UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571
`Filing Date: February 21, 2013
`Issue Date: February 25, 2014
`Title: Interactivity Model for Shared Feedback on Mobile Devices
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. V. MICHAEL BOVE IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,659,571
`
`
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. VV. Michael Bove, Jr., do hereby declare annd state, thaat all statemments madde
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`herein oof my own knowledgge are true, and that aall statemennts made oon informattion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and beliief are beliieved to bee true; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`further thaat these staatements wwere made wwith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the knowwledge thaat willful fafalse statemments and thhe like so
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`made are ppunishablee by
`
`
`
`
`
`18 of the UUnited Staates
`
`
`
`
`
`fine or iimprisonmment, or botth, under SSection 10001 of Title
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Febb. _12___, 2017
`
`
`
`D
`
`
`
` Dr. VV. Michaell Bove , Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85506.2
`WEST\27528
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 2
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING OPINION ........................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ................................................................................. 5
`B.
`Legal Standards for Priority Date .......................................................................... 6
`C.
`Legal Standards for Inventorship ........................................................................... 7
`D.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ........................................................................... 8
`E.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness........................................................................... 9
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND / STATE OF THE ART .......................................... 13
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’571 PATENT ............................................................................. 14
`A.
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................................... 15
`B.
`The ’571 Patent Prosecution History ................................................................... 17
`C.
`IPR2016-01372 .................................................................................................... 19
`D.
`Priority Date ......................................................................................................... 20
`E.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.............................................................. 21
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................. 23
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................................... 26
`IX.
`ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................. 26
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg (“Rosenberg ’373”) ............................. 26
`B.
`Rosenberg ’373 in Combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 to
`Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’846”) ................................................................... 62
`U.S. Patent No. 7,952,566 to Poupyrev et al. (“Poupyrev”) ................................ 66
`Poupyrev in Combination with A Force Feedback Programming Primer,
`by Louis Rosenberg (1997) (“Primer”) ................................................................ 97
`Poupyrev in Combination with Canadian Patent App. No. 2,059,893 A1
`(“Tecot”) ............................................................................................................ 100
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 106
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`X.
`
`WEST\275285506. 2i
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571.
`
`Declaration of expert Dr. V. Michael Bove Jr. (“Bove Decl.”).
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’373”).
`
`Reserved.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,429,846 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg ’846”).
`
`File history of U.S. Patent App. No. 13/472,698 (the “’698
`application”).
`
`Excerpts from Barron’s Dictionary of Mathematics Terms, 3rd ed.
`(2009).
`
`Excerpts from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language, 5th ed. (2011).
`
`Reserved.
`
`Reserved.
`
`Reserved.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,952,566 to Poupyrev et al. (“Poupyrev”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,281,651 to Hanpaa et al.
`
`Canadian Pat. App. 2,059,893 to Tecot (“Tecot”).
`
`Excerpt from Canadian Patent Office Record (Vol. 127, No. 18,
`May 1999).
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 4
`
`

`

`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`A FORCE FEEDBACK PROGRAMMING PRIMER, Louis Rosenberg
`(1997).
`“Synaptics TouchPad Interfacing Guide” (Document No. 510-
`
`000080-A; Rev. 2.5) (“Synaptics”)
`
`1019
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for Synaptics Web Page
`
`http://www.synaptics.com/support/dev_support.cfm
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`iii
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 5
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Victor Michael Bove, Jr., Ph.D., and I have been retained
`
`by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`I previously submitted a report in U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Investigation Nos. 990 and 1004 on behalf of Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility,
`
`LLC. (collectively, “Respondents”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions about the patentability of
`
`claims 1-7 and 23-29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 (the “’571 patent”). My
`
`opinions and related analysis are contained in this declaration. Previously, I was
`
`asked by counsel for Respondents to analyze the ’571 patent which was asserted by
`
`Patent Owner Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) in U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission Investigation Nos. 990 and 1004. I was asked to form and express
`
`opinions on the validity of each asserted claim for the ’571 patent. My opinions
`
`and related analysis were contained in the report I submitted in the ITC
`
`investigations.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $700/hour for the
`
`time I spend on this matter. My compensation is not dependent on the opinions I
`
`render nor the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I previously submitted two declarations in the ITC Investigations
`
`regarding the proper construction of certain claim terms in the ’571 patent. On
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 6
`
`

