`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356
`Filing Date: January 31, 2012
`Issue Date: July 8, 2014
`Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile Sensations
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RICHARD T. MIHRAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1101
`1102
`1103
`
`1112
`1113
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356 (“’356 patent”)
`Reserved.
`Administrative Judge’s Construction of Terms ITC Investigation No.
`337-TA-1004
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356
`1104
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/335,493 (“First Provisional”)
`1105
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/399,883 (“Second Provisional”)
`1106
`1107 WO 2002/12991 A1 (“Fukumoto WO”)
`1108
`Translation of WO 2002/12991 A1 Fukumoto WO
`1109
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0149561 (“Fukumoto US”)
`1110
`Japanese Published Application No. H11-212725
`1111
`Translation of Japanese Published Application No. H11-212725
`(“Tsuji”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US2008/0068350 (“Rosenberg 350”).
`IBM Model M Keyboard Release, April 1986 (available at http://www-
`01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/
`8/877/ENUSZG86-4008/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en)
`(“IBM Release”)
`IBM Model M Keyboard Photograph
`https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/IBM_Model_M
`.png
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,575,576 (“Roysden”)
`
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`WEST\275305286.1 i
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the patentability of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356 (the “’356 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $600 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this matter or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`I am a Professor Adjunct in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where I have been
`
`on the faculty since 1990. I teach a wide variety of classes at the undergraduate
`
`and graduate level covering general electrical and computer engineering theory and
`
`practice, including circuit theory, microelectronics, signal processing, and medical
`
`devices and systems. Many of these classes incorporate both lecture and
`
`laboratory components that include hardware and software design.
`
`5.
`
`Courses I have taught include topics such as analog and digital circuit
`
`theory and design, microelectronics, signal processing, radio-frequency
`
`identification devices, miniaturized implantable medical devices incorporating
`
`embedded systems, and optics and optical electronics, including semiconductor
`WEST\275305286.1
`1
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`laser diodes, Fourier optics, non-linear optics, optical sensors, and wave
`
`propagation in optical fibers. Many of these courses include components directly
`
`related to the design and implementation of portable electronic devices such as
`
`smartphones and computers, as well as subject matter relating to haptic feedback
`
`that may be used in such devices. These courses further include components and
`
`concepts directly relevant to electronic devices and systems and their interfaces
`
`with other devices, including communications networks, general principles of
`
`wired and wireless RF communications, and data signal modulation and encoding
`
`in a variety of applications.
`
`6.
`
`The devices and methods claimed in the ’356 patent encompass
`
`several technology areas, including the basic architecture of smart
`
`devices/embedded systems (controller, memory, display, data structures, etc.),
`
`general principles of tactile feedback (physiology of human tactile perception, such
`
`as sensitivity to vibration frequency/amplitude), haptic actuators and drive signals
`
`(e.g. piezoelectric and voice-coil actuators and control of their signal sources), and
`
`the integration of these elements within the context of the user interface.
`
`7. With respect to basic embedded systems implementation, I have been
`
`involved in microcontroller-based designs of portable data acquisition, processing
`
`and computing devices for over 35 years, utilizing commercial microprocessors
`
`manufactured by Intel, Motorola, Zilog, Microchip, among others. These devices
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`generally included various forms of displays and user interfaces as part of their
`
`implementation, along with various sensors and actuators. Research projects I
`
`have directed involving microprocessor-based systems include the development of
`
`embedded system biosensor and immunoassay devices, radar signal processing
`
`devices, spread-spectrum data telemetry devices, and microprocessor-controlled
`
`drug infusion devices utilizing various mechanical actuators.
`
`8. With respect to the integration of tactile feedback with electronic
`
`devices, I have an extensive background in neuroscience and electrophysiology,
`
`including performing research on the effects of various forms of mechanical
`
`stimuli on nerve cells. This research included the development of systems to
`
`deliver low-level mechanical stimuli to neural and other tissues using both direct
`
`mechanical/vibratory stimulation, as well as mechanical stimuli delivered using
`
`pulsed acoustic/ultrasonic stimuli. This work included the design and
`
`implementation of the mechanical actuators, including voice-coil and piezoelectric
`
`actuators, to deliver the mechanical stimuli to the neural tissue over a broad range
`
`of frequencies and amplitudes.
`
`9.
`
`I have further taught courses at the undergraduate and graduate level
`
`in basic neuronal electrophysiology, as well as the development of implantable
`
`medical devices with neural interfaces, including cochlear and retinal implants,
`
`spinal cord stimulation devices, and motor neuron stimulation devices for
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES).
