`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00386
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ADAM PORTER
`
`Philips 2005
`Google v. Philips
`IPR2017-00386
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Education, Background and Experience ............................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 5
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW ....................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations .............................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`A. Google’s Proposed Constructions ......................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Opinions on Claim Construction ......................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`“Primary Character” and “Secondary Character” ..................... 11
`
`C.
`
`The Board’s Position on Claim Construction ..................................... 15
`
`V.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE RE’913 PATENT ...................... 16
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE RE’913 PATENT ...................................................... 24
`
`VII. THE APPLIED PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 28
`
`A.
`
`Sakata II (Ex. 1004)............................................................................. 28
`
`B.
`
`Buxton (Ex. 1006) ............................................................................... 36
`
`VIII. THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ................................................................... 41
`
`A. Ground 2: Sakata II + Buxton ............................................................. 41
`
`1.
`
`The Modification Contradicts Sakata II’s Stated
`Purpose and Intended Operation ............................................... 41
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`A POSA Would Have No Reason to Make the
`Modification in Light of the Applied Prior Art ........................ 49
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Buxton Would Not Have Motivated a
`POSA to Make the Proposed Modification .................... 49
`
`The Proposed Modification Would Have
`Made Sakata II Inefficient .............................................. 59
`
`The Proposed Modification Would Not
`Have Been “One of a Finite Number of
`Predictable Solutions” .................................................... 64
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Cockburn’s Opinions Do Not Establish That a
`POSA Would Have Reason to Make the
`Modification .............................................................................. 66
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Cockburn’s Unsupported Character
`Group Examples ............................................................. 66
`
`Dr. Cockburn’s Mischaracterization of the
`Prior Art .......................................................................... 75
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Hargreaves ............................................................ 75
`
`Buxton .................................................................. 80
`
`c.
`
`Dr. Cockburn’s Reliance on Broad
`Foundational Concepts ................................................... 87
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1: Sakata II ............................................................................. 90
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Claim 4 ...................................................................... 91
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 97
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Adam Porter of Bethesda, Maryland, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) in this
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) as an independent expert to provide opinions
`
`regarding the subject matter recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (Ex.
`
`1001, the “RE’913 patent”). In particular, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (“POSA”) would have found claims 1 and 3-16 of the RE’913 patent
`
`obvious in view of Japanese Unexamined Patent App. No. 2000-148366 (“Sakata
`
`II,” Ex.1004), or alternatively, in view of Sakata II and U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197
`
`(“Buxton,” Ex. 1006), based on the arguments and evidence submitted by
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) and its declarant, Dr. Cockburn.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“Board”) has instituted an IPR of the patentability of
`
`Claims 1 and 3-16 of the ’006 patent following the submission of a Petition by
`
`Google. I understand that Google also submitted a supporting declaration by Dr.
`
`Andrew Cockburn.
`
`3.
`
`I understand the Board has instituted review on the following grounds:
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1 and 3-16 of the RE’913 patent as obvious over Sakata
`
`II pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103; and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`Claims 1 and 3-16 of the RE’913 patent as obvious over Sakata
`
`II and Buxton pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`4. My analysis and conclusions regarding the RE’913 patent and the
`
`instituted grounds are set forth below.
`
`5.
`
`In connection with forming my opinions, I have considered the
`
`references and materials submitted by the parties in this proceeding, and in
`
`particular those cited herein, including the following:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Title
`
`N/A
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1006
`
`1018
`
`1020
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`
`
`Google’s Petition
`
`RE’913 Patent
`
`Declaration of Dr. Cockburn
`
`JP 2000-56912 (Sakata I)
`
`JP 2000-148366 (Sakata II)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197 to Buxton
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,689,253 to Hargreaves
`
`Shneiderman, B., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction Ch. 2, 60-62, Addison-
`Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1987)
`
`Philips’ Preliminary Response
`
`Institution Decision
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,128,672 to Kaehler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 464,892 to Prentice
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Andrew Cockburn, taken on Aug.
`28, 2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. X5581 to Burt
`
`Richard N. Current, The Original Typewriter Enterprise 1867-1873 at
`391-407, in Wisconsin Magazine of History (June 1949)
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`Title
`ASME, Sholes & Glidden ‘Type Writer,’ A Historical Mechanical
`Engineering Landmark (Oct. 6, 2011)
`
`Nokia 9000i Communicator User’s Manual Excerpts (1998)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,926,566 to Wang et al.
