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. 8,749,507
`Filing Date: April 6, 2012
`Issue Date: June 10, 2014
`Title: Systems And Methods For Adaptive Interpretation Of
`Input From A Touch-Sensitive Input Device
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDY COCKBURN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ .. 1
`
`B.
`
`Information Considered ...................................................................... ..6
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ ..6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’507 PATENT ....................................................... .. 12
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... ..17
`
`The ’507 Patent Claims .................................................................... ..20
`
`IV.
`
`THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................... ..22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications .......................................................... ..1
`B.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ............................................................... 6
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ............................................................. ..6
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ......................................................... 7
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ....................................................... ..7
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ......................................................... 8
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ....................................................... ..8
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’507 PATENT ......................................................... 12
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent ............................................................... 12
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent ............................................................. .. 12
`B.
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History ................................................. 16
`B.
`The ’5 07 Patent Prosecution History ............................................... .. 16
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 17
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. ..17
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent ..................... 17
`D.
`Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent ................... .. 17
`E.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 17
`F.
`The ’507 Patent Claims ...................................................................... 20
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ......................................................................................... 22
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 to Toda (“Toda”) ..................................... 22
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 to Toda (“Toda”) ................................... ..22
`B. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795 to Shahoian
`B.
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795 to Shahoian
`(“Shahoian”) ....................................................................................... 26
`(“Shahoian”) ..................................................................................... . .26
`C. Detailed Analysis of Toda and Shahoian ........................................... 28
`C.
`Detailed Analysis of Toda and Shahoian ......................................... ..28
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 to Morimura (Ex. 1005,
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 to Morimura (Ex. 1005,
`“Morimura”) ....................................................................................... 60
`“Morimura”) ..................................................................................... ..60
`D. Detailed Analysis of Morimura and Shahoian ................................... 62
`D.
`Detailed Analysis of Morimura and Shahoian ................................. ..62
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... . .78
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`i
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 2
`
`

`
`
`
`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 1-5, 9-12 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the
`
`“’507 patent”).
`
`2.
`
` I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $475 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this investigation or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached as Appendix A. I am a
`
`Professor at the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering at the
`
`University of Canterbury, New Zealand. I also currently head the HCI (Human-
`
`Computer Interaction) and Multi-Media research group at the University of
`
`Canterbury.
`
`4.
`
`In 1988, I was awarded a Bachelor of Science with Honors in
`
`Computer Science from the University of York, England.
`
`5.
`
`In 1993, I was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Stirling,
`
`Scotland. My thesis was on “Computer Supported Cooperative Work” which
`
`relates to forms of group interaction supported on computers.
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 3
`
`

`
`
`
`6.
`
`In 1993, I joined the University of Canterbury as a Lecturer in the
`
`Department of Computer Science (now the Department of Computer Science and
`
`Software Engineering). I was subsequently promoted to a Senior Lecturer, and
`
`then an Associate Professor, before my appointment as a Professor in 2010. I
`
`currently hold the title of Professor.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience in the area of HCI (Human-
`
`Computer Interaction). The field of HCI generally is concerned with ways of
`
`understanding and improving the interaction between humans and computers, with
`
`a view to understanding, evaluating, designing, and building new styles of
`
`interactions that improve on one or more of the end goals of making computers
`
`faster to learn, more intuitive, more efficient to use, and more subjectively
`
`satisfying.
`
`8.
`
`Throughout my career, I have published the results of many research
`
`projects that have involved building new user interfaces or reviewing existing user
`
`interfaces for performing a particular task, and evaluating their effectiveness. This
`
`includes publications relating to:
`
`(a)
`
`investigating user experiences with web navigation interfaces, for
`
`example when using the “back” button on web browsers;
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 4
`
`

