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
`___________________
`
`
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10086453
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`___________________
`
`
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10086453
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`THE ‘507 PATENT ...................................................................................... 4
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA) ........... 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1-5, 9-12 AND 14-17 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`TODA IN VIEW OF SHAHOIAN ............................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Toda Reference ......................................................................... 13
`
`The Shahoian Reference ................................................................... 19
`
`Neither Toda Nor Shahoian Discloses The “determining a
`press if: a first interval has lapsed” Claim Limitation ................... 20
`
`Toda Does Not Disclose, and Its Alternative Approach
`Teaches Away From, The ‘507 Patent’s “Determining A
`Press…” Limitation .......................................................................... 24
`
`Toda Does Not Disclose The “responsive to determining a
`gesture, outputting a haptic effect” Claim Limitation ...................... 28
`
`Toda and Shahoian Do Not Render Obvious Claims 2, 10,
`and 15 ............................................................................................... 31
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1, 9 AND 14 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`MORIMURA IN VIEW OF SHAHOIAN ................................................. 33
`
`A.
`
`The Morimura Reference ................................................................. 33
`
`B. Morimura Does Not Disclose “determining a gesture” ................... 36
`
`10086453
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01381
`Patent No. 7,808,488
`
`Page
`
`C. Morimura Does Not Disclose The “determining a press if:
`the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold” Claim
`Limitation ......................................................................................... 37
`
`D. Morimura Does Not Disclose The “determining a press if: a
`first interval has lapsed” Claim Limitation ...................................... 38
`
`E. Morimura Does Not Disclose The “responsive to
`determining a gesture, outputting a haptic effect” Claim
`Limitation ......................................................................................... 41
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 27, 40
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016) ........................................................... 9
`
`PPC Broadband,Inc., v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Declaration of Daniel Wigdor, Ph.D. in Support of Immersion
`Corporation’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Daniel Wigdor, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,555,952
`
`
`
`
`Immersion
`Ex. 2001
`Immersion
`Ex. 2002
`Immersion
`Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner Apple, Inc. did not submit a statement of material facts in this
`
`Petition. Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no
`
`facts are admitted.
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) should decline to institute trial
`
`because the petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) would carry its burden to show that any claim of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,749,507 (Ex. 1001, the “‘507 patent”) is not patentable.
`
`The Petition asserts 2 separate grounds: Ground 1, alleging that claims 1-5,
`
`9-12, and 14-17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of Toda (Ex. 1003)
`
`in view of Shahoian (Ex. 1004); and Ground 2, alleging that claims 1, 9, and 14 are
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of Morimura (Ex. 1005) in view of
`
`Shahoian. Neither ground has merit.
`
`The ‘507 patent teaches improved ways to determine whether a user
`
`intended to “press” an input device such as a touchpad. Because of differences
`
`between users, such as the size of fingers, determining intent presents challenges,
`
`resulting in errors and inefficiency in pressure-sensitive systems. The claims of the
`
`‘507 patent address this problem by, among other things, requiring each of three
`
`criteria to be met in order to determine whether a user’s contact with an input
`
`device is intended to be a press gesture, then in response to determining the gesture
`
`outputting a haptic effect. In the claims of the ‘507 patent, each of the following
`
`must be determined before determining a press and outputting the confirmatory
`
`haptic effect: (1) that pressure on the input device is greater than a pressure
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`threshold, (2) that the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`threshold, and (3) that an interval has elapsed. The references on which the
`
`Petition relies do not disclose or teach this combination of criteria to determine a
`
`press and a confirmatory haptic effect.
`
`First, the Toda reference does not teach that a press may be determined only
`
`if all the conditions described in the claims of the ‘507 patent are satisfied. For
`
`example, Toda does not teach determining a press based on a determination that a
`
`time interval has elapsed. To the extent that Toda considers the element of time, it
`
`directly teaches away from using elapsing of a time interval as a required condition
`
`by teaching use of algorithms in which, no matter how small the time interval, it is
`
`always possible to determine a press. Petitioner does not allege that Shahoian
`
`discloses this missing element (and it does not). Petitioner therefore has not made
`
`a prima facie case of obviousness for Ground 1.
