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. 8,749,507
`Filing Date: April 6, 2012
`Issue Date: June 10, 2014
`
`Title: Systems And Methods For Adaptive Interpretation Of
`Input From A Touch-Sensitive Input Device
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDY COCKBURN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507
`Filing Date: April 6, 2012
`Issue Date: June 10, 2014
`
`Title: Systems And Methods For Adaptive Interpretation Of
`Input From A Touch-Sensitive Input Device
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDY COCKBURN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`B.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 5
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ............................................................... 6
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ......................................................... 7
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ......................................................... 8
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’507 PATENT ......................................................... 11
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent ............................................................... 11
`B.
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History ................................................. 14
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 14
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent ..................... 15
`E.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 15
`F.
`The ’507 Patent Claims ...................................................................... 24
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ......................................................................................... 26
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,590,568 to Astala (“Astala”) ................................. 26
`B. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0033795 to Shahoian
`(“Shahoian”) ....................................................................................... 27
`Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis .................................................... 28
`C.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - 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 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the “’507 patent”).
`
`2.
`
` I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $475 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this investigation or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached as Appendix A. I am a
`
`Professor at the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering at the
`
`University of Canterbury, New Zealand. I also currently head the HCI (Human-
`
`Computer Interaction) and Multi-Media research group at the University of
`
`Canterbury.
`
`4.
`
`In 1988, I was awarded a Bachelor of Science with Honors in
`
`Computer Science from the University of York, England.
`
`5.
`
`In 1993, I was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Stirling,
`
`Scotland. My thesis was on “Computer Supported Cooperative Work” which
`
`relates to forms of group interaction supported on computers.
`
`6.
`
`In 1993, I joined the University of Canterbury as a Lecturer in the
`
`Department of Computer Science (now the Department of Computer Science and
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Software Engineering). I was subsequently promoted to a Senior Lecturer, and
`
`then an Associate Professor, before my appointment as a Professor in 2010. I
`
`currently hold the title of Professor.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience in the area of HCI (Human-
`
`Computer Interaction). The field of HCI generally is concerned with ways of
`
`understanding and improving the interaction between humans and computers, with
`
`a view to understanding, evaluating, designing, and building new styles of
`
`interactions that improve on one or more of the end goals of making computers
`
`faster to learn, more intuitive, more efficient to use, and more subjectively
`
`satisfying.
`
`8.
`
`Throughout my career, I have published the results of many research
`
`projects that have involved building new user interfaces or reviewing existing user
`
`interfaces for performing a particular task, and evaluating their effectiveness. This
`
`includes publications relating to:
`
`(a)
`
`investigating user experiences with web navigation interfaces, for
`
`example when using the “back” button on web browsers;
`
`(b)
`
`reviewing and improving various interface schemes for traversing
`
`through documents in computer applications, including zooming,
`
`scrolling, and other techniques;
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 4
`
`
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`analyzing new interfaces for text entry on mobile and touch-sensitive
`
`devices;
`
`(d)
`
`addressing the problems arising from the small form factor of mobile
`
`devices with touch-sensitive displays;
`
`(e)
`
`examining the influence of haptic feedback on user performance with
`
`mouse and touchscreen input devices; and
`
`(f)
`
`evaluating the importance of spatially stable displays in user
`
`interfaces.
`
`9.
`
`I also have extensive experience in designing and building new user
`
`interfaces and reviewing existing user interfaces. This includes a number of
`
`projects regarding the design, development and evaluation of user interfaces that I
`
`have undertaken with companies in the computing and HCI industry, such as:
`
`(a) working with Airbus SAS in 2016 on methods to assist pilot
`
`interaction with touchscreens in turbulent environments;
`
`(b) working with Hewlett-Packard Research Labs from 2010-2012 on the
`
`design and evaluation of pointing techniques for remote displays, such
`
`as interactive TVs;
`
`(c)
`
`a number of projects from 2006-2010 working with Logitech on the
`
`design, development, evaluation and improvement of user interfaces
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 5
`
`
`
`
`
`for next generation mice, including in relation to scrolling and
`
`window management tasks;
`
`(d) working with IBM Almaden Research in 2006 on the design,
`
`development and evaluation of user interfaces for touch-sensitive text
`
`entry on mobile devices;
`
`(e) working with Digit Wireless in 2002 on the evaluation of user
`
`performance for user interfaces for digital text entry on mobile
`
`devices; and
`
`(f) working with Microsoft Research in 1999 on the development,
`
`evaluation and improvement of user interfaces for web browsing, in
`
`particular the mechanisms for revisiting pages (such as through the
`
`“back” button or bookmarks).