`
`Int’l App. Pub. No. WO 00/58816 to Now See Hear Interactive Inc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,544,276 to Horodeck
`
`Wikipedia, “List of Japanese typographic symbols,” available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_typographic_symbols
`(last accessed Aug. 24, 2017)
`Jerry M. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Dictionary of Computers, Data
`Processing and Telecommunications (1984)
`Technical Note TN1152, JIS Keyboard Support in Mac OS 8,
`available at http://mirror.informatimago.com/next/
`developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1152.html (last update: Feb. 22,
`1999)
`
`6. My opinions set forth below are based on my education, training,
`
`experience, and the content of the references considered. My understanding of the
`
`relevant law, as discussed below, is based on my discussions with counsel for
`
`Philips.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Education, Background and Experience
`
`7.
`
`I am a Professor at the Department of Computer Science at University
`
`of Maryland and University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies.
`
`I have served as Associate Director of the University of Maryland Institute for
`
`Advanced Computer Studies and I currently serve as the Executive Director of the
`
`Fraunhofer USA Center for Experimental Software Engineering.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`In 1986, I obtained a Bachelor’s degree in computer science from
`
`California State University, Dominguez Hills. In 1988, I obtained a Master’s
`
`degree in computer science from University of California, Irvine. In 1991, I
`
`obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree in computer science from University of
`
`California, Irvine.
`
`9.
`
`I first began lecturing on the topic of computer science at University
`
`of Maryland in 1991, and have continued to work there to this day (as Assistant
`
`Professor, then as Associate Professor and later as Full Professor). Over that time
`
`period, I also served as visiting professor or visiting researcher at various other
`
`universities and institutions, including Carnegie Mellon University’s Software
`
`Engineering Institute in Pennsylvania, and the Università della Svizzera Italiana, in
`
`Switzerland.
`
`10.
`
`I have served on the editorial boards of the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Software Engineering and ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and
`
`Methodology journals. I have also served as a technical consultant for many
`
`companies, including Sun Microsystems, Lucent Bell Laboratories, Motorola and
`
`IBM.
`
`11. Over the past 25 years, I have authored numerous articles discussing
`
`various topics of computer science and software engineering. I also have system
`
`design experience, including with respect to HTML-based systems and software
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`that parsed source code and analyzed and visualized via a user interface change
`
`report information.
`
`12. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary hourly rate of $600 for my
`
`time on this matter.
`
`14.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Patent Owner, the RE’913 patent or
`
`in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been informed that claim construction and patentability is
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`generally analyzed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention (“POSA”).
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the POSA is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. I understand that
`
`factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`may include: (1) type of problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (3) rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of
`
`the technology; and (5) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the RE’913 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,885,318 (“the ’318 patent”), which was filed on May 28, 2002. I understand that
`
`the ’318 patent (and by extension, the RE’913 patent) claims a foreign application
`
`priority date of June 30, 2001. My opinions below regarding what a POSA would
`
`have understood are based on the June 30, 2001 foreign application priority date.
`
`18. The field in the art to which the RE’913 patent pertains is the field of
`
`text entry. More specifically, the RE’913 patent relates to a method and device for
`
`improved character input using a keypad that operates in both a default state and a
`
`second state. RE’913 patent at Abstract, Claim 1.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that Google asserts that a POSA “would have at least an
`
`undergraduate degree in computer science or computer engineering, or the
`
`equivalent. In addition, the POSA would have at least two years of experience in
`
`designing and/or implementing user interfaces, or equivalent academic
`
`experience.” Petition at 22. I had at least the qualifications of a POSA under this
`
`definition in June of 2001. My opinions and analyses herein are from the
`
`perspective of the POSA as defined by Google.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`I understand that subject matter claimed in a patent is obvious if the
`
`recited subject matter would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made. I understand that the subject matter of multiple references
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`may be combined to establish obviousness, if a POSA would have had a reason to
`
`combine or modify the disclosures of the references to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter. I understand that as part of this analysis, three factors should be
`
`considered: (a) the scope and content of the prior art; (b) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claims; and (c) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`21.
