`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01310
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF IMMERSION CORPORATION’S
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p1
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`I, Daniel Wigdor, declare as follows:
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Daniel Wigdor. I have been engaged by Immersion
`
`Corporation (“Immersion”) as an expert in connection with matters raised in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (the
`
`“‘507 patent”) filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`3.
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a
`
`list of publications, awards, and professional activities, is contained in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2002.
`
`4.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of
`
`Toronto, where I have appointments in the Department of Computer Science, the
`
`Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, as well as in the
`
`Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. I am also the co-director of
`
`the Dynamic Graphics Project (DGP) at the University of Toronto. I am also a
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p2
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`Visiting Associate Professor of computer science at Cornell University. I have
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`several years of industry experience in user interface and Human-Computer
`
`Interaction (HCI) as a User Experience Architect at Microsoft. I was also a
`
`cofounder of Iota Wireless, a start-up dedicated to text-entry techniques for mobile
`
`phones, and of Tactual Labs, a startup focused on commercializing my research in
`
`mobile device input sensing and architectures. At the DGP, I work in the area of
`
`Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), specializing in the design and development of
`
`platforms for modern, post-WIMP (“windows, icons, menus, pointer”) user
`
`interfaces. Researchers in this field focus on developing effective and efficient
`
`user interfaces without the use of traditional WIMP or Windows-based interface
`
`elements. These require the development of new computer software and hardware,
`
`with dual foci on both graphical and physical user interface technologies. My
`
`approach is to utilize interdisciplinary research methods to bring new insights in
`
`perceptual, cognitive, and motor abilities to the development of intuitive and useful
`
`technology artefacts, as well as to the development of user interface technology
`
`architectures and development methods. Over the last five years, one of my major
`
`projects has been the creation of immersive experiences simulating physical
`
`feelings of interactions with real world objects. This has included the development
`
`of methods for the detection of gestures input to sensors such as 3D cameras,
`
`traditional computer vision-based tools, and capacitive touch screens, and, in
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p3
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`response to those gestures, generating haptic effects, using technologies such as
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`vibro-motors, pneumatic shape-changing objects, or robotics.
`
`5.
`
`In 2002, I received a Bachelor’s degree (Hons) from the University of
`
`Toronto with a specialization in Human Computer Interaction, including a major-
`
`equivalent in computer science and a minor-equivalent in psychology and
`
`sociology.
`
`6.
`
`In 2004, I received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science
`
`from the University of Toronto. My work focused on mobile phone user
`
`interfaces, as well as other gesture-based systems.
`
`7.
`
`In 2008, I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University
`
`of Toronto in 2008. My Ph.D. work was focused on the design and
`
`implementation of capacitive gesture-based interactive systems, especially large
`
`table-sized touchscreens, and their integration into large control centers. Among
`
`other things, this required the development of gesture recognition methodologies
`
`and software.
`
`8.
`
`In 2011-2012 I was an Associate of the School of Engineering and
`
`Applied Sciences at Harvard University, working as a member of the Scientists’
`
`Discovery Room (SDR) Lab at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
`
`(SEAS). At the SDR Lab at Harvard, I was responsible for supervising the
`
`research projects of post-doctoral fellows in collaboration with the lab director. I
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p4
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`have taught classes at the University of Washington and the University of Toronto,
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`in both computer science and computer engineering departments. Topics include
`
`software design, algorithms, formal algorithm analysis, data structures, and human
`
`computer interaction, including the design of user interfaces for mobile phones and
`
`the design, prototyping, and construction of hardware devices.
`
`9.
`
`At Microsoft, I served over half a dozen different roles. As the
`
`architect of user experiences of Natural User Interfaces at Microsoft’s
`
`Entertainment & Devices division, I was responsible for ensuring high-quality and
`
`exciting user experiences in platform and partner applications, such as Microsoft
`
`Surface. I also served as Microsoft’s company-wide expert on Natural User
`
`Interfaces, which required that I give educational sessions for the company on the
`
`design of gesture-based systems. It also meant that I routinely consulted on the
`
`design of both software and hardware products focused on touch and gesture-based
`
`systems, such as Windows 8, Windows Phone 7, the Microsoft Kinect gesture-
`
`based gaming system, and many others. My work in Windows Phone included
`
`assisting with the development of haptic feedback mechanisms in the operating
`
`system.