`
`10. At the University of Canterbury, I currently teach the following
`
`courses:
`
`(a)
`
`a course on introductory computer programming designed for first
`
`year students across disciplines;
`
`(b)
`
`courses on HCI for computer science students at all university levels
`
`(including honors and masters level students).
`
`
`
`4
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 6
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In the past, I have also taught a second year undergraduate course on
`
`HCI at the University of Canterbury, which included the implementation of
`
`graphical user interfaces.
`
`12.
`
`I also manage an active research lab with a number of Ph.D. students.
`
`I have previously supervised twelve students to successful completion of their
`
`Ph.D.s in the field of HCI.
`
`13.
`
`In 2015, I was elected to the ACM CHI Academy, which honors the
`
`principal leaders of the field of HCI.
`
`14.
`
`I also annually attend conferences relating to the field of HCI and
`
`regularly read journals that cover research in the field of HCI.
`
`15. A detailed list of my other professional activities, memberships, and
`
`speaking engagements is included in my CV.
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`16. 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. I
`
`have also considered the materials relating to IPR2016-01777, including the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’507 patent (Paper 1), Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 6), and the Board’s Decision Denying Institution of
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’507 patent (Paper 7).
`
`
`
`5
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 7
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18. My analysis of the materials 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
`19.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`
`7
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 9
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`27.
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 10
`
`
`
`
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 11
`
`
`
`
`
`34. 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.
`
`35.
`
`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.
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`
`
`10
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 12
`
`
`
`
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’507 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the ’507 Patent
`41. The ’507 patent is directed to systems and methods for interpreting
`
`inputs received from a touch-sensitive input device. Ex. 1101 at 1:25-27. In the
`
`
`
`11
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 13
`
`
`
`
`
`only illustrated embodiment of the system, the touch-sensitive input device is a
`
`touchpad 102. Id. at 2:39-41, Fig. 1 (shown below). Other embodiments may use
`
`other touch-sensitive input devices, such as a touch panel or touch screen. Id. at
`
`2:50-52.
`
`
`
`42. According to the ’507 patent, the touchpad 102 senses the position of
`
`a conductor (e.g., a finger) on the surface of the touchpad 102, and provides
`
`parameters for the determined position (X and Y) and pressure (Z) of the conductor
`
`to a processor 106. Ex. 1101 at 2:41-45, 3:51-52. Because the touchpad 102
`
`senses capacitance, it “does not sense an actual pressure.” Id. at 2:53. “Instead,
`
`the pressure reading from the touchpad 102 is a pseudo pressure” based on the
`
`amount of capacitance resulting from the conductor touching the touchpad 102. Id.
`
`at 2:54-60; 3:10-12. “In other embodiments, actual pressure may be sensed.” Id.
`
`at 2:60-61. “For example, in one embodiment, a touch screen with an attached
`
`explicit pressure sensor is utilized.” Id. at 2:61-63.
`
`
`
`12
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 14
`
`
`
`
`
`43. The disclosed embodiments purportedly “address the difficulties faced
`
`in attempting to determine the intent of a user based on the X, Y, and Z parameters
`
`supplied by the touchpad 102.” Ex. 1101 at 4:56-58, 2:1-3. The patent’s Figure 3
`
`shows an example of using parameters received from the touchpad 102 to detect
`
`and interpret touches on a touchpad.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3, 7:7-32, 8:5-50. I discuss Figure 3 in detail below in the section
`
`regarding claim construction.