`
`I also have been informed that a combination of elements in a patent
`
`claim may be obvious when all of those elements were known in the prior art and
`
`there was a reason for a POSA to combine or modify the prior art to obtain the
`
`elements as claimed, with no change in their respective functions. Furthermore, I
`
`understand that a patent claim would not be obvious if a proposed modification
`
`would render the prior art unsuitable for its intended purpose or if the proposed
`
`modification would change the principle of operation of the prior art.
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations
`
`22.
`
`I understand that claim limitations may be written in a format referred
`
`to as “means-plus-function.” I understand that this is commonly done by reciting
`
`the introductory language “means for,” followed by a function. I understand that
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of a means-plus-function claim limitation is
`
`the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire
`
`claimed function, and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in order to show that a means-plus-function
`
`limitation was present in the prior art, a challenger must show that both the claimed
`
`function was present in the prior art, and the corresponding structure (or its
`
`equivalent) for performing that function was present in the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the test to determine whether a corresponding
`
`element in the prior art is equivalent can be applied in different manners. One
`
`manner is to analyze whether the element performs substantially the same function
`
`in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. Another
`
`manner is to analyze whether the difference in structure is an insubstantial change
`
`which adds nothing of significance to the structure, material, or acts disclosed in
`
`the patent.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Google’s Proposed Constructions
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in its Petition, Google proposed constructions for
`
`several of the claim terms in the RE’913 patent. Specifically, Google has proposed
`
`the following constructions (Petition at 22-31):
`
`Claim Language
`“character”
`
`“keypad”
`
`“touchscreen”
`
`Google’s Proposed Construction
`“any symbol or text character”
`“representation of one or more keys
`that may be pressed to enter text or
`symbols”
`“screen display that is capable of
`detecting touch input upon or near
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Google’s Proposed Construction
`the surface of the display, including
`input from a finger or stylus”
`
`26. Google has also stated that claims 4-8 are “means-plus-function”
`
`claims, and has proposed constructions for each “means” limitation in those
`
`claims. For each of those claims, Google has identified the following structure
`
`corresponding to the recited functions:
`
`touchscreen 302, keypad 100, microprocessor 400, and
`computer readable storage media 402 (MEM), which
`includes a computer program (PRG) and one or more key
`character tables (KCT), as disclosed in Figs. 4 & 5, 4:29-
`5:36, 5:41-42, 6:1-6, and equivalents thereto.
`
`Petition at 25-31.
`
`27. For purposes of this proceeding, I am treating claims 4-8 as means-
`
`plus-function claims, and I have applied these constructions in my opinions set
`
`forth below.
`
`28.
`
`I further note that, with respect to the corresponding structure for the
`
`means-plus-function claim limitations, the recited “key character tables (KCT)”
`
`described in the RE’913 patent refer to table data structures that are stored in the
`
`referenced memory (“computer readable storage media 402 (MEM)”), as
`
`illustrated in Figure 4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The RE’913 patent states that, “[a] KCT provides information to the
`
`microprocessor relating to the default keypad to be displayed on the touchscreen,
`
`and also provides the primary and secondary characters which are to be displayed
`
`upon a first key selection.” RE’913 patent, 4:45-55, Table 1. The RE’913 patent
`
`further describes using the disclosed table to “provide[] primary and secondary
`
`characters to the microprocessor which, under the guidance of PRG instructs the
`
`touchscreen” to display characters for selection. Id. at 5:10-14. Therefore, in the
`
`context of the RE’913 patent, the table data structures are stored in memory and
`
`accessed during operation of the device.
`
`B. Opinions on Claim Construction
`
`29.
`
`In addition to Google’s claim constructions, I have also been asked to
`
`opine on how a POSA would construe certain additional claim terms applying the
`
`broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, in view of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`specification and the file history of the RE’913 patent. My opinions are listed
`
`below, and I have applied these constructions in my opinions contained herein.
`
`1.
`
`“Primary Character” and “Secondary Character”
`
`30. The independent claims of the RE’913 patent (claims 1, 3 and 4) each
`
`require that the recited keypad include “a plurality of keys,” where “at least one of
`
`the keys [has] a primary character, a plurality of secondary characters and an
`
`associated display area.”1
`
`31. The claims describe a “primary character” as a character that is
`
`assigned to a key, and selectable in a “default state” of the keypad. For example,
`
`claim 1 describes “the keypad in a default state displaying the primary character
`
`associated with the at least one key in the associated display area,” where the first
`
`step comprises, “in the default state, returning the primary character as an input
`
`character in response to selection of the at least one key for a period shorter than a
`
`predetermined time period.” RE’913 patent, Claim 1.
