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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,749,507
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-100, ET SEQ.
`
`

`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4) ....................... 1
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Backup Counsel ......................................................... 2
`4.
`Service Information.................................................................... 2
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner .................................................. 2
`B.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 2
`C.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 3
`D.
`Fees ....................................................................................................... 3
`E.
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................. 3
`IV. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ............ 4
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent ................................................................. 4
`B.
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History ................................................... 7
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 8
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent ....................... 8
`E.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 8
`F.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9-12 And 14-17 Are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) In Light Of Toda In View Of
`Shahoian ............................................................................................. 12
`1.
`Toda is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art ........................................... 12
`2.
`Shahoian is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art ..................................... 15
`3.
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 17
`G. Ground 2: Claims 1, 9, and 14 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) (pre-AIA) In Light Of Morimura In View Of Shahoian ........ 48
`1. Morimura is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art ................................... 48
`2.
`Shahoian is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art ..................................... 50
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Detailed Analysis ..................................................................... 50
`3.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the “’507 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507
`U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 to Toda (“Toda”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795 to Shahoian (“Shahoian”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 to Morimura (“Morimura”)
`Patent Owner Immersion’s claim chart regarding alleged
`infringement of the ’507 patent by certain Apple iPhone products
`(Exhibit 20 to Immersion’s complaint in ITC Investigation. No.
`337-TA-1004).
`Patent Owner Immersion’s preliminary proposed claim
`constructions in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1004.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,488,204 to Mead.
`Declaration of expert Dr. Andy Cockburn (“Cockburn Decl.”).
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of Immersion’s U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the “’507 patent”)
`
`challenged in this Petition are invalid over the prior art. During prosecution of the
`
`’507 patent, Immersion overcame multiple rejections of the claims by adding
`
`limitations reciting various criteria used to detect the occurrence of a gesture on a
`
`pressure-sensitive device. This gesture detection algorithm, however, was known
`
`in the art, and is disclosed by the both the Toda and Morimura references discussed
`
`below. Additional limitations of the challenged claims are disclosed by Shahoian,
`
`a prior art Immersion patent publication that discusses at length providing haptic
`
`feedback in response to a gesture.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`Apple Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters
`
`2.
`The ’507 patent is subject to the following actions: 1) Certain Mobile and
`
`Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and
`
`Laptops) and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1004 and 2) Immersion
`
`Corporation v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00325 (D. Del.).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Gianni Minutoli
`
`Reg. No. 41,198
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Robert Buergi
`
`Reg. No. 58,125
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`
`2000 University Ave
`
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`gianni.minutoli@dlapiper.com
`
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`
`Phone: 703-773-4045
`
`Phone: 650-833-2407
`
`Fax: 703-773-5200
`
`Fax: 650-687-1144
`
`Service Information
`
`4.
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above.
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`
`B.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition in
`
`its entirety is being served to the Patent Owner’s attorney of record at the address
`
`listed in the USPTO’s records by overnight courier pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`C.
`Powers of attorney are being filed with designation of counsel in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Standing
`
`D.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’507
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Fees
`
`E.
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and any additional fees that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-3266.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner requests cancelation of
`
`claims 1-5, 9-12 and 14-17 of the ’507 patent in view of the following grounds:
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) (pre-AIA) by U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 (Ex. 1003, “Toda”) in view of U.S.
`
`Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795, (Ex. 1004, “Shahoian”) and the knowledge of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 14 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`(pre-AIA) by U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 (Ex. 1005, “Morimura”) in view of
`
`Shahoian and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. FULL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent
`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.
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History
`
`B.
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`C.
`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. Ex. 1009 (Declaration of Dr. Andy Cockburn) (“Cockburn Decl.”), ¶
`
`47.
`
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent
`In the ITC investigation referenced above in “Related Matters,” Patent
`
`Owner Immersion alleges that Petitioner Apple’s iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus
`
`products infringe claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the ’507 patent. To allegedly
`
`support these contentions, Patent Owner 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
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner provides the
`
`following statement regarding construction of the ’507 patent claims. A claim
`
`subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because the BRI
`
`standard is different from that used in district court litigation, PPC Broadband,
`
`Inc., v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 756 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the
`
`interpretation of the claims presented either implicitly or explicitly herein should
`
`not be viewed as constituting Petitioner’s own interpretation and/or construction of
`
`such claims for the purposes of the underlying litigation. Instead, such
`
`constructions in this proceeding should be viewed only as constituting an
`
`interpretation of the claims under the “broadest reasonable construction” standard.