`
`10. As part of my faculty role at the University of Colorado, I participate
`
`in the supervision of doctoral research performed by graduate students as part of
`
`obtaining their doctoral degrees, including the development of a haptic interfaces
`
`and communications for providing touch/tactile feedback for virtual environments
`
`during the late 1990’s.
`
`11. Many of these research projects have further involved the
`
`development of devices utilized in systems for acquiring, processing, storing and
`
`retrieving data, as well as computational algorithms and analytical techniques
`
`implemented in both software and firmware on a variety of computing platforms,
`
`including embedded microprocessor systems and personal computers (PCs). I am
`
`an inventor on three issued U.S. patents and one Canadian patent associated with
`
`some of these activities, two involving computer-based Doppler radar signal
`
`processing and data analysis, and two involving data telemetry utilizing spread
`
`spectrum wireless links and database analysis systems for agricultural
`
`management.
`
`12. Since obtaining my Ph.D. in 1990, I have actively consulted in
`
`industry in many areas of technology development, analysis and assessment,
`
`directed to both product development and analysis of intellectual property
`
`portfolios, patent infringement and validity. The fields of technology in which I
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`4
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`have consulted and/or served as a technical expert include computers, storage and
`
`data systems (Hewlett Packard, Maxtor Corp.); Smart Card and Radio Frequency
`
`identification systems (HID/AssaAbloy, Inc.; Vue Technology Corp.);
`
`Smartphones, telecommunications and networking and associated devices (e.g.
`
`AT&T, Kyocera Wireless, Sierra Wireless, Nokia, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, US
`
`Cellular, Time Warner Cable, Comcast Corp., Palm, Inc., Lucent Corp., Nortel,
`
`Inc., Qwest Corp. and others); 3-D seismic data analysis and imaging software
`
`(Terraspark Geosciences, Inc.); electronic securities trading networks (Sonic
`
`Trading, Inc.); medical devices and systems (e.g. Boston Scientific, St. Jude
`
`Medical); vision-based surgical tool tracking and navigation systems (Image
`
`Guided Technologies, Inc., formerly Pixsys, Inc.); and others.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in many patent litigation matters in
`
`the areas of computers, data storage, telecommunications, medical devices, and
`
`others. I have been admitted and recognized in U.S. District Courts as a technical
`
`expert in seven separate patent trials, including most recently in a patent matter in
`
`the District of Delaware in which I served a technical expert witness addressing
`
`two patents covering RFID transponders.
`
`14.
`
`I have also previously been admitted and recognized as a technical
`
`expert by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., where I
`
`provided both a technology tutorial and subsequent testimony at trial in a patent
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`5
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`infringement complaint involving multiple patents directed to the function and
`
`design of smart phones and other portable computing devices capable of voice and
`
`data communications over cellular and other wireless networks.
`
`15.
`
`I have also been recognized and admitted in the Federal District of
`
`Colorado as a technical expert and provided testimony at trial in the field of
`
`implantable radio-frequency identification transponders and readers (District of
`
`Colorado).
`
`16.
`
`I have further been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in
`
`wireless communications in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division
`
`where I served as a technical expert witness on behalf of several manufacturers of
`
`wireless networking equipment. The accused products in that matter included
`
`PCMCIA wireless network adapters used to provide wireless connectivity to a
`
`variety of data networks, including Ethernet and cellular networks.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia in which I served as a technical expert witness on
`
`behalf of several major cellular service providers and smart phone manufacturers.
`
`The accused products in that matter included USB and PCMCIA wireless network
`
`adapters used to provide wireless Internet connectivity to computers over cellular
`
`data networks, such as GSM and CDMA based networks.
`
`18.
`
`I have also been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in the
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`6
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`Eastern District of Texas in which I served as a technical expert witness addressing
`
`patents directed to integrated microcontrollers and associated network adapter
`
`modules used to provide Ethernet communications.
`
`19.
`
`I have also been recognized and admitted in Federal District Courts as
`
`a technical expert witness and provided testimony at trial in the field of digital
`
`signal processing/optoelectronic image processing (Eastern District of Virginia),
`
`and operational algorithms executed by firmware in embedded microprocessor
`
`systems included in implantable medical devices (Southern District of Indiana).
`
`20.
`
`I received a BS in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics from
`
`Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio in 1982. I further received an
`
`MS in Electrical and Computer Engineering and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1988 and 1990, respectively.
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`21. 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.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`7
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`23. My analysis of the materials produced in this matter 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.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`24.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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 filing 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
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`8
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent 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.
`
`B.
`28.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim via anticipation or obviousness.
`
`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., necessarily present).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`32.