`
`Second, the Morimura reference is directed to an entirely different
`
`functionality: a system for changing the display and function of a cursor so a user
`
`can interact with (draw) with a pen on a tablet. Morimura does not involve
`
`determining a press at all. Further, Morimura does not disclose making any such
`
`determination based on the lapsing of a time interval. Petitioner therefore has not
`
`made a prima facie case of obviousness for Ground 2.
`
`Additionally, neither Morimura nor Toda concern haptics at all. Petitioner
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`therefore concedes that neither Morimura nor Toda discloses the required element
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`of outputting any haptic effect. The Petition argues that a person of skill in the art
`
`would be motivated to add haptics to touchpads based on Shahoian, but fails to
`
`provide any teaching or motivation to add confirmatory haptics to the type of
`
`systems described in Morimura or Toda. In these systems, adding additional
`
`complexity, processing power, and weight for haptic output would have been both
`
`unnecessary (because in both systems the user is looking directly at the screen and
`
`receives visual confirmation) and disruptive (because, for example in the
`
`Morimura system which is designed for drawing on the screen with a pen,
`
`vibrating the pen could prevent the user from drawing in a straight line and cause
`
`errors). This is an additional reason that Petitioner has not made a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness for Ground 1 or Ground 2.
`
`Third, none of the references cited by Petitioner disclose the use of contact
`
`data comprising both an actual pressure and a pseudo pressure, as required by
`
`dependent claims 2, 10, and 15. Indeed, Petitioner does not contend that the
`
`combination of Morimura and Shahoian (Ground 2) renders these claims obvious.
`
`Further, Petitioner concedes that Toda does not disclose this element. Petitioner
`
`relies instead on Shahoian’s discussion of “capacitive touchpads” and “pressure
`
`sensors,” but neither component measures contact area – a critical component of
`
`pseudo pressure as described in the ‘507 patent, as explained further below in
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section IV (Claim Construction). Moreover, as Petitioner concedes, Shahoian
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`never discloses or suggests using both actual pressure and pseudo pressure in one
`
`device, as these claims require. To the contrary, the Petition concedes that
`
`Shahoian discusses pressure sensors “in contrast to” capacitive sensors, see Pet. at
`
`36-37, and teaches that one type or sensor or the other will be “better suited for the
`
`present invention” depending on the embodiment, see Ex. 1004, ¶ 41. Petitioner’s
`
`argument that it would be obvious to modify the references to use a combination of
`
`actual pressure and pseudo pressure is pure hindsight analysis, untethered from
`
`(and the opposite of) the teachings of the cited prior art.
`
`The Board should decline institution of an inter partes review, at least based
`
`on the aforementioned deficiencies in the prior art cited in Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`II. THE ‘507 PATENT
`The ‘507 patent, in general, relates to interpreting a user’s intent and
`
`providing haptic feedback based on contact data received from a touch-sensitive
`
`input device, such as a touchscreen. Ex. 1001, Abstract. In conventional touchpad
`
`devices, the system may attempt to determine the user’s intent based on the amount
`
`of pressure the user applies to the touchpad; for example, if the user presses hard
`
`enough, the system may determine that the user intends to perform some mouse-
`
`like function, such as a click. Id., 1:46-53. However, as the ‘507 patent notes:
`
`“Because of the variety of users that may interact with a touchpad and the variety
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of functions that may be performed, determining the user’s intent based on a
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`gesture on a touchpad is difficult.” Id., 1:55-58. For example, because of physical
`
`differences between users and variability in the way that users interact with input
`
`devices, the amount of pressure alone may not be sufficient to accurately determine
`
`the user’s intent. Id., 1:58-2:3. In other words, in prior art systems, the user’s
`
`actions may be inadvertently processed as a particular gesture, even though the
`
`user did not actually intend to perform the gesture. Id.
`
`The invention of the ‘507 patent improved on the prior art by requiring a
`
`combination of three conditions – pressure exceeding a pressure threshold, change
`
`in pressure exceeding a change in pressure threshold, and elapsing of a time
`
`interval – to all be satisfied to determine whether the user has intended to press the
`
`screen. Id., Fig. 3. A confirmatory haptic effect is generated in response if it is
`
`determined 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 because, for example, the
`
`user may inadvertently contact the touch-sensitive input device. Id., 2:1-3. The
`
`‘507 patent claims a method and apparatus that more accurately determines the
`
`user’s intent, including avoiding unintentionally recognizing inadvertent contact as
`
`a press. Exhibit 2001, Declaration of Daniel Wigdor, Ph.D. (“Wigdor Decl.”) ¶ 18.