`
`B.
`44.
`
`The ’507 Patent Prosecution History
`
`Immersion filed the application that became the ’507 patent on April
`
`6, 2012 (application serial no. 13/441,108 (the “’108 application”)). Ex. 1102 at
`
`414. The ’108 application claimed priority to an earlier non-provisional
`
`application that has a filing date of November 26, 2003. Id. at 417. During the
`
`prosecution of the ’108 application, the applicant amended the claims from their
`
`original form to overcome various rejections. See, e.g., Ex. 1102 at 43-46, 102-06,
`
`135-38.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`45. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’507 patent (i.e., November 26, 2003) would have had a
`
`Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable
`
`field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience
`
`with software engineering, touch sensitive input devices, or other relevant industry
`
`experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`
`education.
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 16
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Apple Products Accused of Infringing the ’507 Patent
`46.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC investigation
`
`involving Immersion and Apple, Immersion alleges that Apple’s iPhone 6s
`
`products infringe claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-17 of the ’507 patent. I understand from
`
`Apple counsel that Immersion provided a public claim chart purporting to show
`
`how these Apple products allegedly practice claims 1, 9, and 14 of the ’507 patent.
`
`Ex. 1105.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`47.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in an inter partes review, claims
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
`
`48.
`
`I also understand from Apple counsel that the standards used in the
`
`ITC and in a district court to interpret patent claims are different than those used by
`
`the PTO in this proceeding. I understand that the main difference is that in this
`
`proceeding, the claims are to be read as broad as reasonable, based on the
`
`specification. I understand that this may cause the claims to cover certain things in
`
`this proceeding that a court or the ITC might find are not within the scope of the
`
`claims in the court proceeding or the ITC Investigation.
`
`49. As mentioned above, I also understand from Apple counsel that in the
`
`ITC Investigation, Immersion provided the ITC with a claim chart showing how
`
`Immersion believes that the ’507 patent’s independent claims allegedly encompass
`
`
`
`15
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 17
`
`
`
`
`
`certain of Apple’s products. I also understand from Apple counsel that in the ITC
`
`Investigation, Immersion proposed constructions of certain claim terms in the ’507
`
`patent, as set forth below.
`
`Claim Term
`
`“pressure”
`(claims 1-3, 9-11, 14-16)
`
`“determining a press if ... the
`change in pressure is greater
`than a change in pressure
`threshold”
`(claims 1, 9, 14)
`
`“pseudo pressure”
`(claims 2-3, 10-11, 15-16)
`
`
`Immersion’s Proposed Construction
`from the ITC Investigation
`“application of force from a contact”
`
`“determining a press if … the change in
`pressure is greater than a static or adaptive
`threshold for the change in pressure”
`
`
`“A measure of the area of the screen
`contacted by the object”
`
`50.
`
`I understand from Apple counsel that for purposes of this proceeding,
`
`it is proper to request that Immersion be held to claim constructions that are as
`
`broad as those that Immersion has publicly set forth in its claim charts and
`
`proposed constructions in the ITC investigation. I therefore have considered these
`
`materials in reaching my conclusions about what the claim terms mean.
`
`51.
`
`I also understand that in the ITC Investigation, the Chief ALJ has
`
`construed certain terms of the ’507 patent, as set forth below.
`
`Claim Term
`
`“pressure”
`(claims 1-3, 9-11, 14-16)
`
`
`
`
`The Chief ALJ’s Construction
`
`“application of force from a contact”
`
`16
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 18
`
`
`
`
`
`“determining that a press has occurred if …
`the magnitude of the change in pressure
`(positive or negative) is greater than a static
`or adaptive threshold for the change in
`pressure”
`
`“an indirect measure of pressure”
`
`“determining a press if ... the
`change in pressure is greater
`than a change in pressure
`threshold”
`(claims 1, 9, 14)
`
`“pseudo pressure”
`(claims 2-3, 10-11, 15-16)
`
`
`
`52.