`
`32. The claims also describe a “secondary character” as a character
`
`associated with a key selection that is displayed for selection in the “second state”
`
`
`1 When describing the prior art and the claimed invention, the RE’913 patent
`
`refers to both keypads and keyboards. I will use these terms interchangeably
`
`herein, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`of the keypad, but not displayed for selection in the “default state.” For example,
`
`claim 1 describes “switching to a second state” following selection of a key for
`
`longer than a predetermined time period, and in that second state, “displaying each
`
`of the secondary characters associated with the first selected key” such that the
`
`secondary character can be “selected.” RE’913 patent, Claim 1.
`
`33. For both primary and secondary characters, the RE’913 patent
`
`describes these as text characters, such as letters, numbers or symbols. See, e.g.,
`
`RE’913 patent at Tables 1, 2; Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 6. These text characters are
`
`different from, for example, text modifiers like “control,” “command,” “shift” or
`
`the like, which do not themselves directly enter text when selected.
`
`34. These concepts are also described in the patent specification and
`
`associated figures. In particular, Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 1-3 and 6 consistently
`
`illustrate the relationship between primary and secondary characters. See RE’913
`
`patent at 3:25-57; 6:18-30; Tables 1, 2; Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
`
`35. Figure 1 of the RE’913 patent “depicts a keypad 100 in a default
`
`display state”:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RE’913 patent at 3:11-12; 3:25-31; Fig. 1. In this default state, the displayed
`
`primary characters (0 through 9, * and #) can be selected by pressing the associated
`
`key for less than a predetermined amount of time. Id. at 3:25-41; Table 1; Claim 1.
`
`In this state, the secondary characters associated with each key (e.g., “j, k, l”
`
`associated with the “5” key) are not selectable. Id. at 3:31-37; 3:42-62; Claim 1.
`
`36. Figure 2 of the RE’913 patent depicts a “second keypad display state”
`
`of the same keypad 100:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RE’913 patent at 3:42-62; 5:33-35; Fig. 2. According to the claims, the second
`
`state is displayed following the selection of a primary character key for longer than
`
`a predetermined amount of time. Id. at 6:1-6; Claims 1, 3, 4. Figure 2, for
`
`example, displays a second state associated with the selection of the key displaying
`
`the primary character “5.” Id. at 3:42-45. In this second state, the primary
`
`character “5” remains displayed and selectable. However, the keypad now also
`
`displays for selection secondary characters associated with the “5” key (e.g., j, k,
`
`l). Id. at 3:42-62; 4:45-5:67; Tables 1, 2. The RE’913 patent further explains that,
`
`during operation, “[t]he touchscreen is sampled repeatedly until a first key
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`selection is detected, following which the appropriate characters to be displayed
`
`are retrieved … and provided to the touchscreen which updates the keypad 100
`
`displayed.” Id. at 5:41-46.
`
`37.
`
`In other words, while primary characters are selectable when the
`
`keypad is in both the default state and second state, secondary characters are
`
`selectable only when the keypad is in the second state. This concept is consistent
`
`with the RE’913 patent’s stated goal of providing a familiar and efficient text entry
`
`method. In particular, the RE’913 patent explains that “the default display state of
`
`the keypad 100 as shown in FIG. 1 presents to the user a keypad having a well
`
`known key and character layout, thereby necessitating little or no familiarisation.”
`
`RE’913 patent at 3:37-41; 4:3-8.
`
`38. Therefore, a POSA would have understood that the term “primary
`
`character” means a key character assigned to be selectable in a “default state,” and
`
`the term “secondary character” means a key character assigned to be selectable
`
`only in a “second state.”
`
`C. The Board’s Position on Claim Construction
`
`39.
`
`I understand that at this time, the Board has not adopted any of the
`
`claim constructions proposed by either party. My opinion that the claims of the
`
`RE’913 patent are patentable does not depend on any of the proposed constructions
`
`above being adopted.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE RE’913 PATENT
`
`40. The claims of the RE’913 patent are directed to a method and device
`
`for text input on a mobile device, and in particular, a novel method intended to
`
`provide a familiar interface for carrying out text entry in an efficient manner.