`
`For example, as disclosed in the ‘507 patent, a touchpad can provide X and
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Y position information and also a Z parameter that relates to the pressure applied
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`by the user. Id., 2:39-45. The ‘507 patent teaches that the Z parameter can be
`
`based on one or both of an actual pressure and pseudo pressure. Id., 2:53-3:31.
`
`The ‘507 patent discloses a pair of exemplary processes for determining
`
`whether the user’s contact is a press. A flow chart for one of the processes is
`
`shown in Figure 3 and is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`This process initially determines whether the Z parameter (e.g., pseudo
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pressure) is above an upper threshold in step 302. Id., 8:5-8. A first tick count is
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`started in step 316 if it is determined that there was not a previous touching 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 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.
`
`The’507 patent discloses that the combination of all three of these
`
`conditions—a pressure exceeding a pressure threshold, a change in pressure
`
`exceeding a change in pressure threshold, and a lapsing of a particular time
`
`interval—is important in accurately determining whether the user intended a press.
`
`Wigdor Decl. ¶ 22. For example, the inventors of the ‘507 patent recognized that
`
`users tend to push harder when they first touch a touchpad. Ex. 1001, 6:58-62. In
`
`other words, even if the user only intends to touch 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.; Wigdor Decl. ¶ 22.
`
`Thus, the lapsing interval requirement is important – in combination with the other
`
`requirements – in preventing an inadvertent touch from being considered,
`
`incorrectly, as a press. Id.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘507 is recited below:
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`A method comprising:
`1.
`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, and
`a first interval has lapsed; and
`responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a haptic
`effect.
`Independent claims 9 and 14 are similar in scope. The claims require the
`
`determination of a press gesture only if (1) a pressure is greater than a threshold,
`
`(2) a change in pressure is greater than a threshold, and (3) a first interval has
`
`lapsed, and a confirmatory haptic feedback upon satisfaction of all three
`
`conditions. Per the language of the claims, a press gesture is determined and
`
`haptic feedback provided in response only if all three conditions are satisfied by
`
`the user’s contact.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`A person of ordinary skill in the art for the field of the ‘507 patent would
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`have at least: a Bachelor of Science degree in an engineering discipline such as
`
`Mechanical Engineering or 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. Wigdor
`
`Decl. ¶ 25. The conclusions regarding claim construction and validity contained
`
`herein would be the same regardless of whether Immersion’s or Petitioner’s
`
`proposed level of skill is adopted by the Board. Wigdor Decl. ¶ 26.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During inter partes review, a patent claim shall be given “its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2133, 195 L. Ed. 2d
`
`423 (2016) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) The standard for claim construction
`
`at the Patent Office is different from that used during a U.S. District Court
`
`litigation. See PPC Broadband,Inc., v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, 815
`
`F.3d 747, 756 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Immersion expressly
`
`reserves the right to argue a different claim construction in litigation for any term
`
`of the ‘507 patent, as appropriate in that proceeding.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`The claim term “pseudo pressure” appears in dependent claims 2, 10, and 15
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`
`
`of the ‘507 patent. Claim 2 of the ‘507 patent recites: “The method of claim 1,
`
`wherein the contact data comprises an actual pressure and a pseudo pressure.”
`
`Claims 10 and 15 have similar language. Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`for the term “pseudo pressure” is “a measure of the area of the screen contacted by
`
`an object.” This construction is consistent with the surrounding claim language
`
`and the specification, which make clear that “pseudo pressure” can occur in input
`
`devices that utilize a variety of different touchpad technologies.
