UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`___________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`I, Daniel Wigdor, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Daniel Wigdor. I have been engaged by Immersion
`
`Corporation (“Immersion”) as an expert in connection with matters raised in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the
`
`“‘507 patent”) filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a
`3.
`
`list of publications, awards, and professional activities, is contained in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2002.
`
`4.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of
`
`Toronto, where I have appointments in the Department of Computer Science, the
`
`Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, as well as in the
`
`Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. I am also the co-director of
`
`the Dynamic Graphics Project (DGP) at the University of Toronto. I have several
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-2
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`years of industry experience in user interface and Human-Computer Interaction
`
`(HCI) as a User Experience Architect at Microsoft. I was also a cofounder of Iota
`
`Wireless, a start-up dedicated to text-entry techniques for mobile phones, and of
`
`Tactual Labs, a startup focused on commercializing my research in mobile device
`
`input sensing and architectures. At the DGP, I work in the area of Human-
`
`Computer Interaction (HCI), specializing in the design and development of
`
`platforms for modern, post-WIMP (“windows, icons, menus, pointer”) user
`
`interfaces. Researchers in this field focus on developing effective and efficient
`
`user interfaces without the use of traditional WIMP or Windows-based interface
`
`elements. These require the development of new computer software and hardware,
`
`with dual foci on both graphical and physical user interface technologies. My
`
`approach is to utilize interdisciplinary research methods to bring new insights in
`
`perceptual, cognitive, and motor abilities to the development of intuitive and useful
`
`technology artefacts, as well as to the development of user interface technology
`
`architectures and development methods. Over the last five years, one of my major
`
`projects has been the creation of immersive experiences simulating physical
`
`feelings of interactions with real world objects. This has included the development
`
`of methods for the detection of gestures input to sensors such as 3D cameras,
`
`traditional computer vision-based tools, and capacitive touch screens, and, in
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-3
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`response to those gestures, generating haptic effects, using technologies such as
`
`vibro-motors, pneumatic shape-changing objects, or robotics.
`
`5.
`
`In 2002, I received a Bachelor’s degree (Hons) from the University of
`
`Toronto with a specialization in Human Computer Interaction, including a major-
`
`equivalent in computer science and a minor-equivalent in psychology and
`
`sociology.
`
`6.
`
`In 2004, I received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science
`
`from the University of Toronto. My work focused on mobile phone user
`
`interfaces, as well as other gesture-based systems.
`
`7.
`
`In 2008, I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University
`
`of Toronto in 2008. My Ph.D. work was focused on the design and
`
`implementation of capacitive gesture-based interactive systems, especially large
`
`table-sized touchscreens, and their integration into large control centers. Among
`
`other things, this required the development of gesture recognition methodologies
`
`and software.
`
`8.
`
`In 2011-2012 I was an Associate of the School of Engineering and
`
`Applied Sciences at Harvard University, working as a member of the Scientists’
`
`Discovery Room (SDR) Lab at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
`
`(SEAS). At the SDR Lab at Harvard, I was responsible for supervising the
`
`research projects of post-doctoral fellows in collaboration with the lab director. I
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-4
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`have taught classes at the University of Washington and the University of Toronto,
`
`in both computer science and computer engineering departments. Topics include
`
`software design, algorithms, formal algorithm analysis, data structures, and human
`
`computer interaction, including the design of user interfaces for mobile phones and
`
`the design, prototyping, and construction of hardware devices.
`
`9.
`
`At Microsoft, I served over half a dozen different roles. As the
`
`architect of user experiences of Natural User Interfaces at Microsoft’s
`
`Entertainment & Devices division, I was responsible for ensuring high-quality and
`
`exciting user experiences in platform and partner applications, such as Microsoft
`
`Surface. I also served as Microsoft’s company-wide expert on Natural User
`
`Interfaces, which required that I give educational sessions for the company on the
`
`design of gesture-based systems. It also meant that I routinely consulted on the
`
`design of both software and hardware products focused on touch and gesture-based
`
`systems, such as Windows 8, Windows Phone 7, the Microsoft Kinect gesture-
`
`based gaming system, and many others. My work in Windows Phone included
`
`assisting with the development of haptic feedback mechanisms in the operating
`
`system.
`
`10.