`
`
`
`(b)
`
`reviewing and improving various interface schemes for traversing
`
`through documents in computer applications, including zooming,
`
`scrolling, and other techniques;
`
`(c)
`
`analyzing new interfaces for text entry on mobile and touch-sensitive
`
`devices;
`
`(d)
`
`addressing the problems arising from the small form factor of mobile
`
`devices with touch-sensitive displays;
`
`(e)
`
`examining the influence of haptic feedback on user performance with
`
`mouse and touchscreen input devices; and
`
`(f)
`
`evaluating the importance of spatially stable displays in user
`
`interfaces.
`
`9.
`
`I also have extensive experience in designing and building new user
`
`interfaces and reviewing existing user interfaces. This includes a number of
`
`projects regarding the design, development and evaluation of user interfaces that I
`
`have undertaken with companies in the computing and HCI industry, such as:
`
`(a) working with Airbus SAS in 2016 on methods to assist pilot
`
`interaction with touchscreens in turbulent environments;
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
` working with Hewlett-Packard Research Labs from 2010-2012 on the
`
`design and evaluation of pointing techniques for remote displays, such
`
`as interactive TVs;
`
`(c)
`
` a number of projects from 2006-2010 working with Logitech on the
`
`design, development, evaluation and improvement of user interfaces
`
`for next generation mice, including in relation to scrolling and
`
`window management tasks;
`
`(d)
`
` working with IBM Almaden Research in 2006 on the design,
`
`development and evaluation of user interfaces for touch-sensitive text
`
`entry on mobile devices;
`
`(e)
`
` working with Digit Wireless in 2002 on the evaluation of user
`
`performance for user interfaces for digital text entry on mobile
`
`devices; and
`
`(f)
`
` working with Microsoft Research in 1999 on the development,
`
`evaluation and improvement of user interfaces for web browsing, in
`
`particular the mechanisms for revisiting pages (such as through the
`
`“back” button or bookmarks).
`
`4
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 6
`
`

`
`
`
`10. At the University of Canterbury, I currently teach the following
`
`courses:
`
`(a)
`
`a course on introductory computer programming designed for first
`
`year students across disciplines;
`
`(b)
`
` courses on HCI for computer science students at all university levels
`
`(including honors and masters level students).
`
`11.
`
`In the past, I have also taught a second year undergraduate course on
`
`HCI at the University of Canterbury, which included the implementation of
`
`graphical user interfaces.
`
`12.
`
`I also manage an active research lab with a number of Ph.D. students.
`
`I have previously supervised twelve students to successful completion of their
`
`Ph.D.s in the field of HCI.
`
`13.
`
`In 2015, I was elected to the ACM CHI Academy, which honors the
`
`principal leaders of the field of HCI.
`
`14.
`
`I also annually attend conferences relating to the field of HCI and
`
`regularly read journals that cover research in the field of HCI.
`
`15. A detailed list of my other professional activities, memberships, and
`
`speaking engagements is included in my CV.
`5
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 7
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`16. 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.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation 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. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`19.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 8
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 9
`
`

`
`
`
`25.
`
`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).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`27.
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 10
`
`

`
`
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 11
`
`

`
`
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34. 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
`
`person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is
`
`likely obvious.
`
`35.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 12
`
`

`
`
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 13
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’507 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent
`41. The ’507 patent is directed to systems and methods for interpreting
`
`inputs received from a touch-sensitive input device. Ex. 1001 at 1:25-27. In the
`
`only illustrated embodiment of the system, the touch-sensitive input device is a
`
`touchpad 102. Id. at 2:39-41, Fig. 1 (shown below). The ’507 patent states that
`
`other embodiments may use other touch-sensitive input devices, such as a touch
`
`panel or touch screen. Id. at 2:50-52. The illustrated embodiment may be
`
`implemented in personal computers, handheld organizers, cellular telephones,
`
`handheld communicators, MP3 players, GPS receivers, etc. Id. at 4:41-46.
`
`
`
`12
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`42. According to the ’507 patent, the touchpad 102 senses the position of
`
`a conductor (e.g., a finger) on the surface of the touchpad 102, and provides
`
`parameters for the determined position (X and Y) and pressure (Z) of the conductor
`
`to a processor 106. Ex. 1001 at 2:41-45; 3:51-52. In the illustrated embodiment,
`
`because the touchpad 102 senses capacitance, it “does not sense an actual
`
`pressure.” Id. at 2:53. “Instead, the pressure reading from the touchpad 102 is a
`
`pseudo pressure” based on the amount of capacitance resulting from the conductor
`
`touching the touchpad 102. Id. at 2:54-60; 3:10-12. The touchpad 102 could be
`
`“implemented with any touch-sensitive input device, including resistive and
`
`membrane-switch touchpads,” which also determine pseudo pressure. Id. at 2:54-
`
`60. “In other embodiments, actual pressure may be sensed.” Id. at 2:60-61. “For
`
`example, in one embodiment, a touch screen with an attached explicit pressure
`
`sensor is utilized.” Id. at 2:61-63.
`
`
`
`13
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 15
`
`