`
`I understand from Apple counsel that for purposes of this proceeding,
`
`it is proper to request that Immersion be held to claim construction that are at least
`
`as broad as these constructions. I therefore assume that these claim terms are at
`
`least this broad for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`53.
`
`In the table below, I provide a scope of construction for certain claim
`
`terms based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification,
`
`Immersion’s proposed construction from the ITC Investigation, the Chief ALJ’s
`
`claim constructions, and/or Immersion’s apparent belief regarding the scope of the
`
`claim terms from its infringement contentions.
`
`Claim Term
`“pressure”
`(claims 1-3, 9-
`11, and 14-16)
`
`Scope of Construction
`Includes an application
`of force from a contact.
`
`Citations
`Ex. 1107 (Claim Construction Order)
`at 49-50.
`
`Ex. 1106 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 2 (Immersion
`contending that “pressure” in the ’507
`patent should be construed as
`“application of force from a contact”).
`
`Ex. 1105 (Immersion’s infringement
`contentions) at 39-40, 57-58, 66-67
`
`
`
`17
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 19
`
`
`
`
`
`“determining
`a press if …
`the change in
`pressure is
`greater than a
`change in
`pressure
`threshold”
`(claims 1, 9,
`and 14)
`
`“gesture”
`(claims 1, 9,
`and 14)
`
`“pseudo
`pressure”
`(claims 2, 10,
`and 15)
`
`Includes determining a
`press if … the change in
`pressure is greater than
`a static or adaptive
`threshold for the change
`in pressure.
`
`Includes interactions
`with the input device
`made using a finger or
`stylus
`
`Includes any indirect
`measure of pressure,
`any measure of pressure
`based on capacitance,
`and “a measure of the
`area of the screen
`contacted by the object”
`
`
`
`18
`
`(Immersion contending that “force”
`satisfies the limitations reciting
`“determining a pressure,” “the
`pressure is greater than a pressure
`threshold,” and “the change in
`pressure is greater than a change in
`pressure threshold”).
`
`Ex. 1107 (Claim Construction Order)
`at 56 (showing Immersion’s proposed
`construction).
`
`Ex. 1106 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 3 (Immersion
`contending that this limitation should
`be construed in this manner).
`
`Ex. 1101 (the ’507 patent) at 3:48-50,
`5:54-57 (stating that a user of the
`claimed system may be interacting
`with the system using “a pointing
`device,” such as “a stylus.”)
`
`Ex. 1107 (Claim Construction Order)
`at 56 (“an indirect measure of
`pressure”).
`
`Ex. 1101 (the ’507 patent) at 3:10-14
`(stating that “the pseudo pressure is
`based on the amount of capacitance
`resulting from the conductor touching
`the touchpad 102” and that “the
`amount of capacitance is not a direct
`measure of pressure but rather a
`pseudo pressure.”).
`
`Ex. 1106 (Immersion’s proposed
`constructions) at 2 (stating that
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“pseudo-pressure” be construed as “a
`measure of the area of the screen
`contacted by the object.”)
`
`
`1.
`
`“determining a press if: the pressure is greater than a
`pressure threshold, the change in pressure is greater than a
`change in pressure threshold, and a first interval has
`elapsed” (claims 1, 9, and 14)
`54. The limitation “determining a press if: the pressure is greater than a
`
`pressure threshold, the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure
`
`threshold, and a first interval has elapsed” recites three criteria used to determine a
`
`press: (1) the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold; (2) the change in
`
`pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold; and (3) a first interval has
`
`elapsed. Ex. 1101 at, e.g., claim 1.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that the Board previously found that “the first two
`
`conditions [of the “determining a press if” limitation] must be maintained for the
`
`duration of the first interval.” Decision at 4; see also id. at 14-15 (“the other two
`
`conditions—i.e., the pressure exceeds the pressure threshold, and the change in
`
`pressure is greater than the change threshold—must be maintained for the duration
`
`of the first interval before a press is determined”).
`
`56.
`
`I disagree with the Board’s construction.