`
`I hold Hon., B.Sc., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in computer science, and
`
`have published extensively, with about 65 peer-reviewed technical publications. I
`
`have also contributed four textbook chapters on HCI, and co-authored “Brave NUI
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-5
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture,” the first
`
`practical book for the design of touch and gesture interfaces, in 2011, which has
`
`since been translated into Chinese and Korean. I have given over 80 invited talks,
`
`including 4 keynote lectures. I have won numerous awards for my research,
`
`including the prestigious Early Research Award from the Ontario Ministry of
`
`Research and Innovation (2014) and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship in
`
`Computer Science (2015).
`
`11.
`
`I have worked as an expert in several legal matters as a consulting
`
`expert and an expert witness. I have written expert reports, have had my
`
`deposition taken, and have provided trial testimony. Attached as Exhibit 2002 is
`
`my curriculum vitae, which includes a complete list of my qualifications and
`
`includes a list of matters in which I have provided expert testimony, either at
`
`deposition or at trial.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated by Immersion for my time spent in
`
`connection with this declaration at a rate of $525 per hour. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the substance of my opinions, the content of this declaration or
`
`any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of the inter partes review or any
`
`other proceeding.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-6
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`13. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on the Petition
`
`and exhibits cited in the Petition, and other documents and materials identified in
`
`this declaration, including the ‘507 patent and its prosecution history, the prior art
`
`references and materials discussed in this declaration, and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`14. The Petition raises two grounds of invalidity. Petition, at 3. In the
`
`first ground, the Petition states that claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the ‘507 patent
`
`are obvious by U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 (“Toda”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2002/0033795 (“Shahoian”) and the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention. Id. In
`
`the second ground, the Petition states that claims 1, 9, and 14 of the ‘507 patent are
`
`obvious by U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 (“Morimura”) in view of Shahoian and the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the invention. Id.
`
`15. Based on studying the Petition and the exhibits cited in the Petition as
`
`well as other documents, it is my opinion that neither ground 1 nor ground 2
`
`renders obvious claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the ‘507 patent.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Obviousness
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-7
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that
`
`obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual issues. I also
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and the existence of
`
`secondary consideration such as commercial success or long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘507 PATENT
`17. The ‘507 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Adaptive
`
`Interpretation of Input From a Touch-Sensitive Input Device.” As stated in the
`
`Abstract: The ‘507 patent, in general, relates to receiving contact data from an
`
`input device and determining whether to output a haptic effect. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`Conventional mouse input devices include buttons that allow the system to clearly
`
`determine when a user wants to select a graphical representation on a screen. Id.,
`
`1:39-45. With touchpad input devices, a user may apply pressure on the surface to
`
`move the position of a cursor or perform gestures (e.g., press) to perform mouse-
`
`like functions such as drag, click or double-click. Id., 1:46-53. As the ‘507 patent
`
`notes: “Because of the variety of users that may interact with a touchpad and the
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-8
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`variety of functions that may be performed, determining the user’s intent based on
`
`a gesture on a touchpad is difficult.” Id., 1:55-58. For example, an accidental
`
`touch by the user may be inadvertently processed as a press input gesture.
`
`18. The invention of the ‘507 patent utilizes an algorithm to determine
`
`whether the user has intended to press the screen. Id., Fig. 3. A haptic effect is
`
`generated if the algorithm determines that the user intended a press input gesture.
`
`Id., 4:47-55. As discussed in the Background of the ‘507, patent it is desirable to
`
`accurately determine the user’s intent in contacting a touch-sensitive input device.
`
`Id., 2:1-3. For example, the user may inadvertently contact the touch-sensitive
`
`input device. The ‘507 patent claims a method and apparatus that filters out such
`
`inadvertent contacts.
`
`19. As disclosed in the ‘507 patent, a touchpad can sense the position of a
`
`conductor such as a user’s finger. Id., 2:39-42. The touchpad can provide X and Y
`
`position information and also a Z parameter that relates to the pressure applied by
`
`the user. Id., 2:42-45. The ‘507 patent teaches that the Z parameter can provide
`
`the actual pressure and/or what it terms “pseudo pressure” related to changes in the
`
`capacitance of the touchpad surface. Id., 2:53-3:31.
`
`20.
