the correct legal standard in forming his opinion that
`
`a lookup table is a “design choice.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /s/ Michael R. Fleming
`Michael R. Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`
`
`Babak Redjaian, Esq., Reg. 42,096
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Immersion Corporation
`
`
`10225581
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 8,773,356
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on August 28,
`
`
`
`
`
`2017, a copy of the foregoing IMMERSION CORPORATION’S MOTION
`
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION and EXHIBITS 2011-
`
`2013 were served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, upon the
`
`following:
`
`
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`703-773-4148 (phone)
`703-773-5200 (fax)
`Apple-Immersion-IPRs@dlapiper.com
`
`
`Brian Erickson, Reg. No. 48,895
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Ste. 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`512-457-7059 (phone)
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
` /s/ Pia Kamath
`By:
` Pia Kamath
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10231310
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
