`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 10, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and MINN
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BRIAN K. ERICKSON, ESQUIRE
`JAMES M. HEINTZ, ESQUIRE
`DLA Piper, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue
`Suit 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`RICHARD M. BIRNHOLZ, ESQUIRE
`BABAK REDJAIAN, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQUIRE
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`January 10, 2018, at 1 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before
`Chris Hofer, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SCANLON: Good afternoon. This is the hearing for
`IPR2016-01884 pertaining to patent No. 7,336,260 B2. I’m Judge Scanlon
`in our Detroit office and with me today on the panel are Judge Moore and
`Judge Chung who is participating remotely via audio. Let’s start with
`appearances. Who is here for Petitioner, please?
`MR. ERICKSON: Your Honor, Brian Erickson and Jim Heintz with
`DLA Piper for Petitioner, Apple.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. FLEMING: Mike Fleming from Irell & Manella representing
`Immersion Corporation. I also have slides to present. May I approach the
`bench and present them to Judge Moore?
`JUDGE SCANLON: Yes. All right, thank you. As set forth in the
`Trial Hearing Order, each party will have 30 minutes to present arguments.
`Petitioner will present its case first and may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent
`Owner will then present its case and then Petitioner may use any remaining
`time for rebuttal. I ask each presenter to be sure to speak into the
`microphone so that we will be able to hear you clearly. I also ask presenters
`to identify by slide number any demonstrative you’re referring to and that
`would be very helpful. So counsel for Petitioner, would you like to reserve
`any time for rebuttal?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor. We would like to reserve
`approximately half our time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE SCANLON: All right. Very good. You may proceed when
`you’re ready.
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`
`MR. ERICKSON: May it please the Board, Brian Erickson with DLA
`Piper on behalf of Petitioner, Apple. Also with me is Jim Heintz from DLA
`Piper and from Apple joining us today is in-house counsel Kim Moore.
`On slide 2, the Board instituted IPR on the ’260 patent on two
`grounds. First, the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over
`Komata, and second that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over JP725
`which is also known as the Tsuji reference.
`Slide 3. There are three topics at issue here. First, there’s a claim
`construction issue, specifically that none of the claims are limited to a single
`contact or single interaction as the Board correctly found in its preliminary
`claim construction. Second, when you turn to obviousness, it’s undisputed
`that if the Board maintains its preliminary claim construction all challenged
`claims are obvious under both grounds, and finally to the extent the Board
`revisits its construction and incorporates some aspect the Patent Owner’s
`construction, the claims are still made obvious by each of Komata and Tsuji.
`Starting with claim construction, moving to slide 5, the Board
`correctly held in its preliminary construction that the challenged claims do
`not require detecting the claimed three pressures during a single touch
`interaction. Now that’s a preliminary construction, but moving to slide 6 we
`note that in this particular IPR the Board ordered additional briefing on this
`specific issue so that it could fully address the issue. So the Board has
`already considered multiple pages from the Patent Owner’s preliminary
`response, Petitioner’s reply of seven pages, and Patent Owner’s surreply of
`additional seven pages. So the Board has had substantial briefing on this
`already that went into its preliminary construction. Essentially there’s
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`nothing new that came up at trial and Patent Owner’s response or otherwise
`that would justify the Board revisiting its preliminary construction.
`Moving to slide 7, we’re in a bit of an unusual position with this claim
`construction issue. Patent Owner is relying on the structure of the claims.
`Usually at this point we would identify claim limitation and propose
`competing constructions. We can’t really do that here because the Patent
`Owner is relying on “the structure of the claims” and has provided in
`different times in different places either the summary or the gist of this
`concept, but hasn’t really proposed a formal construction.
`Moving to slide 8. We’ll very briefly step through the typical claim
`construction approach of looking at the claims, the specification and the file
`history. None of those support reading in a single contact requirement.