`
`57. The ’507 patent claims recite using three independent criteria, listed
`
`above, to determine whether a press has occurred. The actual words of the claims
`
`
`
`19
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 21
`
`
`
`
`
`do not specify that the first two criteria must both be maintained for the entire
`
`duration of the first interval. For example, the actual words of the claims do not
`
`recite, “the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold while a first interval has
`
`elapsed.”
`
`58. Nor does the specification disclose an embodiment that requires the
`
`first two claimed criteria to be maintained for the duration of the claimed first
`
`interval to determine a press.
`
`59. For example, in Figure 3, the system can start the tick count in step
`
`316 (indicating the beginning of the interval), follow the “YES” branch of step 320
`
`to step 322, branch “NO” in step 322 (indicating that the change in pressure is not
`
`greater than the change in pressure threshold), loop back to step 302, follow the
`
`“YES” branch to step 314, follow the “YES” branch to step 320, follow the “YES”
`
`branch to step 322, follow the “YES” branch to step 324 (indicating that the
`
`change in pressure is now greater than the change in pressure threshold), and
`
`follow the “YES” branch of step 324 (indicating that the first interval has elapsed)
`
`to state 326, indicating that a press has occurred. Ex. 1101 at Fig. 3. In this
`
`scenario, the change in pressure was not greater than the change in pressure
`
`threshold for part of the first interval, yet the system determined that a press had
`
`occurred. Thus, Figure 3 does not mandate that the first two criteria must be
`
`maintained for the duration of the first interval. Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 22
`
`
`
`
`
`60. As a second example, in Figure 3, assume that the claimed “first
`
`interval” is one second and that the process of Figure 3 executes 80 times per
`
`second, consistent with the patent’s disclosure of a sampling frequency of 80 Hz.
`
`Ex. 1101 at 5:59-61, 9:3-4. The system may first start the tick count in step 316
`
`(indicating the beginning of the interval). The system may then follow the “YES”
`
`branch from step 320 to step 322, branch “NO” in step 322 (indicating that the
`
`change in pressure is not greater than the change in pressure threshold), loop back
`
`to step 302, follow the “YES” branch to step 314, follow the “YES” branch to step
`
`320, follow the “YES” branch to step 322, and again branch “NO” in step 322
`
`(indicating that the change in pressure is still not greater than the change in
`
`pressure threshold). The system may repeat this loop 80 times (or more), for the
`
`entire duration of the first interval. The change in pressure may then become
`
`greater than the change in pressure threshold, such that step 322 branches “YES”
`
`to step 324. Because the first interval of one second has elapsed, step 324 will
`
`branch “YES” to state 326, indicating that a press has occurred. In this scenario,
`
`the change in pressure was not greater than the change in pressure threshold at any
`
`time during the first interval, yet the system determined that a press had occurred.
`
`61. These examples are not just corner cases. Figure 3 shows that it
`
`requires that a change in pressure exceed a change in pressure threshold in only
`
`one instance because the embodiment of Figure 3 tests for the condition of whether
`
`
`
`21
`
`APPLE INC.
`EXHIBIT 1110 - PAGE 23
`
`
`
`
`
`the first interval has elapsed at step 324, only after an instance in which a change in
`
`pressure has exceeded a change in pressure threshold at step 322. As a
`
`consequence of this arrangement, step 322 can result in a “no” decision any
`
`number of times after the first tick count has started at step 316 (i.e., during the
`
`first interval), but even a single instance in which step 322 results in a “yes”
`
`decision after the first interval has elapsed at step 324 is sufficient to determine
`
`that a press has occurred at box 326.
`
`62. For all of the reasons discussed above, Figure 3 does not mandate that
`
`the first two criteria must be maintained for the duration of the first interval. Nor
`
`does anything else in the rest of the specification.
`
`63.
`
`In addition, the Board’s construction is vague because it is not clear
`
`what it means for a change in pressure to be greater than a change in pressure
`
`threshold for the duration of the first interval. For example, this requirement may
`
`mean any of the following: (1) the difference between the first pressure of the
`
`interval and the last pressure of the interval is greater than the threshold; (2) each
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