`
`In the context of the claimed invention, the pseudo pressure is a measure of
`
`the area of the screen contacted by an object, which the ‘507 patent explains is part
`
`of the “contact data” upon which a determination of pressure and change in
`
`pressure is based. See, e.g., ‘507 patent at claim 2 (reciting “The method of claim
`
`1, wherein the contact data comprises an actual pressure and a pseudo pressure”)
`
`(emphasis added); claim 1 (reciting “A method comprising: receiving contact data
`
`from an input device” and then using it to “determin[e] an interaction with a
`
`displayed object on a screen based on the contact data” and “determin[e] a pressure
`
`and a change in pressure based on the contact data”).
`
`The specification explains how the pseudo-pressure—the area of the
`
`touchpad contacted by the user’s finger—may be useful in analyzing the user’s
`
`motions. Ex. 1001, 3:15-19 (“In other words, the pseudo pressure or Z parameter
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided by the touchpad102 is not a measure of the actual vertical displacement
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`by a conductor at a single point on the touchpad 102, but rather an estimation of
`
`the vertical displacement based on the size of the capacitance change.”); id. at
`
`3:24-28 (“[I]f a user presses heavily against the touchpad 102 with a fleshy part of
`
`the finger, the amount of touchpad 102 area covered by the finger is greater than
`
`when the same part of the finger is touching lightly.”) (emphasis added). That is,
`
`because the user’s finger is deformable, the finger will tend to flatten out and cover
`
`a larger area of the touchpad when the user presses down heavily.
`
`Petitioner argues that “pseudo pressure” should be construed to include “any
`
`measure of pressure based on capacitance.” Pet. at 11. Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction is incorrect for at least the following reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner’s proposed construction would erase the distinction between
`
`the “pseudo pressure” and “actual pressure” measures that claims 2, 10, and 15
`
`require both be included in the contact data. The ‘507 patent clearly distinguishes
`
`“pseudo pressure” from “actual pressure,” including by explaining that pseudo
`
`pressure is a measure of the screen contacted by the user and “may not accurately
`
`represent the amount of pressure actually exerted on the touchpad.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:19-21. Actual pressure, on the other hand, is a measure of the amount of
`
`pressure exerted on the touchpad, such as a vertical displacement caused by the
`
`application of pressure, see id., 3:15-21, which may be measured by a pressure
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sensor, id., 2:60-63. But a person of skill in the art would understand that both
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`“pseudo pressure” and “actual pressure” measurements can be determined using
`
`capacitance. For example, pressure sensors known in the art at the time used
`
`capacitive plates to measure deformation caused by the application of pressure.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2003, U.S. Patent No. 4,555,952, 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.”); Wigdor Decl. ¶ 23. Under Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction, this type of well-known actual pressure sensor would be
`
`excluded from the definition of actual pressure because it is “based on
`
`capacitance.” See Pet. at 11. This contradicts not only the understanding in the art
`
`but also the ‘507 patent’s description of how actual pressure – not pseudo pressure
`
`– may be measured using such a pressure sensor. See Ex. 1001, 2:60-63.
`
`Second, the ‘507 patent makes clear that “pseudo pressure” is not defined by
`
`the type of sensing mechanism used (e.g., capacitance). Capacitance-based tools
`
`are only one example of a mechanism for determining the area where a user’s
`
`finger is contacting the screen; the specification clearly states that any touch-
`
`sensitive device may be used. Ex. 1001, 2:55-61 (“The touchpad 102 shown in
`
`FIG. 1 utilizes capacitance, however, an embodiment of the present invention
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may be implemented in conjunction with any touch-sensitive input device,
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`including resistive and membrane-switch touchpads.”) (emphasis added). As
`
`discussed above, the defining characteristic of pseudo pressure is what is being
`
`measured, e.g., the area contacted by the user’s finger, not the tool used.
`
`V. CLAIMS 1-5, 9-12 AND 14-17 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER TODA IN
`VIEW OF SHAHOIAN
`A. The Toda Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066 to Toda et al. (“Toda”) discloses a coordinate
`
`input device for moving a cursor on the screen of a computer 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, Abstract. Toda discloses several
`
`processes (scenarios) for determining whether the user intended a switch input, as
`
`opposed to dragging the cursor on the screen. 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 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).
