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. 8,581,710
`Filing Date: September 5, 2012
`Issue Date: November 12, 2013
`Title: System and Methods For Haptic Confirmation of Commands
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TONY GIVARGIS
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2
`B.
`Background and Qualifications............................................................2
`C.
`Information Considered........................................................................4
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................5
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art...............................................................5
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation .........................................................6
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness.........................................................6
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’710 PATENT .........................................................10
`A.
`Summary of the ’710 Patent...............................................................10
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................13
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................13
`D.
`The ’710 Patent Claims ......................................................................15
`THE PRIOR ART.........................................................................................16
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 to Martin et al. (“Martin”).......................16
`2.
`Limitation 1.a: “A system for generating haptic effects
`to confirm receipt of a command, the system
`comprising:”.............................................................................21
`Limitation 1.b: “a sensor”.......................................................22
`Limitation 1.c: “a housing configured to be contacted by
`a user”.......................................................................................23
`Limitation 1.d: “an actuator configured to output a
`haptic effect to the housing” ....................................................23
`Limitation 1.e: “a processor in communication with the
`sensor and the actuator, the processor configured to” .............25
`Limitation 1.f: “receive, from the sensor, a sensor signal
`associated with a user input”....................................................26
`Limitation 1.g: “recognize the input and determine a
`command associated with the user’s input”.............................26
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`i
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 2
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Limitation 1.h: “if the user input is recognized and the
`command is determined: generate a first actuator signal
`configured to cause the actuator to output a first haptic
`effect”.......................................................................................28
`Limitation 1.i: “if the user input is recognized and the
`command is determined . . . transmit the first actuator
`signal to the actuator” ..............................................................29
`Limitation 1.j: “otherwise: generate a second actuator
`signal configured to cause the actuator to output a second
`haptic effect”............................................................................30
`Limitation 1.k: “otherwise: . . . transmit the second
`actuator signal to the actuator” ................................................31
`Limitation 7.a: “The system of claim 1, further
`comprising a display in communication with the
`processor”.................................................................................32
`Limitation 7.b: “wherein the processor is further
`configured to generate a display signal configured to
`cause the display to generate an image” ..................................33
`Limitation 7.c: “wherein the processor is further
`configured to . . . transmit the display signal to the
`display” ....................................................................................34
`16. Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, wherein the first haptic
`effect is configured to emulate the command.”.......................34
`17. Claim 9: “The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor,
`actuator, and processor are disposed within the housing.”......36
`18. Claim 10: “The system of claim 1, wherein the housing
`comprises one of: a device configured to be worn by the
`user, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant, a touch-
`sensitive surface, a medical alert device, a mouse, or a
`keyboard.”................................................................................36
`
`ii
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`19. Claim 12: “The system of claim 1, wherein command is
`a request associated with an operation, and the first
`haptic effect is configured to provide information with
`the status of the operation.” .....................................................37