`Slide 9. As the Board noted in its Institution decision, a claim
`construction analysis must begin and remain center on the claim language
`itself. Slide 10 shows challenged claims 1 and 2. As the Board is aware,
`claim 1 the preamble to the Boregard (phonetic) claim, “a computer-readable
`medium having instructions that cause a processor to” and then it recites
`several functions. The functions are detect a first pressure, provide a first
`tactile sensation and then that’s repeated for second and third pressures and
`sensations, the fourth being added by dependent claim 2.
`Slide 11. There is a claimed relationship between these detections.
`It’s mathematical. The claim recites that each of the successfully claimed
`pressures are greater than the previously claimed pressure. That’s a simple
`mathematical relationship. The Board correctly held, moving to slide 12,
`that there’s no temporal or other relationship in the claim. There’s no
`requirement that it be -- detection to the pressures must occur at the same
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`time continuously or as part of a single touch interaction. There’s simply
`nothing in the claims in that regard.
`Patent Owner, in its response, attacked the Board’s holding and it
`claims that it’s an unreasonably broad construction, that it would encompass
`one or more multiple contacts. That’s an improper attack. The Board
`properly applied the claimed mathematical relationship and showed how
`they were taught by the references. Patent Owner also argues that the Board
`has somehow read out or made the claimed mathematical relationship
`superfluous. There’s no merit to Patent Owner’s attack. Claim 1 excludes
`devices that only detect two pressures. In fact that’s exactly what happened
`in the file history, as we’ll see in a moment. Patent Owner does mention
`dependent claims 5 and 7. Those are inapposite to this issue. They point out
`that claims 5 and 7 are discussing a second input device and that the
`pressures detected on that input device have a claimed mathematical
`relationship with each other. That’s all well and good. It doesn’t have
`anything to do with whether either one of the dependent claims or the
`challenged claims must detect the pressures during a single contact or single
`interaction.
`Moving to slide 15. In the specification there’s no assertion that
`there’s any lexicography, there’s no express definition, there’s no assertion
`that there’s any express disclaimer or words of manifest exclusion. In fact,
`this single interaction contact requirement is not even expressly discussed so
`it’s not used to distinguish in the art or any other basis that could be used to
`properly read in a limitation from the specification.
`Slide 16. The Patent Owner really just discusses various disclosed
`embodiments and cherry picks certain features from those embodiments.
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`You’ll hear a lot of discussion today about figure 4. You’ll notice that figure
`4 has a sequential application of pressure and that the pressures are detected
`in order, 1, 2, 3, 4. Patent Owner does not read in that aspect of the
`embodiment, Patent Owner only reads in that it happens during a single
`contact. Patent Owner is cherry picking that portion of this embodiment. As
`we pointed out in our reply in the ITC action, Patent Owner has relied on its
`infringement contentions that these can occur out of order so it’s inconsistent
`for the Patent Owner to delve into the specification. It’s improper under any
`circumstances to read in the limitation but here they’re cherry picking an
`aspect of the preferred embodiment rather than taking it as a whole.
`Slide 17. The Board correctly held that it’s improper to read a
`disclosure into the claims. There’s a wealth of case law authority cited there
`on slide 17 and the briefs. Indeed, in slide 18 we discuss in the briefing how
`it’s in fact inconsistent with some embodiments, for example, the sampling
`press embodiments, to read in this requirement. In the sampling press
`embodiment the device will sample the -- whatever the pressure is at the
`relevant time and in the example given there’s no discussion in the patent
`about how fast the sampling interval is, there’s no discussion in the patent
`about how fast the user is bearing the pressure, but the example given in the
`patent, whatever the sampling rate is, it missed at least pressure 2 and
`providing sensation 14. So we know that things can happen between these
`sampling rates, whether it breaks contact or not is simply not known. Now a
`user could of course slowly applied pressure and whatever the sampling rate
`is perhaps they will catch the reapplied pressure, but that’s happenstance.
`That’s not a basis to read in, and it’s inconsistent to then read in a
`requirement there’s some obvious single contact.
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`
`JUDGE SCANLON: Excuse me, counsel.