`
`In the ITC investigation referenced above, Patent Owner Immersion has
`
`proposed constructions of certain claim terms in the ’507 patent. For purposes of
`
`this proceeding, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Patent Owner be held to
`
`constructions of the ’507 patent claim terms at least as broad as Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions. Patent Owner’s constructions are set forth in Exhibit
`
`1007.
`
`In the ITC investigation referenced above, Patent Owner Immersion also has
`
`submitted to the ITC a claim chart showing how it believes that the ’507 patent’s
`
`independent claims allegedly encompass certain aspects of Patent Owner Apple’s
`
`products, as described above. Ex. 1006. For the purposes of this proceeding,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Patent Owner be held to constructions of
`
`the ’507 patent claim terms at least as broad as those set forth by the Patent Owner
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`in this claim chart.
`
`In particular, based on Patent Owner Immersion’s public infringement
`
`contentions and public proposed constructions, Immersion should be held to a
`
`construction of “pressure” that encompasses both pressure and force. Ex. 1007 at
`
`2 (Immersion contending that “pressure” in the ’507 patent should be construed as
`
`“application of force from a contact”); Ex. 1006 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”).
`
`In addition, based on Immersion’s public proposed construction of
`
`“determining a press if … the change in pressure is greater than a change in
`
`pressure threshold” in claims 1, 9, and 14, Immersion should be held to a
`
`construction of this limitation that encompasses “determine a press if … the
`
`change in pressure is greater than a static or adaptive threshold for the change in
`
`pressure.” Ex. 1007 at 3 (Immersion contending that this limitation should be
`
`construed as set forth above).
`
`Next, with regard to the claim term “gesture” (claims 1, 9, and 14), the ’507
`
`patent states that a user of the claimed system may be interacting with the system
`
`using “a pointing device,” such as “a stylus.” Ex. 1001 at 3:48-50, 5:54-57.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “gesture” should include
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`interactions with the input device made using a pointing device or stylus.
`
`Cockburn Decl., ¶ 52.
`
`Third, with regard to the claim term “pseudo pressure” in claims 2, 10, and
`
`15, the ’507 patent states 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. 1001 at 3:10-14. Accordingly, “pseudo-pressure” should be
`
`construed to include any measure of pressure based on capacitance. Cockburn
`
`Decl., ¶ 52. In addition, Patent Owner Immersion has proposed in the ITC
`
`investigation that “pseudo-pressure” be construed as “a measure of the area of the
`
`screen contacted by the object.” Ex. 1007 at 2. Thus, Patent Owner Immersion
`
`should be held to a construction of “pseudo-pressure” that also includes a measure
`
`of such area.
`
`Finally, with regard to the claim term “softkey” (claim 5), the ’507 patent
`
`describes a keypad displayed on a corresponding display. Ex. 1001 at 5:23-25.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “softkey” should include
`
`programmatically generated graphical buttons. Cockburn Decl., ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`F. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9-12 And 14-17 Are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) In Light Of Toda In View Of Shahoian.
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 (“Toda”) is a printed publication within the
`
`Toda is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) (pre-AIA) because it issued on September
`
`30, 1997, more than one year before the priority date of the ’507 patent (Nov. 26,
`
`2003). Ex. 1003 at cover page.
`
`Toda relates to a touch sensitive pointing device 1, also referred to as a
`
`cursor control device or input device, for controlling the movement of a cursor on a
`
`display screen when, for example, an “operator touches his finger against the
`
`operation surface [of the device] and moves in a predetermined direction.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 6:16-24; see also id. at 2:27-45. The device 1 comprises pressure sensitive
`
`sensors 3 between a printed circuit board 4 and an operation plate 5. Id. at 5:50-55.
`
`The operation plate 5 has a surface 7 “where an operator can touch with and drag
`
`on it with a control member such as a finger.” Id. at 5:57-59, Fig. 1 (shown
`
`below).
`
`In one embodiment, the device 1 is inserted into a keyboard case 11 of a
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`computer. Ex. 1003 at 6:1-3, Fig. 3 (shown below).