`B. Martin in Combination with User’s Manual for the Nokia 9110
`Communicator (“Nokia”)...................................................................38
`2.
`Limitation 1.a: “A system for generating haptic effects
`to confirm receipt of a command, the system
`comprising:”.............................................................................42
`Limitation 1.b: “a sensor”.......................................................44
`Limitation 1.c: “a housing configured to be contacted by
`a user”.......................................................................................44
`Limitation 1.d: “an actuator configured to output a
`haptic effect to the housing” ....................................................45
`Limitation 1.e: “a processor in communication with the
`sensor and the actuator, the processor configured to” .............47
`Limitation 1.f: “receive, from the sensor, a sensor signal
`associated with a user input”....................................................49
`Limitation 1.g: “recognize the input and determine a
`command associated with the user’s input”.............................49
`Limitation 1.h: “if the user input is recognized and the
`command is determined: generate a first actuator signal
`configured to cause the actuator to output a first haptic
`effect”.......................................................................................52
`Limitation 1.i: “if the user input is recognized and the
`command is determined . . . transmit the first actuator
`signal to the actuator” ..............................................................53
`Limitation 1.j: “otherwise: generate a second actuator
`signal configured to cause the actuator to output a second
`haptic effect”............................................................................55
`Limitation 1.k: “otherwise: . . . transmit the second
`actuator signal to the actuator” ................................................56
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`iii
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 4
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`17.
`
`Limitation 7.a: “The system of claim 1, further
`comprising a display in communication with the
`processor”.................................................................................56
`Limitation 7.b: “wherein the processor is further
`configured to generate a display signal configured to
`cause the display to generate an image” ..................................57
`Limitation 7.c: “wherein the processor is further
`configured to . . . transmit the display signal to the
`display” ....................................................................................58
`16. Claim 9: “The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor,
`actuator, and processor are disposed within the housing.”......59
`Limitation Claim 10: “The system of claim 1, wherein
`the housing comprises one of: a device configured to be
`worn by the user, a mobile phone, a personal digital
`assistant, a touch-sensitive surface, a medical alert
`device, a mouse, or a keyboard.”.............................................60
`18. Claim 12: “The system of claim 1, wherein command is
`a request associated with an operation, and the first
`haptic effect is configured to provide information with
`the status of the operation.” .....................................................60
`C. Martin in Combination with Nokia and U.S. Patent Publication
`No. 2003/0067440 (“Rank”). .............................................................62
`2.
`Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, wherein the first haptic
`effect is configured to emulate the command.”.......................63
`CONCLUSION.............................................................................................65
`
`V.
`
`iv
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 5
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,710.
`1003
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1004
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 to Martin et al. (“Martin”)
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 5,392,348 to Park et al. (“Park”)
`1006
`MSC1200, MSC1201, MSC1202 Datasheet
`1007
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,481 to Kovacevich
`1008
`Nokia 9110 Communicator User’s Manual (“Nokia”)
`1009
`Declaration of Erin Flaucher
`1010
`US Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0067440 (“Rank”)
`1011
`Patent Owner Immersion’s claim chart regarding alleged
`infringement of the ’710 patent by certain Apple iPhone products
`(Exhibit 23 to Immersion’s ITC Complaint in ITC Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1004)
`Immersion’s Complaint in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1004 (the
`“Complaint”).
`Nokia 9110 Communicator User’s Manual (Doc. No. 93517168
`Issue EN 3)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,697,961 to Konkka et al.
`Office Action for U.S. Pat. App. No. 11/136,308 dated May 5, 2008
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`v
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 6
`
`