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE SCANLON: So you’re saying about slowly, is it your
`position if a user of the device pressed the button with a great force and
`reached maximum point quickly, the different vibrations or outputs would
`not be felt by the user?
`MR. ERICKSON: Yes, Your Honor. That’s precisely what’s taught
`in the sampling press embodiment where you have a first pass and you catch
`pressure one and a second pass and you catch pressure three. It’s not clear
`how many other things may have happened during that application but going
`back to slide 16 and showing figure 4 embodiment, you would have to pass
`through pressure two to get to pressure three, so you missed at least pressure
`two.
`
`JUDGE SCANLON: But when you pass through you don’t get the
`signal --
`MR. ERICKSON: That’s correct.
`JUDGE SCANLON: -- that correlates to pressure two, you’re saying?
`MR. ERICKSON: That’s correct, Your Honor. The single contact
`limitation is kind of manufactured out of whole cloth by the Plaintiff.
`There’s no discussion someone jammed on the button in figure 4 and
`immediately as fast as they could jammed all the way down to position five.
`There’s no discussion of how the device would react. When it started to spin
`up the rotating eccentric mass to create a vibration and provide feedback,
`you know, that’s going to take some time and say the vibration is a tenth of a
`second or whatever the vibration is to communicate back to the user, it
`might start doing that as it detects the first pressure but by the time the user
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`immediately slams down the position five, does it queue two, three, four and
`provide those later? Does it override vibration one and realize oh, I’m at
`vibration five, I’m going to stop playing vibration one and play vibration
`five? There’s no discussion of this in the specification. There’s the single
`contact concept is just not discussed.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you.
`MR. ERICKSON: Finally, the file history, and this really undercuts
`all of Plaintiff’s arguments, Petitioner pointed out in their reply that the file
`history gives a concrete example of how these claims have meaning with
`this mathematical relationship. The prior art was capable of detecting two
`different pressures, light and strong. As a result, the Patent Owner cancelled
`claim 1 that only required the detection of two pressures and rolled those
`limitations into pending dependent claim 2 which then issued as claim 1 to
`require the detection of a third pressure. There’s no discussion of whether
`there was a single contact or not. It was just being able to detect three
`distinct pressures and provide three different haptic effects.
`So all of Patent Owner’s arguments that somehow the Board is
`reading out this mathematical relationship are completely undercut by the
`file history itself. Now we notice that the Patent Owner originally brought
`up the file history in its preliminary response. Petitioner pointed out it was
`wrong. The Board sided with Petitioner. Patent Owner dropped this
`argument by not including it in its response, so they waived any argument
`here. It’s uncontested in this record that the file history supports Petitioner’s
`construction.
`Moving on to the obviousness question, again it’s undisputed that the
`Board maintains its preliminary proposed constructions that the claims are
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`obvious under both grounds one and two. I’ll touch briefly on the Komata
`reference. To the extent the Board does incorporate some aspect of single
`interaction, Komata certainly still discloses that. If we go to slide 24. Slide
`24 shows figure 3 in Komata and discusses the cited evidence there. The
`Komata begins a round by detecting pressure applied by one of the players.
`Patent Owner even cites to that and agrees that each round begins when one
`of the players has pressed a button. That’s cited there from Patent Owner’s
`response on slide 24. But the Patent Owner goes back on that. The Patent
`Owner says no, it’s not just one, there’s some mechanism to enforce that if
`that one was the same player whose pressure started the round before it
`won’t count and this is what they call their turned based programming.
`There’s absolutely no support for this in Komata. There’s no way that
`Komata could be programmed to support a turn based system.