`

`
`
`September 23, 2016, I provided a declaration in support of Respondents’ opening
`
`Markman brief, and on October 7, 2016, I provided a declaration in support of
`
`Respondents’ reply Markman brief (collective, my “Claim Construction
`
`Declarations”).
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is substantially the same as the report I submitted in
`
`the ITC investigations. Changes have been made to reflect recent filings and a
`
`PTAB Institution decision in an inter partes review of the ’571 patent, IPR2016-
`
`01372, and to remove confidential information that was used in the ITC
`
`investigations.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of my curriculum vitae, which
`
`includes a detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards and honors, and professional activities. Relevant highlights
`
`are summarized below.
`
`7.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree in
`
`1983, a Master of Science in Visual Studies in 1985, and a Ph.D. in Media
`
`Technology in 1989, all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
`
`8.
`
`After receiving my Doctorate, I joined the faculty at MIT. From July
`
`1989 until July 1993, I was an Assistant Professor of Media Technology. In 1993,
`
`I was promoted to Associate Professor of Media Technology. I am currently a
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Media Lab, and I have held this position
`
`since July 1997.
`
`9.
`
`I have done extensive research in the fields of media technology and
`
`human computer interaction. Over the years, my research has focused on the
`
`design and implementation of software and hardware systems for a wide variety of
`
`media technologies, including interactive televisions, holographic displays,
`
`medical imaging systems, and advanced user interfaces for consumer electronic
`
`devices. I currently serve as the head of a working group at the MIT Media Lab on
`
`the topic of consumer electronics product design. My research has also involved
`
`interfaces for providing haptic feedback to users, including haptic devices such as
`
`the Phantom system and an air-vortex free-space haptic system built by my
`
`research group.
`
`10.
`
`I have supervised 9 doctoral dissertations and dozens of M.S. and B.S.
`
`student theses. I also regularly teach both at the graduate and undergraduate levels.
`
`For the past 7 years, I have taught a course focusing on the design of consumer
`
`electronic devices. I have also taught courses in the areas of digital signal
`
`processing, media design and media technology.
`
`11.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed conference
`
`and journal papers in areas including user interface, interactive media, image
`
`processing, video compression, optics, and displays. I am also a named inventor
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 8
`
`

`

`
`
`on 20 issued U.S. patents (an additional one has issued since the attached CV was
`
`last updated) and numerous pending applications.
`
`12.
`
`I believe that my extensive experience, detailed in my curriculum
`
`vitae and summarized above, qualifies me as an expert in the technical areas
`
`relevant to the subject matter of the ’571 patent.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN FORMING OPINION
`
`13. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I
`
`have considered the materials identified in this declaration and in the Petition.
`
`14.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by Immersion. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that may
`
`have not yet been provided to me.
`
`15. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on
`
`my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 9
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article
`
`published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the application date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the application date of the asserted patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent or published patent application
`
`qualifies as prior art to the asserted patent if the application for that patent was
`
`filed in the United Stated before the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 10
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Legal Standards for Priority Date
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the “priority date” of a patent is the date on which it
`
`is filed or the date on which a parent application is filed. I further understand that
`
`the priority date is significant because patents, systems, or documents that are
`
`public before the priority date may invalidate the claims.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that, for certain prior art references, a patentee may
`
`attempt to show that the claimed invention was conceived prior to the publication
`
`date of the prior art reference in an effort to overcome the prior art reference.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the patentee may prove a date of invention earlier
`
`than the filing date of the patent by showing either a date of actual reduction to
`
`practice or an earlier date of conception and continuous and reasonable diligence to
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that conception requires the formation in the mind of the
`
`inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention
`
`as it is to be thereafter applied in practice. I understand that conception must
`
`include every feature or limitation of the claimed invention. I understand that
`
`conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's
`
`mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to
`
`practice, without extensive research or experimentation. I understand that because
`
`conception is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 11
`
`