`
`The ‘507 patent discloses a pair of exemplary processes for
`
`determining whether the user’s contact is a press. One of the processes is shown in
`
`Figure 3 and is reproduced below.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-9
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`
`
`21. This process classifies a contact as one of a “Tapping” or “Pressing”
`
`gesture, or filters contacts which are neither. It initially determines whether the Z
`
`parameter (e.g., pseudo pressure) is above an upper threshold in step 302. Id., 8:5-
`
`8. A first tick count is started in step 316 if it is determined that there was not a
`
`previous touch in step 314. Id., 8:21-30. The speed at which the finger is moving
`
`over the surface is compared with a speed threshold in step 320. Id., 7:65-8:4. If
`
`the speed is lower than a speed threshold, then the process determines whether a
`
`change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold and whether a
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-10
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`first interval has elapsed. Id., 8:41-49. If the answers to these determinations are
`
`YES then the process concludes that the user intended a press.
`
`22. The combination of comparing the pressure with a pressure threshold,
`
`a change in pressure with a change in pressure threshold, and a lapsing of time is
`
`important in determining whether the user intended a press. Measuring each of
`
`these components contributes to an accurate assessment of a given input action as
`
`an intentional press gesture, an accidental input, or other intentional gesture input.
`
`Comparing the pressure with a pressure threshold is important to ensure that the
`
`user is applying a pressure level that would be associated with a press. Comparing
`
`the change in pressure versus a change in pressure threshold is also important to
`
`determining a press. As shown in Fig. 3 of the ‘507 patent, the process shown
`
`therein determines whether user contact is a press or a tap. If the user intended just
`
`a tap then the change in pressure would be below a predetermined threshold
`
`because the application of pressure would not include a continuous increase in
`
`pressure as would occur when a user intends a press. The ‘507 patent also
`
`recognizes that “users typically push harder when they first touch the touchpad
`
`(102).” Id., 6:61-62. In other words, even if the user only intends to touch or tap
`
`the touchpad, and does not intend to perform a press gesture, the user may
`
`nonetheless naturally apply a large pressure when first making contact with the
`
`device. See id. The lapsing of the time interval is important in determining
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-11
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`whether a user intended a press. Tapping or an inadvertent contact by the user
`
`would occur within a limited time interval. Conversely, when a user intends a
`
`press, the application of pressure is maintained for a time period greater than a tap.
`
`Ensuring that this time interval has lapsed increases the reliability of selecting the
`
`input as a press. Fig. 3 reflects this distinction between a press and a tapping
`
`gesture. If the time interval has not lapsed the process will proceed from decision
`
`block 324 back to block 302. If the user has tapped then the contact pressure will
`
`not exceed the upper and lower thresholds and the decisions in blocks 302 and 306
`
`and the tapping input is selected in block 310.
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition and understand that the Petitioner has
`
`construed the claim term pseudo pressure to require the measure of pressure based
`
`on capacitance. Claim 2 recites that the contact data includes both actual pressure
`
`and pseudo pressure. It is my opinion that pseudo pressure is not limited to
`
`measurement through capacitance. Changes in capacitance can also be used to
`
`measure actual pressure. For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,555,952 (Ex. 2003)
`
`discloses measuring actual pressure through changes in capacitance. Id., 1:10-20
`
`(“Pressure sensors known in the prior art generally teach a pressure or force
`
`responsive diaphragm forming one plate or electrode of a capacitor. This electrode
`
`or capacitor plate is subject to deformation, the extent of which is compared to a
`
`second electrode means or capacitive plate that is not displaced.”). In my opinion,
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-12
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`the ‘507 patent defines “pseudo pressure” as a way to estimate the actual pressure
`
`by measuring the area of the touchpad or other surface contacted by an object, such
`
`as a user’s finger. Id., 3:10-39. The ‘507 patent describes how a larger area of a
`
`touchpad covered by a user’s finger (e.g., fleshy part of the finger) results in a
`
`larger pseudo pressure. Id., 3:19-39.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that the specification and claims must be read through
`24.
`
`the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`25. Based on my background and experience, a POSITA in the field of
`
`the ‘507 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical
`
`engineering (or other engineering discipline), computer science, or at least two
`
`years of experience working with human machine interface systems, graphical user
`
`interfaces, haptic feedback systems, or mobile devices, or equivalent embedded
`
`systems.