`As we show on slide 26, first of all it’s legally improper. The
`reference as prior art for all it teaches, regardless of whether Patent Owner
`thinks it would be improved by reprogramming to to have a turn based
`system, but more importantly it’s technically impossible. There’s a gap on
`the buttons in Komata that prevent the software from ever knowing -- the
`hardware can’t tell the software whether the user has broken contact with the
`button, and remember this is a turn based reaction time game. This is a
`reaction time game. There’s no turn based disclosure in Komata. But even if
`there were under Patent Owner’s turn based reprogramming, if the game
`were five minutes long the users would want to keep their fingers on the
`button the whole time because if they wanted to attack, they’d want to attack
`as soon as possible and if they were planning on defending, they’d want to
`be able to respond as quickly as possible. So you would keep your fingers in
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`contact with the buttons for five minutes if the game’s five minutes long and
`every one of the detected pressures would be during a single contact, and
`there’s no way to reprogram Komata to force the user to break contact with
`the button between rounds because the hardware can’t tell whether the user
`has broken contact with the button so it can’t even report that to the software
`to begin with.
`I’ll reserve the rest of my time. Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Thank you. You have 17 minutes left.
`MR. FLEMING: Your Honor, before we begin I’d like to introduce
`my colleagues. I’d like to introduce Richard Birnholz and Bab Redjaian,
`and Richard and Bab will both be presenting.
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Richard Birnholz
`of Irell & Manella for Patent Owner.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Good afternoon.
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: Jane (phonetic) if we could pull up slide 8, please.
`So as Petitioner previewed there’s an important issue of claim construction
`here and regarding the structure of the claims and whether they require a
`single contact in detecting multiple pressures as the user varies pressure
`applied to the input device, and it’s Patent Owner’s position that the
`Institution decision that rejected that view was incorrect and that we would
`urge the Board to reconsider that preliminary view in light of the structure of
`the claims, the specification, and the discussion that we have here today.
`The claims as you can see recite a specific relationship between three
`detected pressures. The second and third pressure must be successively
`greater than the previous pressure and this is for a reason. The claims are set
`out like this for a reason, as Professor Meldal, Immersion’s expert explained
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`in his declaration. Individuals are notoriously bad at sensing the degree of
`pressure that they apply to an input device, that individuals cannot
`consistently or reliably assess how much pressure they’re applying. The
`feedback that is provided as a user varies pressure on the device is important
`to improve the functioning of the device and as the device detects a first
`pressure, it provides a first tactile sensation. It detects a second pressure
`which is greater than the first pressure and provides a second tactile
`sensation, and then detecting a third pressure which is greater than the
`second pressure and providing a third sensation.
`The next slide, slide 9. Claim 2 adds detecting a fourth pressure with
`the fourth pressure greater than the third pressure and slide 10, please.
`Professor Meldal has explained that how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would read this claim in light of the specification that the relationship
`between the detected pressures would occur during a contact with the input
`device. Now Professor Meldal’s declaration was not something that was
`before the Board when it issued its initial decision and we would urge the
`Board to consider this expert testimony in deciding this important issue.
`I’d also like to direct the board to a case that came out after our appeal
`was filed from September of 2017, Federal Circuit case In re Smith
`International. The citation is 871 F.3rd 1375 and the pin cite is at 1382 at
`83, and it’s an important case because in this case the Federal Circuit
`addressed the Board’s construction of a term as to whether it was
`unreasonably broad and the Board, on appeal, argued that there was no
`lexicography, there was no definition, there was a lack of established
`meaning, that a certain construction was reading in limitations from the
`specification, and the case rejected those arguments that even though there
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`was no lexicography and even though there was no established meaning that
`it was important to look at whether and how the specification prescribed the
`meaning of the claim and whether that supported the Board’s construction.
`The Federal Circuit said the correct inquiry in giving a claim its broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the
`specification prescribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term
`adopted by the examiner, it is an interpretation that corresponds with what
`and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, and the
`Federal Circuit actually reversed the construction in that case.
`So I’d urge the Board to look at that particular case in assessing the
`claim construction issue here because what we have here is not a situation
`when limitations are being read in from the specification, we’re
`understanding what the structure of the claims is in light of how they would
`be read and then construed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and if you
`look at -- slide 11, please. Now figure 4 is one embodiment of the invention
`in a mechanical setting where there’s a series of keys that pass sequentially
`through second, third, fourth and fifth positions as greater and greater
`pressure is applied to the input device, and the specification explains how a
`tactile sensation is provided when the user passes through those particular
`levels. Now, slide 12 please.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Excuse me, counsel.
