Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,913
`Case No. IPR2017-00386
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,913
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 3 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................. 3 
`B.  Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................................... 3 
`C.  Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-
`(4)) 4 
`III. 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING, POWER OF ATTORNEY, AND FEES.... 4 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....... 4 
`A.  How the Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................................ 6 
`B.  Supporting Evidence ...................................................................................... 6 
`V.  THE ’913 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY .................................. 7 
`A.  The Purported Invention of the ’913 Patent .................................................. 7 
`B.  The Challenged Claims of the ’913 Patent .................................................. 11 
`1. 
`Independent Claims 1, 3 and 4................................................................. 11 
`2.  Dependent Claims 5, 9 and 13 ................................................................. 12 
`3.  Dependent Claims 6, 10 and 14 ............................................................... 12 
`4.  Dependent Claims 7, 11 and 15 ............................................................... 13 
`5.  Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16 .............................................................. 13 
`C.  Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 14 
`1.  Prosecution of the ’318 Patent ................................................................. 14 
`2.  Prosecution of the ’913 Reissue Patent ................................................... 15 
`A. 
`Initial Prosecution and Allowance .................................................... 15 
`B.  Request for Continued Examination ..................................................... 17 
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 22 
`VI. 
`VII.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................... 22 
`A.  “character” ................................................................................................... 23 
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B. 
`“keypad” ...................................................................................................... 23 
`“touchscreen” ............................................................................................... 24
`C. 
`D.  Means-Plus-Function Limitations ............................................................... 24 
`1.  Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 25 
`2.  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 29 
`3.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 30 
`4.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 30 
`VIII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY ........ 31 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Sakata II. ........... 31 
`1. 
`Independent Claims 1, 3, and 4 ............................................................... 31 
`2.  Dependent Claims 5, 9, and 13 ................................................................ 58 
`3.  Dependent Claims 6, 10, and 14 .............................................................. 59 
`4.  Dependent Claims 7, 11, and 15 .............................................................. 60 
`5.  Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16 .............................................................. 62 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3-16 Are Obvious Over Sakata II in View of
`Buxton .................................................................................................................. 64 
`IX. 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 71 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASE LAW
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446 (June 20, 2016) ................. 22
`
`In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ............................. 25
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Acer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-GMS
`(D. Del.) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Asustek Computer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`01125-GMS (D. Del.) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Double Power Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
`1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-GMS
`(D. Del.) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01128-
`GMS (D. Del.) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Visual Land, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01127-gms
`(D. Del.) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01131-GMS
`(D. Del.) ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................... 42, 70
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`No.
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Cockburn (“Cockburn Decl.”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2000-
`56912 (“Sakata I”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2000-
`148366 (“Sakata II”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,271,835 to Hoeksma (“Hoeksma”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197 to Buxton (“Buxton”)
`Certified USPTO File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,318 (“’318
`Patent File History”)
`Certified USPTO File History of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“’913
`Patent File History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,737,980 to Curtin (“Curtin”)
`Japanese Patent No. 4019512 (“Sakata ‘512 Patent”)
`Shneiderman, B., “Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond
`Programming Languages”, Computer, IEEE., 16(8), 57-69 (Aug.