`
`10.
`
`I hold Hon., B.Sc., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in computer science, and
`
`have published extensively, with about 65 peer-reviewed technical publications. I
`
`have also contributed four textbook chapters on HCI, and co-authored “Brave NUI
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p5
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture,” the first
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`practical book for the design of touch and gesture interfaces, in 2011, which has
`
`since been translated into Chinese and Korean. I have given over 80 invited talks,
`
`including 4 keynote lectures. I have won numerous awards for my research,
`
`including the prestigious Early Research Award from the Ontario Ministry of
`
`Research and Innovation (2014) and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship in
`
`Computer Science (2015).
`
`11.
`
`I have worked as an expert in several legal matters as a consulting
`
`expert and an expert witness. I have written expert reports, have had my
`
`deposition taken, and have provided trial testimony. Attached as Exhibit 2002 is
`
`my curriculum vitae, which includes a complete list of my qualifications and
`
`includes a list of matters in which I have provided expert testimony, either at
`
`deposition or at trial.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated by Immersion for my time spent in
`
`connection with this matter at a rate of $525 per hour. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the substance of my opinions, the content of this declaration or
`
`any testimony I may provide, or the outcome of the inter partes review or any
`
`other proceeding.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p6
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`13. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on the Petition
`
`and exhibits cited in the Petition, and other documents and materials identified in
`
`this declaration, including the ‘507 patent and its prosecution history, the prior art
`
`references and materials discussed in this declaration, and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`14. The Petition raises one ground of invalidity. Petition at 3. The
`
`Petitioner states that claims 1-18 of the ‘507 patent are rendered obvious by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,590,568 (“Astala”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2002/0033795 (“Shahoian”). Id.
`
`15. Based on studying the Petition and the exhibits cited in the Petition as
`
`well as other documents, it is my opinion that Astala in view of Shahoian does not
`
`render obvious any of claims 1-18 of the ‘507 patent.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Obviousness
`16.
`It is my understanding that a claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that
`
`obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual issues. I also
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p7
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and the existence
`
`of secondary consideration such as commercial success or long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘507 PATENT
`17. The ‘507 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Adaptive
`
`Interpretation of Input from a Touch-sensitive Input Device.” The patent arose out
`
`of Immersion’s work developing improved ways to interpret touch inputs from
`
`different users of a device, such as a touchscreen on a cell phone. Because of
`
`factors such as physical differences between users, different angles of finger
`
`contacts, different pressures applied by different users or between different
`
`touches, or finger movement across the touch surface during a press, it may be
`
`difficult to determine the user’s intent. Ex. 1101 at 1:55-65. The ‘507 patent
`
`addresses these difficulties by determining a gesture using additional information
`
`about a touch other than just position or pressure. For example, a press is
`
`determined 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.” Id. cl. 1. Using these criteria, the system can better determine the user’s
`
`intended gesture and provide haptic feedback in response. Id. 4:47-63.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p8
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18.
`I understand that the specification and claims must be read through
`
`the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`19. Based on my background and experience, a POSITA in the field of
`
`the ‘507 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical
`
`engineering (or other engineering discipline), computer science, or at least two
`
`years of experience working with human machine interface systems, graphical user
`
`interfaces, haptic feedback systems, or mobile devices, or equivalent embedded
`
`systems.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cockburn. See Ex. 1110 at ¶ 45. Although I do not agree
`
`with Dr. Cockburn on this point, if that level of skill were applied, it would not
`
`change my opinions regarding validity set forth in this declaration.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`21.
`I have been asked
`
`to opine on Petitioner’s proposed claim
`
`construction of the term “pseudo pressure” in claims 2, 10, and 15 of the ‘507
`
`patent. I understand that, during inter partes review, a patent claim shall be given
`
`“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” I understand that Petitioner argues that “pseudo pressure”
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p9
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`should be interpreted to include “at least all indirect measures of pressure” and that
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`any measure of pressure using “capacitance” or “resistance” is necessarily an
`
`indirect measure of pressure, or “pseudo pressure.” See Petition at 15-16, 45.