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: Yes.
`JUDGE SCANLON: If I could interrupt you momentarily. Could
`you speak to the conversation I had with Petitioner’s counsel regarding what
`happens if the user pushes the button initially with great force and causes it
`to rapidly go to the fifth position? Do you have any thoughts on how the
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`device responds to that as far as the different signals that would be created as
`it goes through each of the positions?
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: So I think it’s going to depend on the particulars
`of the device in terms of whether it would meet the limitations of the claim
`in that instance where the claim requires detecting a first, second and third
`pressure providing corresponding sensations. So, if in the instance that the
`device did not detect the three pressures and provide the three sensations,
`then that would be outside the scope of that particular claim, but if in that
`particular instance if the user pressed slowly such that the device was
`configured to provide the sequential sensations as the user applied and
`varied the pressure, then it would be within the scope of the claim. So there
`might be corner cases in terms of how fast a device can respond, but the
`claim requires detecting a first, second and third pressure and providing
`those corresponding sensations as the user varies pressure on the device and
`if the device is configured to do that, then it would be within the scope of the
`claim and if it is not configured to do that and will never do that, then it is
`outside the scope of the claim and that’s an important point when we talk
`about the Tsuji reference and the Komata reference which are not at all
`configured to provide multiple sensations as the user varies pressure on the
`device. They are consistently configured to provide one sensation based on
`one pressure that is detected, and these claims are not fairly read as detecting
`one pressure and providing a sensation and doing that separate act in
`unrelated circumstances three times which is how the claim would be
`deconstructed and read under the Petitioner’s view and the Board’s initial
`view, that -- the claim does not read on detecting a first pressure and
`providing a first sensation one time and then doing that separate three times
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`which is how the claim is ultimately being read. If a device is capable of
`detecting three different pressures separately and providing three separate
`sensations, separate and apart from each other, if that’s what the claim
`covers and then that’s not what the claim covers and that’s not how it’s
`described in the specification. Can I –
`JUDGE SCANLON: I don’t mean to throw you off here --
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: Not at all.
`JUDGE SCANLON: -- in your planned presentation, but you
`mentioned Komata. If we could look at figures 8A through 8C of Komata
`and maybe compare that to figure 4 of the patent. My reading of Komata, it
`would be very similar if the user pressed the button slowly, the structure of
`that button in Komata would go through different pressure readings
`sequentially from just barely touching. It has the conducting member 50 and
`resister 40 and the amount of contact between those two elements varies the
`resistance and, as I understand Komata, creates different signals. So how is
`that really different -- I would look at that similarly in the sense if somebody
`pushed it very hard it would go to the maximum deformation or amount of
`contact, but if it was done slowly as you were suggesting with figure 4, it
`seems to me it would also have a series of pressure levels. Do you agree
`with that?
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: So I’m happy to address that, Your Honor. If you
`look at figures 8A, 8B and 8C there’s no question that Komata is capable of
`producing different resistance values, but when you look at the disclosure of
`Komata what it does is it takes one of those values and provides a
`corresponding sensation. There is no disclosure in Komata that you actually
`continuously measure the resistance and provide a different pressure value
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`and a different drive signal. There’s no disclosure in Komata that teaches
`providing multiple sensations as the user varies pressure on that button.
`There’s a pressure applied to the button, a value is received, and a drive
`signal is applied and when you look at the disclosure of Komata, it’s actually
`applied to the other user’s controller and in the context of this head to head
`timing game, and there’s no teaching --
`JUDGE SCANLON: So Komata can produce different signals but not
`in a single contact?
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: Correct.
`JUDGE SCANLON: Or else it doesn’t disclose doing that in a single
`interaction.