`
`
`
`According to Toda, when an operator touches his finger against the surface 7
`
`of the plate 5 and moves it along the surface 7, “each of the pressure sensitive
`
`sensors 3 transmits a signal corresponding to the finger pressure through the
`
`operation plate 5 to the computer.” Id. at 6:16-23. “Hence the position of the
`
`cursor displayed on a display screen can be controlled.” Id. at 6:23-25.
`
`Additional details of the Toda structure and circuitry of the input device
`
`(labeled 51 below) are shown in Figure 8, shown below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Toda discloses that piezoelectric elements 52a, 52b, 52c, 52d are arranged at
`
`four corners (A, B, C, and D) of the operation surface 51a of the rigid plate 51. Ex.
`
`1003 at 7:37-40. The piezoelectric elements 52a, 52b, 52c, and 52d convert the
`
`pressure applied thereto into respective voltages, which are digitized by analog-to-
`
`digital (a/d) convertors 54a, 54b, 54c, and 54d in a processing circuit 53. Id. at
`
`7:37-43, 7:51-55.
`
`The outputs of the a/d converters 54a, 54b, 54c, and 54d are connected to a
`
`CPU 57 via input ports 55a, 55b, 55c, and 55d, and a bus 56. Ex. 1003 at 7:43-47.
`
`A read-only memory (ROM) 58, random access memory (RAM) 59, and an output
`
`port 60 of the processing 53 are also connected to the bus 56. Id. at 7:45-49. The
`
`output port 60 is connected to an input port 62 of a personal computer 61. Id. at
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`7:49-50.
`
`Toda teaches a processor (e.g., CPU 57) and corresponding memory (e.g.,
`
`ROM 58, RAM 59) for implementing, among other things, the cursor control
`
`functionality. Ex. 1003 at 7:35-8:22, Fig. 8. The processor is able to determine X
`
`and Y coordinates, movement, and movement rate of the user’s touch based on the
`
`outputs of the four pressure sensitive sensors. Id. at 6:25-7:2; see also id. at 7:60-
`
`8:22. Toda discloses determining a switch input and/or a dragging mode of the
`
`cursor based on the outputs a, b, c, and d from the respective pressure sensitive
`
`sensors 3, and the determined position (x, y), pressure P, movement S, and moving
`
`rate V of the detected contact. Ex. 1003 at 7:66-8:29, 8:59-9:3; see also id. at
`
`6:28-7:24, 12:21-28, Figs. 11, 17.
`
`Shahoian is § 102(a) and (b) Prior Art
`
`2.
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795 (“Shahoian”) also qualifies as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) (pre-AIA) because it was published on March
`
`21, 2002, more than one year before the priority date of the ’507 patent (Nov. 26,
`
`2003). Ex. 1004 at cover page.
`
`Shahoian relates to touch sensitive input devices that “output haptic
`
`feedback such as tactile sensations to the user who is physically contacting [a]
`
`touchpad.” Ex. 1004, ¶ 43. Shahoian teaches outputting a haptic effect in response
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`to the detection of gesture, such as a dragging mode, for a touch sensitive device.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 189. Specifically, Shahoian teaches that:
`
`Other embodiments of touchpads and touchscreens allow
`the user to enter “gestures” or shortcuts by tracing a
`symbol on the cursor control region or other region,
`which is recognized as a command or data by a
`processor. Haptic sensations can be associated with or
`dependent on particular gestures. For example, a
`confirmation of modes can be conveyed haptically with a
`particular haptic sensation when a mode confirmation
`gesture is recognized. Characters recognized from
`gestures also may each have a particular haptic sensation
`associated with them. In most touchpad embodiments, a
`user can select a graphical object or menu item by
`“tapping” the touchpad. Some touchpads may recognize
`a “tap-and-a-half” or double tap, which is the user doing
`a tap and then again touching the pad and maintaining the
`finger or object on the pad while moving the finger. For
`example, such a gesture can provide a “drag” mode in
`which objects may be moved with the cursor. When the
`user is in such a drag mode, a vibration or other haptic
`sensation can be output to indicate to the user that this
`mode is active.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 189.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`Detailed Analysis
`
`Claim 1:
`
`[1.0] A method comprising:
`
`Toda combined with Shahoian discloses and renders obvious a method
`
`comprising the claimed steps, as established below.