`1983)
`Apple Newton MessagePad Handbook (1995) (“Newton Manual”)
`Matias, E., MacKenzie, I.S., and Buxton, W., Half-QWERTY: A
`one-handed keyboard facilitating skill transfer from QWERTY,
`Proceedings of the INTERCHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors
`in Computing Systems, 88-94, New York: ACM (1993)
`Matias, E, MacKenzie, I.S. and Buxton, W., One-handed Touch-
`Typing on a QWERTY Keyboard, Human-Comput. Interact., 11, 1-
`27 (March 1996) (“HCIJ Paper”)
`Psion 5mx User Guide (1999)
`Psion Series 3a User Guide (1993)
`IBM Simon Users Manual (1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,689,253 to Hargreaves
`Kurtenbach, G. and Buxton, W., The Limits of Expert Performance
`Using Hierarchic Marking Menus. Proceedings of the INTERCHI
`‘93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 482-87,
`New York: ACM (1993)
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`Ex. 1024
`Ex. 1025
`Ex. 1026
`Ex. 1027
`Ex. 1028
`
`Shneiderman, B., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction Ch. 2, 60-62, Addison-
`Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1987)
`Nielsen, J., Usability Engineering, Ch. 5, 115-163, Morgan
`Kaufmann Pub., San Francisco (1993)
`Matias, E., MacKenzie, I.S., Buxton, W, Half-QWERTY: Typing
`With One Hand Using Your Two-handed Skills, Chi ’94
`Companion, 51-52, Boston, Mass: ACM (1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,258,748 to Jones (“Jones”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,043,761 to Burrell (“Burrell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,675,513 to Flanagan (“Flanagan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,818,437 to Grover (“Grover”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew Cockburn
`Declaration of Anthony Dale
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google Inc. (“Google”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`Claims 1 and 3-16 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913 patent”), Exhibit
`
`(“Ex.”) 1001.
`
`The ’913 patent claims a method of text entry on devices such as handheld
`
`computers. When a keypad key corresponding to particular character is pressed for
`
`a short period of time, the device returns that character as an input. But when that
`
`key is pressed for a longer period of time, the device instead displays one or more
`
`secondary characters that can then be chosen for input.
`
`During prosecution, Patent Owner admitted that interfaces in which a key is
`
`associated with primary and secondary characters were “obvious.” Its primary
`
`argument for allowance of the ’913 patent instead focused on claim limitations
`
`directed to the timing aspect of its purported invention, i.e., distinguishing between
`
`selection and display of primary or secondary characters based on how long a key
`
`was pressed.
`
`Using short and long presses to distinguish between primary and secondary
`
`characters (and other desired GUI functionalities) was well-known in the art as of
`
`the priority date. See Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 47-51, 69-76. As of the 1990s,
`
`entering text became an important function of mobile devices, and numerous
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`techniques became available to enter primary and secondary characters on those
`
`devices. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 62-68, 77-83. Among those was the concept of
`
`using short and long presses to distinguish between and select among primary and
`
`secondary characters. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 69-76. This concept was explicitly
`
`disclosed in a Japanese-language reference to Sakata (“Sakata I”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Patent Owner cited Sakata I and the patent that issued from Sakata I during
`
`prosecution.1 However, Patent Owner was notably silent during prosecution
`
`regarding Sakata I’s distinction between primary and secondary characters based
`
`on the length of time a key was selected. Patent Owner’s only nod to its duty of
`
`disclosure was submission of a barely-comprehensible machine translation of the
`
`reference. The same time-based concept also was expressly disclosed in the
`
`primary reference relied on in this petition, Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`
`1
`Sakata I refers to Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
`
`Number 2000-56912 (Ex. 1003). The patent that issued from the Sakata I
`
`application was Japanese Patent No. 4,019,512 (Ex. 1010) (“Sakata ’512 Patent”).
`
`Their disclosures are substantially identical and, unless stated otherwise, they are
`
`referenced interchangeably throughout this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Application Publication No. 2000-148366 (“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004). Sakata II
`
`likewise was not discussed during prosecution.
`
`In light of Sakata II and other references cited herein, Google petitions for
`
`review and cancellation of claims 1 and 3–16 of the ’913 patent on the ground that
`
`the claims are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation,
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, and Google Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’913 patent is asserted in the following pending cases in the District of
`
`Delaware (“the Delaware Actions”): (1) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Acer Inc.
`
`et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-GMS (D. Del.); (2) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
`
`v. Asustek Computer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01125-GMS (D. Del.); (3)
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Double Power Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.); (4) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et
`
`al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-GMS (D. Del.); (5) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v.