`MR. BIRNHOLZ: That’s absolutely correct, Your Honor. It does not
`disclose that at all. We don’t dispute that there are different pressure sensed
`values that can be generated by Komata’s system. It is a pressure sensitive
`button. But it produces one value and one drive signal that’s applied in the
`context of its game to the other user’s controller and then that process
`restarts actually after the other controller pushes their button and sends a
`vibration back to the first player, and that’s the context in which Komata is
`describing its system. So there’s no multiple sensations based multiple
`pressure levels. It’s a different architecture.
`The claims of the ’260 patent don’t read on just providing a one
`pressure and one sensation and doing that three times in separate unrelated
`events. That’s not what the claim is directed to, and if you look at slide 12
`which talks about in the context of the touch screen and soft key
`embodiment where it also describes how a first sensation is applied when the
`soft key 36A is in the second position. The second position is meaning it’s
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`not in a rest position, and then it says the controller would then cause the
`actuator to provide a second tactile sensation upon receipt of the input signal
`associated with the third position meaning you pushed it further, and the
`point here is that you are providing successive sensations to alert the user
`that they’ve actually proceeded through different levels because, as
`Professor Meldal explained, we’re not good at judging how hard we’re
`pressing on something. If I said I need you to press on a button at a certain
`level, maybe you could get it right but most likely you wouldn’t and the
`feedback greatly enhances the functionality of the device.
`Now, slide 13. This concept is a not a particular discreet embodiment,
`it’s the essence of the invention is how to make these devices better and to
`integrate haptics. In column 6 it talks about how when pressure is applied,
`when greater is applied, when still greater pressure is applied and when even
`greater pressure is applied and how the device will transmit the appropriate
`signals to the controller, and the structure of the claims reflects this
`arrangement.
`Can we look at slide 14, please where we have highlighted dependent
`claims 5 and 7 which talk about the specifics of a relationship between the
`detected pressures. It’s not just mathematical, it’s that they occur within the
`context of a contact with the device. Claim 5 talks about detecting a fourth
`pressure on a second input device, so now we’re talking about a separate
`contact on a second input device, and it’s another pressure. There’s no
`comparison to other detected pressures for this particular fourth pressure, but
`then you look at claim 7 which is a fifth pressure greater than the fourth
`pressure. So now there’s a two pressure single interaction concept on the
`second input device. That’s what claims 5 and 7 are directed to. Claims 1
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`and 2 talk about a varying pressure on a first input device and providing
`multiple sensations as the user varies the pressure and claims 5 and 7 talk
`about that similar arrangement on a second input device.
`It would make no sense to have all this language if the claims merely
`read on detecting a first pressure and providing a first tactile sensation in
`doing that three times. The claims are architected in a way to describe the
`invention that the inventor described which is providing multiple sensations
`as the user varies pressure on the device. It’s an extremely important point
`and I think when you look at the Smith case you’ll see that this is not an
`issue of reading disclosure into the claims, this is understanding how the
`inventor described the invention in solving the particular problem that he
`was trying to solve. I’ll also refer the Board to column 9, lines 48 to 51
`which explains how a haptic effect is provided whenever -- he uses the word
`whenever -- the user moves from the second to the third level.
`Now slide 15, please. Just as a point of reference, and it’s obviously
`not binding in any way on the Board but it’s a point of reference that the
`chief ALJ at the ITC when looking at these claims acknowledged that how
`the patent resolves the issue of solving this problem by detecting at lease
`three different levels of pressure during a single interaction and providing
`haptic feedback based thereon. Now I’m pointing that out for the Board’s
`reference.
`Slide 16, please. You heard some reference in Petitioner’s opening
`remarks about a sampling pass embodiment and how that somehow means
`that the Patent Owner’s read is not well taken. If you look at the record on
`this sampling pass embodiment, the arguments are really unsupported. What
`you have is Dr. Sarrafzadeh, the expert for Petitioner, who acknowledges
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01884
`Patent 7,336,260 B2
`
`that processors performed operations at millions of operation