`
`[1.1] receiving contact data from an input device;
`
`Toda discloses this limitation because it teaches, for example, that “when an
`
`operator touches his finger against the operation surface of the operation plate 5
`
`and moves in a predetermined direction by a predetermined movement, each of the
`
`pressure sensitive sensors 3 transmits a signal corresponding to the finger pressure
`
`through the operation plate 5 to the computer.” Ex. 1003 at 6:16-23. According to
`
`Toda, the outputs a, b, c, and d from the respective pressure sensitive sensors 3 are
`
`used to determine “the coordinate position (x, y) of a finger on the operation
`
`surface 7.” Id. at 6:28-39; see also id. at 7:60-8:22. In addition, Toda discloses a
`
`formula for determining the touch pressure P using these outputs a, b, c, and d. Id.
`
`at 6:43-47; see also id. at 7:60-8:22.
`
`Regarding the details illustrated in Figure 8, Toda discloses “[i]f the point P
`
`(x, y) on the operation surface 5la is depressed with a touch pressure F, while the
`
`partial pressures at various points are fa, fb, fc, and fd the touch pressure F is … F
`
`= fa + fb +fc + fd.” Ex. 1003 at 7:66-8:3 (equation 1). This information can be
`
`used to determine the x and y coordinates of the point. Id. at 8:5-22.
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The same data is used to determine the “movement S of a finger on the
`
`pressure surface 7 … as a perpendicular coordinate component corresponding to a
`
`moving direction.” Id. at 6:39-41. “Furthermore, the moving rate V of a finger
`
`can be detected by the detected results.” Id. at 6:42-43.
`
`[1.2] determining an interaction with a displayed object on a screen based on
`the contact data;
`
`Toda discloses this limitation because it teaches controlling the movement of
`
`a cursor on the computer’s display screen when the “operator touches his finger
`
`against the operation surface [of the device].” Ex. 1003 at 6:16-18; see also id. at
`
`2:27-45 (controlling the position of a cursor on a display by moving a finger on the
`
`operation surface), Abstract (same). Specifically, Toda discloses that “when an
`
`operator touches his finger against the operation surface of the operation plate 5 …
`
`each of the pressure sensitive sensors 3 transmits a signal corresponding to the
`
`finger pressure through the operation plate 5 to the computer .... Hence the
`
`position of the cursor displayed on a display screen can be controlled.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`6:16-24; see also id. at 2:29-31 (“a signal corresponding to the direction and
`
`movement thereof are issued to a computer body to control the position of a cursor
`
`on a display”); 3:11-14 (“[a]n operator’s natural motion depends on qualified
`
`values, thus controlling the position of the cursor easily in comparison with the
`
`conventional device”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`The outputs a, b, c, and d from the respective pressure sensitive sensors 3 are
`
`used to determine the coordinate position (x, y), pressure P, movement S and
`
`moving rate V of the detected contact on the operation plate 5, which are used in,
`
`among other things, a “cursor position control method.” Id. at 6:25-47; see also id.
`
`at 7:60-8:22 (determining touch pressure and x, y coordinates). Toda discloses that
`
`“[w]hen the movement S, moving rate V, and touch pressure P of a finger on the
`
`operation surface 7 are detected … the movement D of a cursor is obtained” by a
`
`formula using this information and “sent to the display 13 to move the cursor.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 6:49-7:2. Accordingly, Toda discloses “determining an interaction with a
`
`displayed object on a screen based on the contact data.”
`
`Petitioner notes that the claims do not require a user to press on the
`
`“displayed object” itself to interact with that object. In a preferred embodiment of
`
`the ’507 patent, “a keypad is displayed on the touchpad (102) or on a
`
`corresponding display.” Ex. 1001 at 5:21-25 (emphasis added). Thus, the
`
`“displayed object on a screen” of this limitation may be on a screen that is separate
`
`from the recited “input device.” Cockburn Decl., ¶ 70. Accordingly, Toda
`
`discloses this limitation for the reasons cited above.