`
`Southern Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01128-GMS (D. Del.); (6) Koninklijke
`
`Philips N.V. et al. v. Visual Land, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01127-gms (D. Del.); (7)
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01131-GMS
`
`(D. Del.).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead counsel is Aaron Maurer (No. 44,911); backup counsel are David
`
`Krinsky (No. 72,339); Christopher Suarez (No. 72,553), and Christopher Geyer
`
`(No. 74,346). All of the above are attorneys at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725
`
`Twelfth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005; 202-434-5000 (telephone); 202-434-
`
`5029 (fax). Google consents to service by email at amaurer@wc.com,
`
`dkrinsky@wc.com, csuarez@wc.com, and cgeyer@wc.com.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING, POWER OF ATTORNEY, AND FEES
`Petitioner certifies that the ’913 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this review. Petitioner
`
`is filing a power of attorney and an Exhibit List concurrently with this petition, as
`
`well as all required fees. If any additional fees are due at any time through the
`
`course of the IPR, the undersigned authorizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office to charge such fees to Deposit Account No. 506403.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The ’913 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,318 (the ’318 patent)
`
`(Ex. 1007). The ’318 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 10/156,409, filed on
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`May 28, 2002, which claims priority to an application filed in Great Britain on
`
`June 30, 2001.2
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1 and 3-16 of the ’913 patent and requests that
`
`these claims be found unpatentable in view of the following references:
`
`(1) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2000-
`
`148366 (“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004), which published on May 26, 2000. Sakata
`
`II is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)-(b) (pre-AIA). Both the
`
`original Japanese application and a certified translation thereof are included
`
`in Exhibit 1004.
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197 to Buxton (“Buxton”) (Ex. 1006),
`
`which issued from an application filed in the United States of May 17, 1995.
`
`Buxton is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`2 Because the application on which the ’913 patent issued was filed before March
`
`16, 2013, the effective date of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), it is subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102-103 as they existed pre-AIA. All citations herein to §§ 102-103
`
`accordingly refer to the pre-AIA provisions.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following specific grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103: (i) claims 1 and 3-16 are obvious over Sakata II; and (ii) claims 1 and 3-16
`
`are obvious over Sakata II in view of Buxton.3
`
`A. How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), an explanation of how the challenged
`
`claims of the ’913 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified
`
`above, including the identification of where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art, is provided in Section VIII, infra.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), the supporting evidence relied upon
`
`and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including identification
`
`of specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are provided herein.
`
`An Exhibit List identifying the exhibits is included. See supra at iv. In further
`
`support of the proposed grounds of rejection, this Petition is accompanied by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Andrew Cockburn (“Cockburn Decl.”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`
`3
`A separate Petition filed concurrently with this Petition challenges claim 2
`
`and other claims of the ’913 patent on separate grounds.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`V. THE ’913 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. The Purported Invention of the ’913 Patent
`The ’913 patent, “Text Entry Method and Device Therefor,” issued on May
`
`27, 2014. See Ex. 1001. The purported invention relates to a method “of entering
`
`text into a device, and to a device such as a portable radio telephone or a handheld
`
`computer suitably adapted to implement [the] method.” Ex. 1001 at 1:18-21.
`
`The specification distinguishes two prior art methods of text entry. It
`
`criticizes methods that require the user to tap “keys several times until [a] required
`
`special character is selected,” also known as the “multitap” method. Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:55-62. This method reportedly presents challenges to the user because it “often
`
`requires more than two key taps to select a character, and the entering of special
`
`characters can take many key taps,” making the method “slow and prone to error.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:62-67. Second, the specification criticizes methods that employ
`
`“dynamic predictive keyboard[s]” that continually change the layout of the keypad
`
`in response to text inputs. Ex. 1001 at 2:1-11. While predictive techniques ensure
`
`that the “most likely character[s] [are] displayed on the keyboard,” the techniques
`
`involve “constant changing of the keyboard layout.” Ex. 1001 at 2:11-19. All of
`
`the keyboard’s keys continually change, which “necessitates much practice and
`
`learning for proficient and quick text entry.” Ex. 1001 at 2:11-19. The ’913 patent
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`claims to have overcome the problems associated with these prior art techniques.