`
`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, 7-10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,581,710 (the “’710
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $400 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this proceeding or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`A copy of my current curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached as
`
`Appendix A. As detailed in my CV, I received a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Computer Science from the University of California, Riverside, in 1997. In 2001, I
`
`received my Ph.D. degree in Computer Science, also from the University of
`
`California, Riverside.
`
`4.
`
`My doctoral thesis, completed under the supervision of Professor
`
`Frank Vahid, was titled “Design Space Exploration of Parameterized System-on-a-
`
`Chip Architectures” and related to computer-aided design optimization of highly
`
`integrated circuits on chip.
`
`5.
`
`I have been a member of the Department of Computer Science faculty
`
`at the University of California, Irvine (“UC-Irvine”) since 2001. From 2001-2007,
`
`6
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 7
`
`

`
`I held the title Assistant Professor of Computer Science. I was promoted to
`
`Associate Professor, with tenure, in 2007, and to full Professor in 2011. From
`
`2011-2016, I also served as Associate Dean for Student Affairs in the Donald Bren
`
`School of Information & Computer Sciences at UC-Irvine.
`
`6.
`
`I have done extensive research in the area of embedded systems
`
`design. Embedded systems are devices that, in addition to having mechanical and
`
`electrical parts, make use of an embedded computing element, comprised of one or
`
`more processors, electronic circuitry, and system software. My research is focused
`
`on software design for embedded systems, real-time operating systems, sensors
`
`and actuators, interfacing circuitry, sensor networks, embedded processor
`
`architectures, multi-core processors, flash memory systems, low power design, and
`
`general system optimization algorithms.
`
`7.
`
`I have graduated six Ph.D. students and am currently supervising and
`
`advising a group of two Ph.D., a post-doctoral researcher, and multiple M.S./B.S.
`
`students. As a professor, I regularly teach both at the graduate and undergraduate
`
`levels. At UC-Irvine, among computer science and engineering students, I am
`
`probably best known for routinely teaching the upper division as well as graduate-
`
`level embedded systems courses (CS 145 and CS 245). These courses cover the
`
`design cycle of a typical embedded device, including all aspects of hardware and
`
`software integration. Additionally, I have taught courses in the areas of
`
`7
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 8
`
`

`
`programming, logic design, modeling and simulation, ubiquitous computing, and
`
`compilers.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 83 peer-reviewed conference and journal
`
`papers, four of which have been recognized by Best Paper Awards. My papers are
`
`published in highly ranked and archived journals. I am a co-inventor on 11 issued
`
`US patents.
`
`9.
`
`I have co-authored two popular textbooks on embedded system design
`
`that are widely used at top institutions in the US as well as around the globe. I
`
`received the prestigious 2011 Frederick Emmons Terman Award for my textbook
`
`entitled Embedded System Design: A Unified Hardware/Software Introduction.
`
`10. Additional details regarding my qualifications and background can be
`
`found in my CV.
`
`C.
`
`Information Considered
`
`11. 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 and in the Petition.
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by Immersion. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that may
`
`have not yet been provided to me.
`
`8
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 9
`
`

`
`13. 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
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article
`
`published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`9
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 10
`
`

`
`17.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United Stated before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`B.
`
`18.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim via anticipation or obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C.
`
`22.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`10
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 11
`
`

`
`23.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`11
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 12
`
`

`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit
`
`together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness
`
`analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`29.
`
`The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
`
`12
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 13
`
`

`
`person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is
`
`likely obvious.
`
`30.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`13
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 14
`
`

`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`34.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’710 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`36.
`
`Summary of the ’710 Patent
`
`The ’710 patent is titled “Systems and Methods for Haptic
`
`Confirmation of Commands.” Ex. 1001 at cover. The ’710 patent explains that
`
`“[c]ommands to electronic devices have typically been issued by pressing a button
`
`or flipping a switch. However, voice and other types of commands are becoming
`
`more prevalent in user interfaces, such as voice-commanded dialing of cell
`
`phones.” Ex. 1001 at 1:21-25. The ’710 patent further explains that audio and
`
`14
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 15
`
`

`
`visual cues may not always be possible in electronic devices such as smart phones.
`
`Id. at 1:25-32. “Thus, it may be desirable to provide other mechanisms for
`
`providing responses to the user.” Id. at 1:32-33.
`
`37.
`
`The ’710 patent discloses embodiments in which a user speaks
`
`commands into a microphone, such as the PDA shown in the block diagram of Fig.
`
`1 reproduced below:
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:47-50. Other embodiments involving voice recognition include
`
`desktop computers (id. at 5:17-20) and Bluetooth headsets attached to cell phones
`
`(id. at 6:9-10). Also disclosed in the ’710 patent are embodiments comprising a
`
`haptically-enabled medical alert device in communication with a communications
`
`device (id. at 7:4-11), a display worn by a user such as goggles with an integrated
`15
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 16
`
`