`
`
`
`43. According to the ’507 patent, the disclosed embodiments purportedly
`
`“address the difficulties faced in attempting to determine the intent of a user based
`
`on the X, Y, and Z parameters supplied by the touchpad 102.” Ex. 1001 at 4:56-
`
`58, 2:1-3. “Examples of determining a user’s intent include determining when a
`
`user is tapping or pressing on a specific portion of a touch-sensitive input device
`
`that corresponds to a control displayed on the input device or displayed on a
`
`separate, synchronized display.” Id. at 4:59-63. In an example process, illustrated
`
`below, the processor 106 uses the parameters received from the touchpad 102 to
`
`detect and interpret finger presses on a touchpad where a keypad is displayed on
`
`the touchpad or a corresponding display. Id. at 5:21-25, 5:58-63.
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2.
`
`44. The processor 106 determines that a finger is on the touchpad 102 by
`
`evaluating the pseudo pressure (Z) parameter (e.g., when Z > 0). Ex. 1001 at 5:65-
`
`6:1. In the illustrated example, the input X and Y coordinates are used to
`
`determine whether the position of the user’s finger is on a location corresponding
`
`to a key. Id. at 6:18-21. If so, the processor 106 compares the pseudo pressure (Z)
`
`against a threshold value, and compares the change in pseudo pressure (∆Z) against
`
`
`
`15
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 17
`
`

`
`
`
`another threshold to make various decisions required to determine whether the user
`
`is pressing the key or not. Id. at 5:27-30, 6:37-47. Counters are used to determine
`
`the length of time the finger remains on a key. Id. at 6:9-15, 6:34-7:6.
`
`45. The ’507 patent also states that the disclosed embodiments may
`
`implement haptic effects. Ex. 1001 at 4:47-49. “In such an embodiment, the
`
`haptic effects result from various actions by a user interfacing with a touch-
`
`sensitive input device, and the effects may be based on the user’s intent as
`
`determined by the processor 106. Haptic effects may also result from interaction
`
`with software executing on a device in communication with the touch-sensitive
`
`input device.” Id. at 4:49-55. The ’507 patent contains no other disclosure
`
`regarding how haptic effects are generated or used.
`
`B.
`46.
`
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History
`
`Immersion filed the application that became the ’507 patent on April
`
`6, 2012 (application serial no. 13/441,108 (the “’108 application”)). Ex. 1002 at
`
`414. The ’108 application claimed priority to an earlier non-provisional
`
`application that allegedly has a filing date of November 26, 2003. Id. at 417.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’108 application, the applicant amended the claims
`
`from their original form to overcome various rejections. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at 135-
`
`38, 102-106, 43-46.
`
`
`
`16
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 18
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`47. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’507 patent (i.e., November 26, 2003) 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, touch sensitive input devices, or other relevant industry
`
`experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`
`education.
`
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent
`48.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC investigation
`
`involving Immersion and Apple, Immersion alleges that Apple’s iPhone 6s and
`
`iPhone 6s Plus products infringe claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the ’507 patent. I
`
`understand from Apple counsel that, in order to allegedly support these
`
`contentions, Immersion provided a public claim chart purporting to show how
`
`these Apple products allegedly practice claims 1, 9, and 14 of the ’507 patent. Ex.
`
`1006.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`49.
`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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 19
`
`

`
`
`
`50.
`
`I also understand from Apple counsel 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 or the ITC might find are not within the scope of the
`
`claims in the court proceeding or the ITC investigation.
`
`51. As mentioned above, I also understand from Apple counsel that in the
`
`ITC investigation, Immersion provided the ITC with a claim chart showing how
`
`Immersion believes that the ’507 patent’s independent claims allegedly encompass
`
`certain of Apple’s products. I also understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC
`
`investigation, Immersion has proposed constructions of certain claim terms in the
`
`’507 patent. 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 claim charts and
`
`proposed constructions in the ITC investigation. I therefore have considered these
`
`materials in reaching my conclusions about what the claim terms mean.
`
`52.
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 20
`
`