`
`It states that it “provide[s] a method of quick and accurate character input wherein
`
`secondary characters are available with only two key selections.” Ex. 1001 at 4:3-
`
`8; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 84-88.
`
`The specification describes the invention by reference to Figures 1 and 2 of
`
`the ‘913. Figure 1 illustrates a mobile phone keypad in a “default display state.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:25-27.
`
`
`
`Each of the twelve keys “has a primary character 104 and a plurality of secondary
`
`characters 106 associated with it.” Ex. 1001 at 3:27-28. The “key associated with
`
`primary character ‘2’ has an associated secondary character grouping ‘abc’, the key
`
`‘3’ the associated secondary characters ‘def’ and so on.” Ex. 1001 at 3:32-37. A
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`table known as the “key character table[]” (or KCT) “provides information to the
`
`[device’s] 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.” Ex. 1001 at 4:52-55; see Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶¶ 89-90.
`
`The ’913 patent states that one could select a primary character displayed
`
`above by employing what was known in the art as a “short press.” Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶¶ 2, 48, 69-76, 91. The specification discloses that such “quick
`
`tapping” (a press that lasts less than a pre-determined time period) may be used “to
`
`select the default primary characters displayed on a default keypad.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:1-5. In the embodiments described in the ’913 patent, a quick tap does not alter
`
`the keypad display state. Ex. 1001 at 6:5-6; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 91.
`
`By contrast, when the user employs a “long press,” the keypad is altered to
`
`display secondary characters. For example, when the ‘5’ key is pressed for longer
`
`than “a pre-determined time period,” the display changes to one such as that shown
`
`in Figure 2. Ex. 1001 at 6:1-3; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 92.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In this example, numerous secondary characters associated with the “5” key are
`
`displayed on neighboring keys, including the ‘j,’ ‘k,’ and ‘l’ characters, as well as
`
`additional characters “representing an exclamation mark, a double quote, a pound,
`
`a dollar sign, left and right brackets, a percentage symbol and a caret.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:44-45, 3:52-57. These displayed secondary characters may be entered in one of
`
`two ways: the user can either “tap[] [the] second key” with a finger or stylus, or
`
`“slid[e] or drag[] said finger or stylus across the keypad from the first key to the
`
`second key and pausing on, or removing the finger or stylus from, the required
`
`second key.” Ex. 1001 at 3:63-4:2. After the user selects a secondary character,
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`“the keypad of FIG. 2 is returned to the default display state as shown in FIG. 1.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:60-62; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’913 Patent
`1.
`Independent claim 1 is a method claim. It reads:
`
`Independent Claims 1, 3 and 4
`
`1.
`A method for inputting a character to a device, the
`device including a keypad, the keypad including a plurality of
`keys, at least one of the keys has a primary character, a
`plurality of secondary characters and an associated display
`area, the keypad in a default state displaying the primary
`character associated with the at least one key in the associated
`display area, the method comprising acts of:
`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;
`switching to a second state after detecting a first
`key selection of the at least one key for a period
`longer than the predetermined time period;
`in the second state:
`displaying each of the secondary characters
`associated with the first selected key in a
`respective display area;
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`detecting a second key selection;
`selecting for the input character the secondary
`character associated with the second key
`selection; and
`returning the keypad to the default state.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:48-7:3.
`
`Independent claims 3 and 4 are substantively identical to claim 1, but
`
`implemented with different claim formats: claim 3 is directed toward a software
`
`implementation of the text entry method, while claim 4 is an apparatus claim
`
`containing means-plus-function limitations. Ex. 1001 at 7:11-8:4; see also Ex.
`
`1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 95-97.
`
`2.
`Dependent claim 9 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 9 adds a
`
`Dependent Claims 5, 9 and 13
`
`
`
`limitation requiring that the keypad and the key corresponding to the selected
`
`primary character be displayed on a “touchscreen.” The same limitation appears in
`
`claim 13 (which depends from independent claim 3), and in claim 5 (which
`
`depends from independent claim 4). Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 100.
`
`3.
`Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1. It adds a limitation requiring
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 10 and 14
`
`
`
`that “at least one key” has a display for displaying information associated with the
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`key. Dependent claim 6 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 14
`
`(depending from claim 3) have the same limitation. The specification explains,
`
`“the display of primary or secondary characters associated with a key is achieved
`
`by providing an associated display area within [or] on . . . the key.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:7-10 (emphasis added). These claims claim little more than a requirement that
`
`the device acts to display a display area on the keys of its touchscreen (for
`
`example, a display area that displays primary and/or secondary characters). Ex.
`
`1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 101.
`
`4.
`Claim 11 depends from independent claim 1. It adds a limitation requiring a
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 11 and 15
`
`
`
`display adjacent to the key for displaying information associated with the key.
`
`Dependent claim 7 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 15 (depending
`
`from claim 3) have the same limitation. The specification explains, “[i]n this
`
`embodiment the display area associated with each key 102 of the keypad 100 is
`
`provided by an area of touchscreen 302 . . . adjacent to the graphical representation
`
`of the key 102.” Ex. 1001 at 4:47-50. These claims are directed toward a
`
`requirement that the device acts to display a display area adjacent to one or more
`
`keys of the device. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 102.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1. It claims an embodiment
`
`wherein the selection of a secondary character comprises “detecting a sliding
`
`across the keypad from the first key selection to the second key selection.”
`
`Dependent claim 8 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 16 (depending
`
`from claim 3) have the same limitation. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 103.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`C.
`The ’913 patent is a reissue of the ’318 patent.
`
`1.
`The ’318 patent issued from US. Application No. 10/156,409 (the ’409
`
`Prosecution of the ’318 Patent
`
`application), which was filed on May 28, 2002. The ’409 application included
`
`eight claims. Its primary independent claim claimed the steps of selecting a
`
`primary character on a keypad, displaying secondary characters associated with
`
`that primary character, and allowing the user to select one of those secondary
`
`characters before returning the keypad to its “default display state.” Ex. 1007
`
`(“’318 Patent File History”) at 13-14. The examiner issued a notice of allowance
`
`on October 6, 2004, cancelling one of the claims and allowing seven of them. Ex.
`
`1007 (’318 Patent File History) at 110-14. The examiner noted that “the closes[t]
`
`prior art Curtin”—U.S. Patent No. 4,737,980 (Ex. 1009)—“fail[ed] to teach or
`
`suggest . . . a keypad in a default state displaying the primary character associated
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`with a key in its respective display area, displaying a selected primary key’s
`
`secondary characters in a respective display area, selecting a second key which is
`
`associated with the secondary character desired for input, and returning the keypad
`
`to a default state.” Ex. 1007 (’318 Patent File History) at 112. Curtin discloses an
`
`interface that cycles through various character “guesses” depending on how many
`
`times the user presses the “originally pressed alphanumeric character key,” much
`
`like the prior art text entry techniques criticized in the ’913 patent. Ex. 1009
`
`(Curtin) at 4:9-26; see also Ex. 1001 at 1:55-2:19; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 105.
`
`The primary reference presented in this Petition—Sakata II—was not before the
`
`examiner or cited during the prosecution of the ’318 patent. 4 The ’318 patent
`
`issued on April 26, 2005.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution of the ’913 Reissue Patent
`
`A.
`
`Initial Prosecution and Allowance
`
`Eight years after the ’318 patent issued, on July 31, 2013, Patent Owner filed
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/955,345 (the “’345 reissue application”) seeking reissue
`
`of the ’318 patent Ex. 1008 (“’913 Patent File History”) at 1. The claims of the
`
`reissue application required that (1) a primary character is returned for input in the
`
`
`4
`Secondary reference Buxton also was not before the examiner.
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`default state when that character is touched “for a period shorter than a
`
`predetermined time period,” and (2) a display of secondary characters (a “second
`
`state”) appears when the primary character is selected “for a period longer than the
`
`predetermined time period.” Ex. 1008 (’345 application) at 4; Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶ 106. The ’345 reissue application also added the claims that required
`
`implementation on a touchscreen, as well as the claims that allowed secondary
`
`character selection in the second state to comprise “detecting a sliding across the
`
`keypad from the first key selection to the second key selection.” Ex. 1008 (913
`
`Patent File History) at 7; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 106.