`
`display and a sensor that detects the orientation of a user’s eye to select a command
`
`on the display that allows a user to control a wheelchair (id. at 11:27-41 and 12:6-
`
`24), and a user device with a touchscreen in which a user selects commands by
`
`touching locations on the touchscreen (id. at 7:25-34).
`
`38. An example of processing associated with confirmation of commands
`
`is shown in Fig. 7, reprodued below, in which the path from the bottom of decision
`
`diamond 720 indicates that the command was determined, and the path leading
`
`from the right of the decision diamond 720 indicates that a command was not
`
`determined:
`
`Id. at 12:38-45. The ’710 patent discloses generating and transmitting an acuator
`
`signal for a haptic effect that indicates that the command is recognized if the
`
`16
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 17
`
`

`
`command is recognized, and “otherwise” generating and transmitting an acutator
`
`signal for another haptic effect that indicates that the command was not
`
`recognized. Id. at 12:38-52.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`39. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’710 patent would have had a Bachelors’ degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus
`
`approximately two to three years of professional experience with software
`
`engineering, haptics programming, or other relevant industry experience.
`
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience and
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`
`C.
`
`40.
`
`Claim Construction
`I understand from Apple counsel that in an inter partes review, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
`
`41.
`
`I also understand that in the ITC investigation involving Immersion
`
`and Apple, Immersion has submitted to the ITC claim charts showing how
`
`Immersion believes that the ’710 patent’s claims allegedly encompass certain of
`
`Apple’s products. Ex. 1011. I understand from Apple counsel that for purposes of
`
`this proceeding, it is proper to request that Immersion be held to claim
`
`constructions that are as broad as those that Immersion has publicly set forth in its
`
`17
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 18
`
`

`
`claim charts from the ITC investigation. I therefore have considered those
`
`infringement claim charts in reaching my conclusions about what the claim terms
`
`mean.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the standards used in the ITC and in a district court
`
`to interpret patent claims are different than those used by the PTO in this
`
`proceeding. I understand that the main difference is that in this proceeding, the
`
`claims are to be read as broad as is reasonable based on the specification. I
`
`understand that this may cause the claims to cover certain things in this proceeding
`
`that a court might find are not within the scope of the claims in the court
`
`proceeding.
`
`43.
`
`In the table below, I provide a scope of construction for certain claim
`
`terms based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification
`
`and based on the Immersion’s apparent belief about the scope of the claim terms
`
`from its infringement contentions in the ITC investigation.
`
`Claim Term
`“system”
`(all challenged
`claims)
`
`“signal” (all
`challenged claims)
`
`Scope of Construction
`Based on the plain and ordinary
`meaning, the claim term should
`encompass “any collection of
`component elements that work
`together to perform a task.”
`
`Based on the plain and ordinary
`meaning, the claim term should
`encompass “any electrical
`quantity, such as voltage, current
`or frequency that can be used to
`18
`
`Citation(s)
`Ex. 1003 at 4
`(Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary).
`
`Ex. 1003 at 3
`(Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary).
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 19
`
`

`
`transmit information.” One
`skilled in the art would understand
`that this definition would
`encompass either digital or analog
`signals.
`
`“haptic effect
`configured to
`emulate the
`command” (claim
`8)
`
`Based on Immersion’s public
`contentions, this term should
`encompass a short vibration used
`to emulate the command to
`display a menu.
`
`Ex. 1012 at 19, Table 1
`and 21 (Immersion
`contending that Apple
`iPhone 6s and 6s Plus
`infringe claim 8); Ex.
`1011 at 28-29, 32
`(Immersion contending
`that Quick Action
`feature in accused
`Apple products display
`a menu); id. at 39-40
`(Immersion contending
`that haptic effect in the
`form of a tap of
`duration of less than 10
`ms is associated with
`Quick Action menu
`display).
`
`D.
`
`44.
`
`below.
`
`1.a
`
`1.b
`1.c
`1.d
`1.e
`
`The ’710 Patent Claims
`
`For reference, claims 1, 7-10 and 12 of the ’710 patent are recreated
`
`Claim Language
`A system for generating haptic effects to confirm receipt of a
`command, the system comprising:
`a sensor
`a housing configured to be contacted by a user
`an actuator configured to output a haptic effect to the housing
`a processor in communication with the sensor and the actuator, the
`processor configured to
`
`19
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 20
`
`