`
`
`
`and based on the Immersion’s apparent belief about the scope of the claim terms
`
`from its infringement contentions and proposed constructions in the ITC
`
`investigation.
`
`Claim Term
`“pressure”
`(claims 1-3, 9-
`11, and 14-16)
`
`Scope of Construction
`Includes pressure and
`force.
`
`Citations
`Ex. 1007 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 2 (Immersion
`contending that “pressure” in the ’507
`patent should be construed as
`“application of force from a contact”).
`
`Ex. 1006 (Immersion’s infringement
`contentions) at 39-40, 57-58, 66-67
`(Immersion contending that “force”
`satisfies the limitations reciting
`“determining a pressure,” “the
`pressure is greater than a pressure
`threshold,” and “the change in
`pressure is greater than a change in
`pressure threshold”).
`
`Ex. 1007 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 3 (Immersion
`contending that this limitation should
`be construed in this manner).
`
`Includes to determine a
`press if … the change in
`pressure is greater than
`a static or adaptive
`threshold for the change
`in pressure.
`
`“determining
`a press if …
`the change in
`pressure is
`greater than a
`change in
`pressure
`threshold”
`(claims 1, 9,
`and 14)
`
`“gesture”
`(claims 1, 9,
`and 14)
`
`
`
`Includes interactions
`with the input device
`made using a pointing
`device or stylus
`
`Ex. 1001 (the ’507 patent) at 3:48-50,
`5:54-57 (stating that a user of the
`claimed system may be interacting
`with the system using “a pointing
`device,” such as “a stylus.”)
`
`19
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 21
`
`

`
`
`
`“pseudo
`pressure”
`(claims 2, 10,
`and 15)
`
`Includes any measure of
`pressure based on
`capacitance and
`includes “a measure of
`the area of the screen
`contacted by the object”
`
`“softkey”
`(claim 5)
`
`Includes
`programmatically
`generated graphical
`buttons.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (the ’507 patent) at 3:10-14
`(stating that “the pseudo pressure is
`based on the amount of capacitance
`resulting from the conductor touching
`the touchpad 102” and that “the
`amount of capacitance is not a direct
`measure of pressure but rather a
`pseudo pressure.”).
`
`Ex. 1007 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 2 (stating that
`“pseudo-pressure” be construed as “a
`measure of the area of the screen
`contacted by the object.”)
`
`Ex. 1001 (the ’507 patent) at 5:23-25
`(describing a keypad displayed on a
`corresponding display.)
`
`
`F.
`The ’507 Patent Claims
`53. For reference, the challenged claims of the ’507 patent are recreated
`
`below.
`
`Limitation
`1.0
`1.1
`1.2
`
`1.3
`
`1.4
`
`1.5
`1.6
`1.7
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`A method comprising:
`receiving contact data from an input device;
`determining an interaction with a displayed object on a screen based
`on the contact data;
`responsive to determining the interaction, determining a gesture based
`on the contact data comprising:
`determining a pressure and a change in pressure based on the contact
`data, and
`determining a press if:
`the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold,
`the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold,
`
`20
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 22
`
`

`
`
`
`1.8
`1.9
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`9.0
`
`9.1
`9.2
`
`9.3
`
`9.4
`
`9.5
`9.6
`9.7
`
`9.8
`9.9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`and
`a first interval has elapsed; and
`responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a haptic effect.1
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the contact data comprises an actual
`pressure and a pseudo pressure.
`The method of claim 2, wherein the pseudo pressure is based on a
`change in capacitance resulting from the contact.
`The method of claim 3, wherein the contact data is based on a contact
`on a specific portion of a touch-sensitive input device.
`The method of claim 4, wherein the contact information comprises
`position data, and further comprising determining whether a contact
`is made on a softkey based on the position data.
`A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program
`code for causing a processor to execute a method, the program code
`comprising:
`program code for receiving contact data from an input device;
`program code for determining an interaction with a displayed object
`on a screen based on the contact data;
`program code for, responsive to determining the interaction,
`determining a gesture based on the contact data comprising:
`program code for determining a pressure and a change in pressure
`based on the contact data, and
`program code for determining a press if:
`the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold,
`the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold,
`and
`a first interval has elapsed; and
`program code for, responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a
`haptic effect.
`The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein
`the contact data comprises an actual pressure and a pseudo pressure.
`The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein
`the pseudo pressure is based on a change in capacitance resulting
`from the contact.
`The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein
`
`
`1 Immersion changed “outputting the” to “outputting a” in this claim language via
`certificate of correction.
`
`
`
`21
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1009 - PAGE 23
`
`

`
`
`
`14.0
`14.1
`14.2
`
`14.3
`14.4
`
`14.5
`
`14.6
`
`14.7
`14.8
`14.9
`
`14.10
`14.11
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`the contact data is based on a contact on a specific portion of a tou