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`9
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`10
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`11
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`39. 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)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`12
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`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 a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`13
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’356 PATENT
`A. Technology Background
`46. As discussed in this section and throughout this report, the technology
`
`of the asserted claims was well known in the prior art.
`
`47. The ’356 patent is directed to well-known human computer
`
`interaction components and their interconnections, namely, a controller that
`
`receives a signal from an input device comprising a touchscreen, and outputs a
`
`corresponding signal to an actuator that creates a desired tactile sensation using
`
`stored haptic effect data. The asserted claims of the ’356 patent all require that the
`
`haptic effect data used to generate the actuator signal is stored in a lookup table.
`
`48. To provide background for the element-by-element analysis of the
`
`claims to follow, below I will present an overview of the state of the art existing as
`
`of the time of the alleged invention relating to computing devices having
`
`touchscreens, touchscreens coupled to actuators to provide haptic feedback, and
`
`lookup table that store haptic effect data. As I will describe below, all of these
`
`technologies and techniques for applying them to touchscreen devices to provide
`
`haptic feedback were well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention claimed in the ’356 patent, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`14
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Touchscreens were well-known and widely applied in
`computing devices at the time of the alleged invention
`49. A touchscreen that might be utilized with computing devices such as
`
`smart phones, PDAs, tablets, and the like comprises a touch-sensitive surface
`
`overlaying a flat-panel display, such that contact with the display surface by an
`
`object such as a stylus or fingertip can be detected and localized with respect to
`
`icons, text, or other information appearing on the display. At the time of the
`
`alleged invention claimed in the ’356 patent, a variety of technologies were known
`
`and available for implementing touchscreen devices. While many variations of
`
`such implementations were known, among the more prevalent implementations
`
`were those using resistive, capacitive, optical, or acoustical (SAW) designs.
`
`50. Touchscreen technologies were well-known and widely deployed well
`
`before the alleged invention claimed in the ’356 patent. The ’356 patent admits in
`
`the Background section of the specification that utilizing touchscreens in
`
`computing devices such as mobile telephones and PDAs was well-known to those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention:
`
`Conventional electronic devices, such as mobile telephones and
`Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), include visual displays. A user of
`such devices interacts with the visual display using any one of a
`number of input devices. . . The user provides instructions, responses,
`and other input to the device using such input devices.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 1:30-38, (emphasis added).
`
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`15
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`When a flat surface interface device is used, such as a touchpad for a
`computer or PDA, these simple mechanical cues are unavailable to the
`user. Often, touchpads are combined with flat-panel display screens
`that display one or more graphically generated buttons or softkeys.
`Normally, the softkeys are visible through the touchpad. A user's
`contact with the touchpad in an area defined by a softkey provides the
`electronic device having the touchpad with the input associated with
`that softkey.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 1:62-2:3, (emphasis added).
`
`51. The fact that touchscreen technology was well-known and widely
`
`used in computing devices prior to the alleged invention is further demonstrated by
`
`its disclosure in prior art references, as well as its utilization in commercial
`
`devices.
`
`52. A further example demonstrating that touchscreen devices were well
`
`known prior to the invention claimed in the ’356 patent is found in Tsuji:
`
`Devices where a touch panel is arranged on a display are in wide
`use as one type of information display device having an operation
`input function. Touch panels are extremely thin, and have the
`advantage of providing a high degree of freedom for selecting an area
`that can be used as a switch.
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0002], (emphasis added).
`
`53. One of the embodiments of the system disclosed in Tsuji comprises an
`
`Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) having a touchscreen, as shown in Figure 1.
`
`This figure, along with accompanying description of its touchscreen, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`16
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1111 at Figure 1.
`
`
`FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an automatic teller machine (ATM) 1
`as an example of a system incorporating an information display
`device 100 of a first embodiment of the present invention. The
`automatic teller machine 1 is provided with a cashier section 3 and a
`card and bank passbook insertion section 4 on a front surface of a
`chassis 2. The machine is also provided with an information input
`and output section 5, and the information display device 100 is used
`in the information input and output section 5.
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0041], (emphasis added).
`
`54. A further embodiment of the system disclosed in Tsuji comprises a
`
`hand-held information display device having a touchscreen, as shown in Figure 17.
`
`This figure, along with accompanying description of its touchscreen, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`FIG. 17 is a perspective drawing of the exterior of an information
`display device 200 according to a third embodiment of the present
`invention.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`17
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0040].
`
`The operating regions R1 through R4 displayed by the liquid crystal
`display panel are visible through the operating surface 11 in FIG.
`17. Typically, these operating regions R1 through R4 are displayed
`along both sides of the operating surface. An operator grips the
`housing 201 by both sides, as illustrated by the broken lines in FIG.