`
`1.f
`1.g
`
`1.h
`
`1.i
`
`1.j
`
`1.k
`7.a
`
`7.b
`
`7.c
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`receive, from the sensor, a sensor signal associated with a user input
`recognize the input and determine a command associated with the
`user’s input
`if the user input is recognized and the command is determined:
`generate a first actuator signal configured to cause the actuator to
`output a first haptic effect
`if the user input is recognized and the command is determined . . .
`transmit the first actuator signal to the actuator
`otherwise: generate a second actuator signal configured to cause the
`actuator to output a second haptic effect
`otherwise: . . . transmit the second actuator signal to the actuator.
`The system of claim 1, further comprising a display in
`communication with the processor
`wherein the processor is further configured to generate a display
`signal configured to cause the display to generate an image
`wherein the processor is further configured to . . . transmit the display
`signal to the display.
`The system of claim 1, wherein the first haptic effect is configured to
`emulate the command.
`The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor, actuator, and processor are
`disposed within the housing.
`The system of claim 1, wherein the housing comprises one of: a
`device configured to be worn by the user, a mobile phone, a personal
`digital assistant, a touch-sensitive surface, a medical alert device, a
`mouse, or a keyboard.
`The system of claim 1, wherein command is a request associated with
`an operation, and the first haptic effect is configured to provide
`information with the status of the operation.
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 to Martin et al. (“Martin”)
`
`45. Claims 1, 7-10 and 12 are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,336,260 to Martin et al. (“Martin”), which is another of Patent Owner
`
`Immersion’s patents. Martin issued on February 26, 2008 (Ex. 1004, cover), which
`
`is more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’710 patent
`20
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 21
`
`

`
`(November 4, 2009). I understand from counsel for Apple that Martin is therefore
`
`prior art to the ’710 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) (pre-AIA).
`
`46. Martin is titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile
`
`Sensations.” More particularly, Martin discloses providing tactile feedback
`
`associated with user input on devices such as smartphones and PDAs (personal
`
`digital assistants). Ex. 1004 at 2:16-35. In one embodiment, Martin discloses an
`
`electronic device including a CPU 43, a display 44, input devices 40, a controller
`
`41, and an actuator 46 controlled by control circuitry 45 as shown in block diagram
`
`form in Fig. 7 reproduced below:
`
`21
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 22
`
`

`
`47. Martin discloses that the “input devices 40 produce input signals in
`
`accordance with the present invention, and the input signals are communicated to
`
`the controller 41 across the communication bus 39.” Ex. 1004 at 13:28-31. “In
`
`some embodiments, the input signal includes pressure data, or data from which the
`
`pressure applied to the input device can be calculated, position data, or a
`
`combination of pressure and position data.” Id. at 14:17-21. “Based upon the
`
`received input signal, pressure and position data, the controller accesses a memory
`
`42 to obtain the necessary data regarding the functionality and tactile feedback
`
`22
`
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1002, PAGE 23
`
`

`
`associated with the received input signal.” Id. at 13:33-37. “Based upon the
`
`received functionality, the controller delivers a function signal to the electronic
`
`device 43 to which the apparatus is connected. In addition, the controller 41
`
`modifies the output on the display 44 in particular where the display is part of the
`
`input device, such as when a touchpad is used.” Id. at 13:41-46. “The controller
`
`uses the tactile feedback information received from the memory to provide the
`
`necessary input to control circuitry 45 to drive the actuator 46 to produce the
`
`desired tactile sensation in the appropriate input device.” Id. at 13:41-46.
`
`48.
`
`In one embodiment, the information stored in the memory “is in the
`
`form of associations among the detected input data, the functions of the electronic
`
`device or apparatus, and the tactil