`
`41. Early text input devices include the first typewriter devices dating
`
`back to the early-to-mid 1800s. Using these early typewriters often required
`
`manually shifting levers to select each desired character, which would involve a
`
`significant amount of time and effort. One such device is illustrated below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007 at 1-2. Selecting a character using this device required “moving [a] lever
`
`horizontally to a position over the [desired] character,” and then making an
`
`“impression” of the character by “pressing the lever.” Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`42. As typewriter technology advanced, these cumbersome text input
`
`methods were replaced by keyboards that included separate keys for each desired
`
`character. Ex. 2008 at 392-396. At the time, there were different character layouts
`
`for these devices based on the particular designs adopted by the designers.
`
`Because these older keyboards still operated using separate hammers assigned to
`
`each key (known as a “type bar”), arrangement of the characters on the keyboard
`
`became an important consideration, as constant use of closely-spaced characters
`
`could result in type bar collisions. Id. at 393-94, 401-02; Ex. 2009 at 4-5. One
`
`particular designer by the name Christopher Latham Sholes came up with a
`
`keyboard layout that was intended to separate commonly used letter pairs to
`
`prevent the type bars from colliding and jamming. This layout came to be known
`
`as the “QWERTY” layout, based on the first six characters that appear on the
`
`upper-left hand side of the keyboard.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2009 at 5 (annotation added).
`
`43. The QWERTY layout proved to be very popular, and quickly became
`
`the basic pattern for the “universal” keyboard. Ex. 2008 at 402. The QWERTY
`
`design typically included keys for characters having alphanumeric values
`
`(characters and numbers), as well additional keys for symbols (e.g., punctuation,
`
`brackets). Later keyboards also included modifier keys, such as “upper case” or
`
`“shift,” that allowed access to additional characters by shifting the typewriter
`
`carriage or roller. See Ex. 2003 at 1:8-30; Fig. 1. Such additional characters
`
`included capitalized versions of the letters displayed on the keys.
`
`44. Over the following decades, the QWERTY keyboard layout was used
`
`in countless text input devices, and quickly became a standard layout for
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`alphanumeric keyboards. Even as smaller, mobile text entry devices became
`
`introduced in the latter half of the 20th century, the QWERTY keyboard remained a
`
`popular keyboard layout. For example, Nokia offered devices in the mid-1990s
`
`that included a full QWERTY keypad.
`
`Ex. 2010 at 1-1, 1-2, 2-6. While the full QWERTY layout was familiar to most
`
`users, it often required relatively small keys to fit all necessary characters on the
`
`device, which could lead to slower text input and errors due to pressing incorrect
`
`
`
`keys.
`
`45. Many designers sought to improve the efficiency of text input
`
`methods by moving away from standard layouts, and redesigning keyboards for
`
`these smaller devices. As the RE’913 patent notes, as electronic devices became
`
`smaller for handheld use, there became a need to minimize the size of the keyboard
`
`while maintaining its full functionality. RE’913 patent as 1:14-45. The advent and
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`widespread use of touch-screen graphical devices provided further tools for
`
`designers seeking to optimize text entry on mobile devices.
`
`46. Different types of character input methods evolved to attempt to
`
`address this issue. One such design involved what is commonly known as the
`
`“multitap” method. RE’913 patent at 1:45-67. The RE’913 patent provides an
`
`example of this method, where “the number ‘2’ key is associated with the
`
`characters ‘abc’,” such as in the typical phone keypad illustrated below.
`
`
`
`When entering characters using this method, to select the “a” character, the “2” key
`
`is pressed once; to select the character “b” character, the “2” key is press twice;
`
`and so on. Id. at 1:51-54. While this method had the benefit of maintaining a
`
`familiar default character layout for users that is very familiar (i.e., the standard
`
`numerical keypad), it often required several key presses to enter a single character,
`
`and therefore it could be “slow and prone to error.” Id. at 1:62-67.
`
`47. An alternate approach that is also discussed in the RE’913 patent is
`
`the use of a “dynamic predictive keyboard.” RE’913 patent at 2:1-19. The
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`RE’913 patent cites one particular example of this method, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,128,672 (Ex. 2002), exemplary images of which are shown below.