`
`Relying on the predetermined time limitations as distinctions from the prior
`
`art, the examiner allowed the reissue claims on March 12, 2014. Ex. 1008 (’913
`
`Patent File History). The examiner stated (mistakenly, as discussed below) that the
`
`prior art of record did not teach or suggest any invention wherein:
`
`the device displays a default character associated with a key when
`the key is pressed for a period shorter tha[n] a predetermined time
`and when the key is pressed for a longer period secondary
`characters are displayed which are selected by a second key
`pressing, wherein the keyboard returns to the default state after the
`second key pressing.
`Ex. 1008 (’913 Patent File History) at 234; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 107.
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`B. Request for Continued Examination
`
`On March 18, 2014, Patent Owner filed a request for continued examination
`
`(RCE). Patent Owner included with the RCE an information disclosure statement
`
`(IDS) disclosing Japanese Patent No. 4,019,512 to Sakata. Ex. 1008 (’913 File
`
`History) at 250-52; see also Ex. 1010 (Japanese Patent No. 4,019,512) (“Sakata
`
`’512 Patent”); Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 108.
`
`The Sakata ’512 patent corresponds to a Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2000-56912 (“Sakata I”) (Ex. 1003). The Sakata I
`
`application published on February 25, 2000, and is prior art to the ’913 patent.
`
`Patent Owner submitted with the IDS the Sakata ’512 patent, which
`
`contained a cover page with the publication date of Sakata I circled, as well as a
`
`mostly incomprehensible translation (which appears to be a machine translation) of
`
`the patent from Thomson Reuters. Ex. 1008 (’913 File History) at 255-272 (Sakata
`
`’512 patent); id. at 277-93 (submitted Thomson Reuters translation); Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶¶ 108-10. Patent Owner did not submit a certified translation of the
`
`text of the Sakata I reference. Patent Owner also attached pages containing some,
`
`but not all, of the figures found in the Sakata I publication. Ex. 1008 (’913 File
`
`History) at 273-76 (annotated portions of patent and figures). Patent Owner
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`annotated the figures with its own descriptions, commentary, and argument, as
`
`reproduced in relevant part below.
`
`Figure 10 of Sakata I depicts a keypad. Figure 11 of Sakata I depicts the
`
`same keypad and, superimposed over it, a pop-up overlay containing secondary
`
`characters. Ex. 1008 (’913 Patent File History) at 276.
`
`Patent Owner reproduced Figures 10 and 11 in attachments to its IDS. Ex. 1008
`
`(’913 Patent File History) at 274. In its description, it admitted that Sakata I
`
`discloses the concept of a key having a primary character and associated secondary
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`characters. Id. (“secondary character corresponding to one key button” is a
`
`“similar concept” to the proposed claims.). Two pages later, Patent Owner
`
`emphasized that this primary/secondary key combination was known in the art,
`
`calling it “obvious”:
`
`Nonetheless, Patent Owner argued Sakata I was distinguishable from the reissue
`
`application’s claims on the basis that it “didn’t disclose concept of ‘pre-determined
`
`time.’” Ex. 1008 (’913 Patent File History) at 274; see also id. (Sakata “doesn’t
`
`disclose [the] timing concept” of the ’913 patent.). The Examiner apparently
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`accepted that distinction, and the ’913 reissue was granted on May 27, 2014. Ex.
`
`1008 (’913 Patent File History) at 535; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 111-13.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Sakata I does not disclose the “predetermined
`
`time” limitations is wrong. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 114-16. A certified
`
`translation of Sakata I (and its corresponding patent) is attached. Ex. 1003 (Sakata
`
`I); Ex. 1010 (Sakata ’512 patent). The translation shows that the publication
`
`discloses an embodiment where, if a user “touches a desired character” key and
`
`then “immediately” ceases to touch the character, the Sakata I invent