`
`Obviousness: In addition, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
`
`practice this limitation. For example, interacting with a displayed object was well
`
`known at the time of the ’507 patent’s alleged invention. Cockburn Decl., ¶ 71.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`As disclosed in Shahoian, it was well known that a “user can select graphically-
`
`displayed buttons or other graphical objects by pressing a finger or a stylus to the
`
`screen ... at the exact location where the graphical object is displayed.” Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ 56; Cockburn Decl., ¶ 71. Such objects may include “text, images, animations,
`
`etc.” and the touch may be detected using appropriate sensors, such as those that
`
`“detect pressure.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 55. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the ’507 patent to, for example,
`
`modify the system of Toda so that the touch-sensitive input device was a
`
`touchscreen rather than a touchpad. Cockburn Decl., ¶ 71. In such a system, the
`
`system would determine the user’s interaction with a displayed object on the
`
`touchscreen based on contact data (e.g., sensor data) from the touchscreen, as
`
`described above in the disclosure of Shahoian and as was well known. Id.
`
`Motivation to do so arises at least from a desire to minimize the size of the device
`
`by combining the touch-sensitive input with the display screen, as described above
`
`in the disclosure of Shahoian and as was well known. Id.
`
`[1.3] responsive to determining the interaction, determining a gesture based
`on the contact data comprising:
`
`Toda discloses this limitation at least because it teaches that in response to
`
`the operator touching the operating surface to control the displayed cursor, which
`
`Toda detects using pressure sensitive sensors 3, the Toda system determines a
`
`dragging gesture based on the outputs a, b, c, and d from the respective pressure
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`sensitive sensors 3 and the determined position (x, y), pressure P, movement S, and
`
`moving rate V of the detected contact. Ex. 1003 at 1:8-15 (controlling a cursor by
`
`dragging a finger), 3:38-41 (detecting the dragging gesture), 5:57-59 (the dragging
`
`gesture), 12:16-28 (detecting a dragging gesture and entering dragging mode),
`
`12:49-65 (detecting a dragging gesture and entering dragging mode), Fig. 19B at
`
`step 152 (“Enter Drag Mode”); see also id. at 6:28-7:24 (determining a pressure,
`
`position, movement, and a moving rate), Fig. 19 (detection algorithm, discussed
`
`further below). Moreover, “when an operator carries out a moving operation
`
`during a switching input, it is possible to shift to a switch input continuing mode
`
`(dragging mode).” Id. at 12:21-25.
`
`Obviousness: In addition, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’507 patent application to practice this
`
`limitation, especially in light of the teachings of Toda. For example, it would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA to use gesture detection algorithms, such as those
`
`disclosed by Toda in Figure 19, to determine the type of gesture the user is
`
`performing on the operating surface. Cockburn Decl., ¶ 73. Motivation to do so
`
`arises from a desire to determine the intent of the user based on the user’s touch of
`
`the operating surface, which motivation arises at least from the disclosure of Toda.
`
`Id.; Ex. 1003 at 5:57-59 (a user may perform a dragging gesture), 12:16-18 (“the
`
`present invention can judge accurately an operator’s intention”), 2:7-19 (the Toda
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`invention overcomes problems of poor operability). It also would have been
`
`obvious to use the contact data to do so, because Toda teaches that from the
`
`pressure sensor information, one can determine information about the user’s touch,
`
`such as location, movement, and movement rate, as established above. Cockburn
`
`Decl., ¶ 73; see also Ex. 1003 at 6:28-7:24 (determining a pressure, position,
`
`movement, and a moving rate), 7:60-8:22 (determining touch pressure and x, y
`
`coordinates), Fig. 19 (detecting a dragging gesture based on pressure, change in
`
`pressure, movement, etc.). Motivation to use the contact data in such a manner
`
`arises at least from Toda itself, as described above. Cockburn Decl., ¶ 73. It also
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA to determine a gesture in response to
`
`determining the interaction with a displayed object in order to, for example,
`
`determine what type of gesture the user is performing to interact with the displayed
`
`object. Id. Motivation to do so arises at least from Toda, which discloses
`
`detecting touches for a “switching input” and dragging gestures, as discussed
`
`above. Id.; Ex. 1003 at 5:57-59 (a user may perform a dragging gesture), Fig. 19
`
`(detecting a dragging gesture), 11:7-9 (the user presses to perform a “switching
`
`input”), Figs. 17, 19 (detecting a pressure to perform a “switching input”).
`
`Performing this limitation in the manner described above would have been well
`
`within the skill of a POSITA, could have been accomplished with m