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cockburn. See Ex. 1009 at ¶ 47. Although I do not agree
`
`with Dr. Cockburn on this point, if that level of skill were applied, it would not
`
`change my opinions regarding validity set forth in this declaration.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-13
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`VIII. TODA
`27. U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 to Toda et al. (“Toda”) discloses a
`
`coordinate input device that determines a switching operation based on touch
`
`pressure and operational movement of the input (e.g., user’s finger). Ex. 1003,
`
`2:20-26. Toda discloses several processes (scenarios) for determining whether the
`
`user had intended a switch input. See id., Figures 11, 14, 15(a)-(b), 17, 18(a)-(b),
`
`and 19(a)-(b). The algorithms are used to determine various points on graphs
`
`created from empirical data generated when user’s intended a switching input. See
`
`Figures 9(a)-(b), 10(a)-(b), 12(a)-(b), 13(a)-(b), 15(a)-(b) and 16(a)-(b).
`
`28. For example, Fig. 9(a), reproduced below, shows a touch load versus
`
`time graph corresponding to an intentional switch input. Id., 4:4-7. The data
`
`includes peak points P1 and P2.
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-14
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`29. The Toda system looks at the user’s input to detect these “peak
`
`points” (e.g., P1 and P2), in order to match the user’s input to the experimental
`
`touch profile of Fig. 9. For example, if the force detected matches the Fig. 9 touch
`
`profile, a switching input will be turned on. See id., 8:59-9:3. This process is
`
`shown in the flowchart of Fig. 11 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-15
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In the initial step 101, it is determined whether the touch force
`
`exceeds 15g. Id., 9:10-13. If YES, the process determines where the peak pressure
`
`P1 occurs on the graph. Id., 9:16-17. If P1 occurs in the first 30 milliseconds, then
`
`the process flows to decision steps 108 and 109. Id., 9:38-52. If there is a YES for
`
`both decision steps 108 and 109 then the switching input is turned on. Id., 9:53-57.
`
`If P1 occurs after the first 30 milliseconds, the process flows to Process 3. See id.,
`
`Fig. 11. In Process 3, the user’s input is compared to another experimental touch
`
`profile, illustrated in Fig. 15(a), reproduced below.
`
`31. The data includes a rising point P3 and a peak point P4. Process 3 is
`
`depicted in the flowchart of Fig. 17 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-16
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In this process, the system detects rising point P3 and peak point P4,
`
`again in order to match the user’s input to the experimental touch profile in Fig.
`
`15(a). For example, the process determines whether the touch pressure at P4 is
`
`over 150g (step 127) and whether the lateral movement between P3 and P4 is not
`
`over 10 (step 128). Id., Fig. 17. If so, switch inputting is turned on (step 129). Id.
`
`33. Notably, a determination that the user intended to turn on the switch
`
`never requires a finding that an interval has elapsed. As discussed above, the only
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-17
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`import of the passage of time is to determine the path through the flowchart, but
`
`either path can lead to a “SWITCH INPUTTING ON.” For example, at step 103
`
`of Figure 11, the system asks whether P1 was detected in less than 30 milliseconds.
`
`However, the answer only determines the next step in the flow chart. Both paths
`
`(P1 detected in less than 30 milliseconds, and detected in more than 30
`
`milliseconds) contain numerous paths to determining that a switch was intended
`
`(and also numerous paths to determining that a switch was not intended).
`
`34. Toda’s system also can determine a press without any determination
`
`of a change in pressure greater than a change in pressure threshold. For example,
`
`if the user’s initial force exceeds 75g and the user’s finger does not move, Toda’s
`
`algorithm will reach the “SWITCH INPUTTING ON” step based solely on the
`
`user’s force, without considering any change in pressure or time interval. See id.,
`
`Fig. 11. This is the very same flawed prior art approach criticized by the inventors
`
`of the ‘507 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:53-2:3 (describing problems with
`
`determining intent based only on changes in position and pressure exerted on
`
`touchpad).
`
`IX. SHAHOIAN
`35. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0033795 to Shahoian et
`
`al. (“Shahoian”) discloses a computer system with a touch input device and an
`
`actuator that can provide haptic feedback in response to user inputs on the touch
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-18
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`input device. Ex. 1004, [0008]. The touch input device provides coordinate data
`
`to a processor based on the sensed location of an object near the touchpad. Id.,
`
`[0041]. Capacitive or resistor sensors can be used to determine the location of the
`
`object. Id. The system may include a local microprocessor that receives input
`
`signals from the sensors and provides output signals to actuators in accordance
`
`with instruction from a host processor. Id., [0066]. The actuator provides haptic
`
`feedback to the user. Id. Haptic feedback is provided in response to detection of
`
`contact by the user on the touch input device. Id., [0077].