`17, and performs operations by pressing these operating regions R1
`through R4 with his/her thumbs. When the position of this pressing
`operation is sensed, if the pressing force thereof is larger than a
`predetermined threshold, the operation input is accepted, a displayed
`object 210 (FIG. 18) on a screen changes, and the operating surface
`11 is vibrated or slightly displaced based on a predetermined mode.
`The operation at this point is the same as in the first and second
`embodiments.
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0146], (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1111 at Figure 17.
`
`55. A further example from prior art demonstrating that touchscreen
`
`devices were well known prior to the invention claimed in the ‘356 patent is found
`WEST\275305286.1
`18
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`in Fukumoto. Fukumoto discloses a touch sensitive input device configured to
`
`output a sensor signal indicating an object contacting the touch-sensitive input
`
`device. This is shown, for example, in Figure 1 of Fukumoto, which is reproduced
`
`below, along with accompanying description of its touchscreen:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1109 at Figure 1.
`
`FIG. 1 is a perspective view illustrating the appearance of a PDA 10
`according to a first embodiment of the present invention. In the figure,
`a transparent touch panel 102 is overlaid on a display screen of a
`liquid crystal display panel 103a covering an opening of a main case
`101. A user inputs operation instructions to the PDA 10 by touching
`the touch panel 102 by his or her fingertip.
`
`Ex. 1109 at [0146].
`
`b.
`
`The use of haptic effects with touchscreens to provide haptic
`feedback was well-known in computing devices at the time
`of the alleged invention
`56. As shown above, the use of touchscreens of various forms and designs
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`19
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, and had been described extensively in the literature, as well as utilized
`
`in commercial devices such as smart phones, PDAs, and tablet computing devices.
`
`57. Moreover, the use of haptic effects in conjunction with such
`
`touchscreens to provide haptic feedback to a user was also well known to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. This is supported by
`
`the ’356 patent itself, as well as demonstrated by the disclosures of Tsuji and
`
`Fukumoto.
`
`58. The prior art is also replete with disclosures of the use of haptic
`
`effects in conjunction with touch screens to provide tactile feedback in a variety of
`
`computing devices. For example, Tsuji demonstrates that touchscreen devices
`
`capable of providing haptic feedback were well known prior to the invention
`
`claimed in the ’356 patent:
`
`Devices where a touch panel is arranged on a display are in wide use
`as one type of information display device having an operation input
`function. Touch panels are extremely thin, and have the advantage of
`providing a high degree of freedom for selecting an area that can be
`used as a switch.
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0002], (emphasis added).
`
`59.
`
` One of the embodiments of the system disclosed in Tsuji comprises a
`
`hand-held information display device having a touchscreen which provides haptic
`
`effects in response to user interaction with displayed graphical objects, and is
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`20
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`shown in Figures 17-18. These figures, along with accompanying description of
`
`haptic feedback provided to a user contacting the touchscreen, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`FIG. 17 is a perspective drawing of the exterior of an information display
`
`device 200 according to a third embodiment of the present invention.
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0040]
`
`The operating regions R1 through R4 displayed by the liquid crystal
`display panel are visible through the operating surface 11 in FIG. 17.
`Typically, these operating regions R1 through R4 are displayed along
`both sides of the operating surface. An operator grips the housing 201
`by both sides, as illustrated by the broken lines in FIG. 17, and
`performs operations by pressing these operating regions R1 through
`R4 with his/her thumbs. When the position of this pressing operation
`is sensed, if the pressing force thereof is larger than a predetermined
`threshold, the operation input is accepted, a displayed object 210
`(FIG. 18) on a screen changes, and the operating surface 11 is vibrated
`or slightly displaced based on a predetermined mode. The operation at
`this point is the same as in the first and second embodiments.
`
`WEST\275305286.1
`
`
`21
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1102 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`Ex. 1111 at [0146], (emphasis added).
`
`60. Thus, as further demonstrated by Tsuji and summarized above, use of
`
`actuators coupled to a touchscreen to generate haptic effects and to provide haptic
`
`feedback to a user as they contact the screen while interacting with objects
`
`displayed on the touchscreen was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention claimed in the ’356 patent.
`
`61. A further example demonstrating that touchscreen devices capable of
`
`providing haptic feedback were well known prior to the invention claimed in the
`
`’356 patent is found in Fukumoto. Fukumoto discloses a touch sensitive input
`
`device configured to output a sensor signal indicating an object contacting the
`
`touch-sensitive input device, and generate haptic feedback in response. This is
`
`shown, for example, in Figure 1 of Fukumoto, which is reproduced below, along
`
`with acco