`

`
`
`contemporaneous disclosure that would enable one having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to make the invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that an actual reduction to practice requires a showing
`
`that the inventor created or constructed an embodiment that meets all of the
`
`limitations of the claimed invention. I understand that an actual reduction to
`
`practice further requires a showing that the invention would work for its intended
`
`purpose. I understand that in order to establish an actual reduction to practice,
`
`courts require evidence corroborating an inventor’s statements. I understand that
`
`an invention can also be reduced to practice by the filing of a patent, and that this
`
`type of reduction to practice is known as a constructive reduction to practice.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that to demonstrate reasonable diligence, the inventor
`
`must account for the entire period from conception until reduction to practice, and
`
`that evidence of a general nature with little specificity as to dates and facts is not
`
`sufficient to establish diligence. I understand that diligence requires that the
`
`inventor be doing the things reasonably necessary to reduce the idea to practice. I
`
`further understand that the date of invention is determined on a claim by claim
`
`basis.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Inventorship
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent is not valid if it fails to name the actual
`
`inventors of the claimed subject matter. I understand that failure to name inventors
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 12
`
`

`

`
`
`of the claimed subject matter on an issued patent, or naming individuals who are
`
`not inventors of the claimed subject matter on an issued patent may render a patent
`
`invalid.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that errors in inventorship in an issued patent may be
`
`corrected by petition to the United States Patent Office. I understand that a petition
`
`for correction of inventorship requires a statement from each person being added
`
`as an inventor and each person named as an inventor either agreeing to the change
`
`of inventorship or stating that he or she has no disagreement with the requested
`
`change.
`
`D. Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`28.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., the elements are necessarily
`
`present).
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`8
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 13
`
`

`

`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`E. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`32.
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`9
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 14
`
`

`

`
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit
`
`together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness
`
`analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`10
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 15
`
`

`

`
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
`
`the patent claim is likely obvious.
`
`40.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`11
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 16
`
`

`

`
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`43.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`44.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by preponderance of the evidence.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`12
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 17
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND / STATE OF THE ART
`
`46.
`
`“Haptics” generally refers to the creation of effects that can be
`
`perceived through the sense of touch, particularly with application to user
`
`interfaces to computational devices. The ’571 patent explains that user interfaces
`
`can be enhanced and simplified through the creation of haptic feedback such as
`
`vibration effects.1 In particular, these effects can alert users to specific events or
`
`provide physical feedback to increase the immersive property of a simulated or
`
`virtual environment.2 The component that is used in creating the physical haptic
`
`effects in electronic systems is called an actuator, and is an electromechanical
`
`device that converts electricity into motion.3
`
`47. As discussed in this section and throughout this declaration, the
`
`technology of the asserted claims was well known in the prior art. Additional
`
`details about background technologies and the state of the art before the filing of
`
`the ’571 patent can be found below. As shown below, all of the limitations and
`
`technologies of the asserted claims were well known in the prior art, and the
`
`claimed combination of these technologies would have been entirely obvious to
`
`one of skill in the art.
`
`
`1 ’571 patent at 1:22-33.
`2 Id.
`3 Id. at 1:34-41.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`13
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 18
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’571 PATENT
`
`48. The ’571 patent generally relates to a user interface system that
`
`produces “dynamic haptic effects.”4 The ’571 patent specification notes that prior
`
`haptics art creates haptic feedback “only with triggered effects”5 and thus these
`
`prior art haptic interfaces “must be carefully designed to make sure the timing of
`
`the haptic feedback is correlated to user initiated gestures or system animations.”6
`
`“[B]ecause these user gestures and system animations have variable timing, the
`
`correlation to haptic feedback may be static and inconsistent and therefore less
`
`compelling to the user.”7 Accordingly the’571 patent argues that there is a need for
`
`“an improved system of providing a dynamic haptic effect that includes multiple
`
`gesture signals and device sensor signals.”8 I note that the ’571 patent specification
`
`contemplates that some device sensor signals may also be gesture signals. See,
`
`’571 patent at 3:16-18 (“A device sensor signal may be generated by any means,
`
`and typically may be generated by capturing a user gesture with a device.”)
`
`49. The ’571 patent proposes to address these purported problems and
`
`need by disclosing a system for providing “dynamic” haptic effects, i.e. “a haptic
`
`
`4 ’571 patent at Abstract, 1:15-18, 66-67.
`5 Id. at 1:49-50.
`6 Id. at 1:50-52.
`7 Id. at 1:53-56.
`8 Id. at 1:58-60.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`14
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 19
`
`