`
`X. GROUND 1: TODA AND SHAHOIAN DO NOT RENDER OBVIOUS
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘507 PATENT
`It is my understanding that the Petitioner states that Toda discloses a
`36.
`
`lapsing of an interval to determine a press gesture. I disagree with this position.
`
`Toda never considers whether a time interval has lapsed. By way of example, Fig.
`
`3 of the ‘507 patent discloses a process wherein a time is started and then it is
`
`determined whether a time interval from the start of the count has lapsed. 1001,
`
`8:26-47. The claims recite “determining a press if: a first interval has lapsed.” It
`
`is well understood to a POSITA that an “if” statement includes a determination of
`
`whether something has occurred or is true. This is reflected in Fig. 3 which shows
`
`an if decision block 324 that determines if a time interval has lapsed. If the answer
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-19
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`is YES then a press is selected. If the answer is NO the process proceeds to
`
`decision block 302.
`
`37. The Petition points to the portion of Toda that discloses whether a
`
`change in touch pressure sequentially exceeds 10g three times. Petition at 26.
`
`Sequentially measuring three pressure values is not determining the lapse of a time
`
`interval. Although the pressure measurements occur over time, there is no
`
`disclosure in Toda that these measurements must occur in a defined time interval.
`
`The comparison of the change in pressure to 10g is done to determine the existence
`
`of data point P3. Ex. 1003, 11:42-45. The lapsing of a time interval is irrelevant to
`
`the determination of whether the measured data includes a point P3. The time
`
`required to take the three measurements could be short enough that an inadvertent
`
`touch is determined to be press.
`
`38. The Petition also points to a determination in Toda on whether data
`
`point P1 occurs within 30 milliseconds. Petition at 27. This determination is not
`
`the lapsing of a time interval. Toda determines whether the user intended a
`
`switching operation by comparing measured data with empirical data associated
`
`with intended switching inputs. Ex. 1003, 2:20-26. One of these waveforms is
`
`shown in Fig. 9(a). Ex. 1003, 4:4-9. To determine whether the measured data
`
`matches the waveform shown in Fig. 9(a) Toda first determines the existence of
`
`data point P1 and then whether P1 occurred within 30 milliseconds. Id., 8:41-46,
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-20
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`59-64. However, this determination does not impact whether or not the conclusion
`
`of Toda’s process is “SWITCH INPUTTING ON”; in either flow from “YES” or
`
`“NO” from 103, the ““SWITCH INPUTTING ON” state may be reached, at either
`
`at box 110 or 129. Toda does not determine whether a time interval has lapsed to
`
`determine a press.
`
`39. There would be no motivation to include the determination of a time
`
`lapse in Toda. Toda teaches that if the measured data matches one of the empirical
`
`waveforms then the user intended a switching input. If an intended user input is
`
`determined from just the waveforms then there would be no reason to include the
`
`additional step of determining the lapse of a time interval.
`
`40. Toda teaches away from the claimed invention which requires a press
`
`determination only 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
`
`lapsed, because Toda will define a user input as a switch even if all three
`
`conditions are not satisfied.
`
`41. Toda has numerous process flows that will define a contact as a press
`
`when all three conditions are NOT satisfied. For example, the process shown in
`
`Figure 11 of Toda shows a flow where switching input is turned on if the decision
`
`in steps 101, 103, 106, 108 and 109 are all YES and the result in step 107 is NO.
`
`In such a scenario the process does not go to the flowchart in Figure 17 and there is
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-21
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`no comparison of a change in pressure with a change in pressure threshold. Under
`
`this scenario, the claim limitation of a change in pressure being greater than a
`
`change of pressure threshold is absent. Toda would determine a switching input
`
`even though the condition that a change in pressure is greater than a change in
`
`pressure threshold has not been met.
`
`42. Additionally, to the extent the 30 milliseconds and 60 milliseconds
`
`thresholds are considered an interval lapse (they are not), neither one of these
`
`values are exceeded (lapsed) in a flow that leads to turning the switching input on
`
`(i.e., YES determinations in decision blocks 103 and 108). There is no interval
`
`lapse in this process flow. As a result this scenario may interpret the user’s contact
`
`as a press when such contact was not intended as a press.