`
`
`
`This method may start by displaying a familiar keypad layout to the user, but as
`
`characters are entered, a CPU analyzes the input and, based on an algorithm, uses
`
`that information to “predict” a next keyboard layout based on “the set of characters
`
`which would most likely be used by the user to type another character.” Ex. 2002
`
`at 4:4-6:12; Figs. 1, 3(A)-3(L).
`
`48. Designs like the dynamic predictive method were intended to address
`
`perceived inefficiencies with familiar keyboard layouts, like QWERTY, which
`
`“force[d] the use of the ‘hunt and peck’ method of typing.” Ex. 2002 at 1:31-45.
`
`By foregoing any familiar keyboard layout and instead focusing primarily on
`
`efficiency, this type of method could achieve faster input speeds by minimizing
`
`key strokes, while also minimizing the number of keys necessary for text input. Id.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`at 5:38-61. Therefore, this method might be well suited for experienced users who
`
`are comfortable with dynamic interfaces, and are seeking greater speed and
`
`efficiency. However, as the RE’913 patent explains, newer device users would
`
`likely have difficulty with its unfamiliar interface, and it could require a good deal
`
`of practice and learning before it could be used efficiently. RE’913 patent at 2:11-
`
`19.
`
`49. Other designs took a completely different approach, such as character
`
`recognition methods where a user draws a desired character using a stylus, and
`
`then the device uses an algorithm to analyze the drawn character and present the
`
`actual character for entry. One such method is discussed in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,926,566 (Ex. 2011). In this method, “the user enters at least one stroke of an
`
`ideographic character on a tablet or touchpad,” and an “incremental character
`
`recognizer” analyzes the stroke and displays to the user a “list of candidate
`
`characters” that contain the same strokes, so that the user can select the desired
`
`character. Ex. 2011 at 3:20-4:21; Fig. 2. While such a design may make more
`
`efficient use of limited keypad, it would also likely be an unfamiliar interface for
`
`new users, and slow and cumbersome for experienced users seeking faster
`
`character input speed.
`
`50. Numerous other designs existed, including variations on the designs
`
`discussed above. For example, one design involved a modified QWERTY keypad
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`where the “layout contains a fixed set of characters as well as a dynamic subset of
`
`characters.”
`
`
`
`Ex. 2012 at Abstract; 2:26-3:2; 4:24-5:3; Figs. 1-3. Thus, the keyboard shared
`
`aspects of both the traditional QWERTY keyboards, and the dynamic predictive
`
`methods. Another variation on this type of design is disclosed in Sakata II, which
`
`is discussed in more detail below. Specifically, Sakata II discloses a keyboard
`
`where the display of certain keys remained static, while the display of other keys
`
`changed based on the last character selected from a menu using that key. See infra
`
`at Section VII.A. Also, rather than changing the keyboard layout based on a
`
`prediction concerning the next character to be input, Sakata II alters the keyboard
`
`based on an actual selection by a particular user. This provides user customization.
`
`51. Through these designs and many others, designers explored new and
`
`unique methods for text entry on small mobile devices. The freedom provided by
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`graphical user interfaces allowed designers to better tailor their designs to
`
`perceived issues in the industry. While some chose to maintain familiar layouts
`
`(e.g., QWERTY and the standard numerical keypad) to make the device
`
`approachable for new users, others chose designs focused primarily on efficiency
`
`(e.g., the dynamic predictive methods) that would benefit experienced users
`
`seeking faster and more efficient text input. However, as discussed above, each
`
`design choice carried with it potential drawbacks, and therefore designers had to
`
`consider who would be the intended user and uses of the device (new vs.
`
`experienced users, with strong vs. weak eyesight and/or fine motor control, whose
`
`work may involve routine vs. dynamically changing input patterns, etc.), and
`
`weigh the design considerations to determine how best to balance familiarity and
`
`efficiency concerns.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE RE’913 PATENT
`
`52. The RE’913 patent offered a solution to the drawbacks described
`
`above by providing a method for text input that both provided quick and efficient
`
`text entry for experienced users, while maintaining a high degree of familiarity for
`
`newer users.
`
`53.
`
`In particular, the RE’913 patent discloses a keypad whe