`

`
`
`effect that evolves over time as it responds to one or more input parameters.”9 As a
`
`consequence, “no two gestures such as page turns or finger swipes will feel the
`
`same to the user,” and “the dynamic haptic effect will always be unique to the user
`
`gesture, thereby creating a greater sense connectedness to the device and a more
`
`compelling user interface experience for the user as compared to a simple static
`
`haptic effect provided by a trigger event.”10
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`50.
`
`I understand that the Petition in this proceeding challenges the
`
`patentability of claims 1-7 and 23-29 of the ’571 patent. Claims 1 and 23 are
`
`independent claims. The remaining challenged claims are dependent claims which
`
`each depend from claim 1 or 23. These claims are reproduced in their entirety
`
`below. (The bracketed letter designations do not appear in the original claims and
`
`are added only for clarity.)
`
`[1.pre] 1. A method of producing a haptic effect comprising:
`[1.a] receiving a first gesture signal;
`[1.b] receiving a second gesture signal;
`[1.c] generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal; and
`[1.d] applying a drive signal to a haptic output device according to the
`dynamic interaction parameter.
`
`
`9 Id. at 2:65-67; see also 1:66-2:5.
`10 Id. at 10:62-11:3.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`15
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 20
`
`

`

`
`
`[2] The method of claim 1 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises a vector signal.
`
`[3] The method of claim 1 wherein the first or second gesture signal
`comprises an on-screen signal.
`
`[4] The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter from a
`difference between the first gesture signal and the second gesture signal.
`
`[5] The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the
`first gesture signal and the second gesture signal and a physical model.
`
`[6] The method of claim 1 wherein generating a dynamic interaction
`parameter comprises generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the
`first gesture signal and the second gesture signal and an animation.
`
`[7.pre] The method of claim 1 further comprising:
`[7.a] receiving a first device sensor signal;
`[7.b] receiving a second device sensor signal; and
`[7.c] wherein generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and
`the second gesture signal and the first device sensor signal and the second
`device sensor signal.
`
`[23.pre] A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions
`stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to
`produce a haptic effect, the instructions comprising:
`[23.a] receiving a first gesture signal;
`[23.b] receiving a second gesture signal;
`[23.c] generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first
`gesture signal and the second gesture signal; and
`[23.d] applying a drive signal to a haptic output device according to
`the dynamic interaction parameter.
`
`[24] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein the
`first or second gesture signal comprises a vector signal.
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`16
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`[25] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein the
`first or second gesture signal comprises an on-screen signal.
`
`[26] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter from a difference between the first gesture signal and
`the second gesture signal.
`
`[27] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and the second gesture
`signal and a physical model.
`
`[28] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises generating a dynamic
`interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and the second gesture
`signal and an animation.
`
`[29.pre] The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 23, further
`comprising:
`[29.a] receiving a first device sensor signal;
`[29.b] receiving a second device sensor signal; and
`[29.c] wherein generating a dynamic interaction parameter comprises
`generating a dynamic interaction parameter using the first gesture signal and
`the second gesture signal and the first device sensor signal and the second
`device sensor signal.
`
`B. The ’571 Patent Prosecution History
`
`51. The ’571 patent was filed on February 21, 2013, as a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 13/592,685, filed on August 23, 2012.11 The ’685
`
`application eventually issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,493,354.
`
`
`11 ’571 patent, Cover at [21] and [63].
`
`WEST\275285506.2
`
`17
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1002 - PAGE 22
`
`

`

`
`
`52. The ’571 patent lists 4 inventors, David Birnbaum, Chris Ullrich,
`
`Jason Short and Ryan Devenish.12
`
`53. The claims of the ’571 patent originally appeared in a previously filed
`
`application, U.S. Patent App. No. 13/472,698 (the “’698 application”).13 The ’698
`
`application was filed on May 16, 2012, and also assigned to Immersion. However,
`
`the ’571 patent and ’698 application patent families are unrelated. The ’571 patent
`
`is not a continuation, continuation-in-part, or division of the ’698 application or
`
`any of its descendants, and there are no common patent applications in the ’698
`
`and ’571 patent families. In fact, the ’698 application lists a different set of named
`
`inventors, David Birnbaum, Chris Ullrich, Danny Grant and Juan Manual Cruz-
`
`Hernandez. Thomas Hassing prosecuted both the ’571 patent and the ’698
`
`application on behalf of Immersion.14
`
`54. The Examiner of the ’698 application, Grant Sitta, rejected these ’698
`
`claims as being anticipated or obvious in