`
`The ‘507 patent expressly requires that a press be determined when all three
`
`conditions are met: (1) pressure on the input device is greater than a pressure
`
`threshold, (2) a change in pressure has occurred that is greater than a change in
`
`pressure threshold, and (3) an interval has elapsed. Toda is an example of a
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`different approach to attempting to determine the user’s intent. Unlike the ‘507
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`patent, Toda does not require that each of these three conditions must be met in
`
`order to determine a press. Indeed, none of Toda’s algorithms require the elapsing
`
`of an interval for a press to be determined. Instead, Toda relies upon “peak”
`
`pressure measurements, and its algorithms use time data only to select the next step
`
`of the flow chart to proceed to. In none of Toda’s algorithms does a finding that
`
`the time interval has not elapsed produce a NO. See id., Figures 11, 14, 17-19. No
`
`matter how small the time interval, it is always possible in Toda to determine a
`
`press. Id.
`
`Further, in the Toda system, the outcome is not conditioned on exceeding a
`
`change in pressure threshold. While change in pressure is a variable in some
`
`branches of the Toda algorithms, there are also multiple other scenarios where a
`
`press is determined without ever determining that the change in pressure has
`
`exceeded a change in pressure threshold. See Section V.D, below. In each respect,
`
`this is the complete opposite of the ‘507 patent, an innovation of which is that a
`
`highly efficient and accurate way to determine a press only when all three
`
`conditions are satisfied.
`
`For example, Fig. 9(a) of Toda, reproduced below, shows a touch load
`
`versus time graph corresponding to a switch input. Id., 4:4-7. The data includes
`
`peak points P1 and P2.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`
`
`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.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`
`
`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.,
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 11. In Process 3, the user’s input is compared to another experimental touch
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`profile, illustrated in Fig. 15(a), reproduced below.
`
`The data includes a rising point P3 and a peak point P4. Process 3 is
`
`depicted in the flowchart of Fig. 17 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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 import
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the passage of time is to determine the next step in the flow chart. For example,
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`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).
`
`Similarly, 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; Wigdor Decl. ¶ 34. 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).
`
`The Shahoian Reference
`
`B.
`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
`
`input device. Ex. 1004, [0008]. The touch input device provides coordinate data
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to a processor based on the sensed location of an object near the touchpad. Id.,
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`[0041]. 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].
`
`C. Neither Toda Nor Shahoian Discloses The “determining a press if:
`a first interval has lapsed” Claim Limitation
`
`All of the challenged claims require “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.” By way of example, Fig.
`
`3 of the ‘507 patent shows the starting of a first tick count in step 316 that begins
`
`an interval. Ex. 1001, 8:26-28. In step 324, it is determined whether an interval
`
`has lapsed. Id., 8:44-49. The process shows the starting of a timer and then an
`
`active determination on whether a time interval from the starting of the timer has
`
`elapsed. A press can only be determined if the interval has lapsed. A NO decision
`
`in step 324 causes the process to return to step 302. In such a scenario, a press is
`
`not registered. Id., Fig. 3.
`
`The Petitioner contends that Toda discloses the first interval has elapsed
`
`limitation, citing to different decision blocks in the Toda processes. Pet. at 26-27.
`
`10086453
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`None one of these decision blocks involve determining whether a first interval has
`
`Case IPR2016-01777
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`
`elapsed.
`
`The Petitioner initially cites to a portion of Toda which discloses the
`
`determination of whether the touch pressure F has, or has not, sequentially
`
`exceeded 10g three times by comparing data on the currently sampled F with two
`
`previous samples. Pet. at 26. This step is performed to determine the existence of
`
`peak P3. Ex. 1003, 11:42-45; Wigdor Decl. ¶ 37. This is not determining whether
`
`a time interval has lapsed. Petitioner argues that it takes time to obtain and analyze
`
`the data and therefore there is a lapse of time. Pet. at 28. Even if this is true, the
`
`relevant point is that Toda is not determining whether a time interval has lapsed.
`
`The claims require “determining a press ‘if’….a first interval has lapsed.” A
`
`POSITA would understand that an “if” statement means that the condition may or
`
`may not be satisfied. Wigdor Decl. ¶ 36. This is shown in Fig. 3 of the ‘507 patent
`
`wherein there is a determination on whether the interval lapsed. If this condition is
`
`satisfied – along with the other conditions – then the process determines a press.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:44-49. If the answer in decision block 324 is NO, t
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