`
`43. Toda also does not provide haptic feedback, as the Petitioner admits.
`
`Petition at 30. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
`
`modify the system of Toda to include haptic feedback, even in light of the
`
`teachings of Shahoian. For example, Toda is directed to a “pointing device,”
`
`which can be mounted in a portable computer, as illustrated in Figure 3:
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-22
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`
`44. The pointing device, represented by element “1” in Figure 3 above, in
`
`Toda is a slim, touch-sensitive surface that can slide in and out of the portable
`
`computer housing. See id., Fig. 1-3, 6:1-4. .
`
`.
`
`45. Toda provides a cross-sectional view of the pointing device in Figure
`
`1, reproduced below, and describes the structure of the pointing device, including
`
`the various structural supports and sensors that make up the device. See id., Fig. 1,
`
`5:50-67. Toda’s pointing device does not contain an actuator, or any circuitry for
`
`driving an actuator, nor is there room for such hardware in the device illustrated in
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-23
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`Toda. Incorporating haptic feedback into Toda’s device would require changes to
`
`the structure of the device and would increase its size and complexity.
`
`46. Toda explains that the pointing device “can be structurally drawn out
`
`of and into the keyboard case” along mounting “rails.” See id., 6:1-4. Toda
`
`teaches that this configuration is important because it allows the pointing device to
`
`be stored inside the keyboard of the portable computer when not in use,
`
`minimizing the size of the apparatus. See id., 6:9-15. Adding haptic hardware to
`
`Toda’s pointing device, increasing its size and complexity, would interfere with
`
`this configuration.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner contends that Toda, in combination
`
`with Shahoian, discloses contact data comprising a pseudo pressure and an actual
`
`pressure. I disagree. Toda’s device uses actual pressure sensors and does not
`
`identify any disadvantages of measuring actual pressure with pressure sensors.
`
`Toda never discloses the use of pseudo pressure. Nor does Shahoian. I understand
`
`that Petitioner contends that the “palm check” feature of Shahoian discloses the use
`
`of pseudo pressure. I disagree. The “palm check” feature of Shahoian does not
`
`use pseudo pressure as it is described in the ‘507 patent. The “contact area”
`
`computed as part of the “palm check” feature is not part of contact data that is used
`
`to determine a pressure and a change in pressure and to determine a press.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-24
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`48. Additionally, to the extent that Shahoian does discuss the use of other
`
`types of sensors, it suggests using those sensors in the alternative. See Ex. 1004,
`
`¶ 41. There is no suggestion in Toda or Shahoian, and there would be no
`
`motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, to provide both actual pressure
`
`and pseudo pressure values.
`
`XI. GROUND 2: MORIMURA AND SHAHOIAN DO NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘507 PATENT
`49. U.S. Patent No. 6,072,474 to Morimura et al. (“Morimura”) discloses
`
`a system that provides different graphical cursors in response to different pen
`
`pressures on a tablet. Ex. 1005, Abstract. This concept is depicted in Fig. 5(a) and
`
`Fig. 5(b) shown below.
`
`
`50. When a user applies a pressure between P0 and P1 a cursor (#1) is
`
`displayed on a screen. Id., 7:45-61. A pressure between P1 and P2 causes a second
`
`cursor (#2 ) to be displayed, and a pressure greater P2 will cause a third cursor (#3)
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-25
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`to be displayed. Id. The different cursors can provide different visual effects such
`
`as different width lines or different colors. Id., 7:62-8:8. For example, the first
`
`cursor #1 may generate a white line and the second cursor #2 may generate a red
`
`line. See Id., Fig. 6(a).
`
`51. Morimura describes cursor selections for all non-zero pressure values.
`
`See id., 7:45-8:16. That is, once the cursor plotting process has begun, Morimura
`
`will always display a cursor – the pressure value is simply used to select which
`
`cursor to display. See id.
`
`52. Morimura disclose different processes for changing the cursor and
`
`corresponding plotting editing functions. Figure 8, reproduced below, shows one
`
`of the processes.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-26
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01777
`
`
`
`
`53. The process initially determines whether a timer has been started in
`
`process block S35. Id., 9:55-58. If the answer is YES then the current time of the
`
`timer is compared with a time Tmax. If the current time t is greater than Tmax then a
`
`fixed state flag is set and the pressure P0 at the start of the interv
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