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s interpretation is not reasonable in light of
`
`the disclosure of the ‘507 patent and the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention. For example, claims 2, 10, and 15 of the ‘507 patent distinguish
`
`between “actual pressure” and “pseudo pressure.” Ex. 1101 at cls. 2, 10, 15
`
`(“wherein the contact data comprises an actual pressure and a pseudo pressure”).
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation of “pseudo pressure” is so broad as to render the claim
`
`term “actual pressure” meaningless. As a specific example, it was well known at
`
`the time of the ‘507 patent invention that actual pressure could be measured using
`
`resistive or capacitive sensors. A common technique for measuring the actual
`
`pressure applied to a surface was to place a parallel-plate capacitor under the
`
`surface and measure the change in capacitance caused by the downward deflection
`
`of the surface as pressure is applied. U.S. Patent No. 4,555,952 to Jenkins (Ex.
`
`2009) describes pressure sensors of this type as being known in the art as early as
`
`1985. See Ex. 2009 at 1:10-20 (“Pressure sensors known in the prior art generally
`
`teach a pressure or force responsive diaphragm forming one plate or electrode of a
`
`capacitor. This electrode or capacitor plate is subject to deformation, the extent of
`
`which is compared to a second electrode means or capacitive plate that is not
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p10
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`displaced.”). A POSITA would not consider this well-known pressure-sensing
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`technique to measure “pseudo pressure,” as Petitioner’s interpretation would
`
`suggest.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo
`
`pressure” in the ‘507 patent is “a measure of the area of the screen contacted by an
`
`object.” The specification explains that this measure of contact area, or “pseudo
`
`pressure,” may be useful in determining how much pressure the user is applying to
`
`the screen, because a finger pressing heavily will tend to flatten out and cover more
`
`surface area. See Ex. 1101 at 3:24-28 (“[I]f a user presses heavily against the
`
`touchpad 102 with a fleshy part of the finger, the amount of touchpad 102 area
`
`covered by the finger is greater than when the same part of the finger is touching
`
`lightly.”) (emphasis added). This interpretation covers possible implementations
`
`of “pseudo pressure” using the full range of touchpad technologies described in the
`
`‘507 patent, including capacitive and resistive sensors, provided they actually use
`
`the contact area-based “pseudo pressure” measurement technique disclosed in the
`
`‘507 patent specification. Ex. 1101 at 2:55-61 (“The touchpad 102 shown in FIG.
`
`1 utilizes capacitance, however, an embodiment of the present invention may be
`
`implemented in conjunction with any touch-sensitive input device, including
`
`resistive and membrane-switch touchpads.”).
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p11
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`
`IX. ASTALA AND SHAHOIAN DO NOT RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`CLAIMS OF THE ‘507 PATENT
`24.
`
`In general, the ‘507 patent teaches techniques for determining whether
`
`a user’s contact with a touchscreen is intended as a press, as opposed to an
`
`accidental touch or some other gesture. For example, the ‘507 patent teaches
`
`determining a press if the user applies pressure greater than a pressure threshold,
`
`the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold, and a first
`
`interval has elapsed. Ex. 1101 at cl. 1. Astala and Shahoian do not teach
`
`determining a press. Astala describes detecting certain touch inputs, but even still
`
`does not teach detecting touch inputs using the technique described in the ‘507
`
`patent for determining a press. For example, neither Astala nor Shahoian teach
`
`determining a press based on a change in pressure being greater than a change in
`
`pressure threshold.
`
`25. Unlike the ‘507 patent, Astala determines touch inputs using a simple
`
`approach derived from a traditional “mouse click” gesture – looking only at the
`
`pressure applied by the user for a period of time. Ex. 1103 at 2:32-38 (“For
`
`example, pressing a selection point for a first predetermined time period may
`
`correspond to single clicking the left button on a mouse.”).
`
`26. Astala uses this technique to detect the two touch inputs that begin
`
`and end a “drag-and-drop” sequence that the user may perform on a touchscreen
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p12
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`computer system. Ex. 1103 at 2:11-14, Figs. 1-2; 3:30-34. For example, a file can
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`be dragged and dropped into a directory folder. Astala describes how the user can
`
`“drag and drop” displayed items by proceeding through three steps: (1) the user
`
`applies pressure to an icon to select it; (2) the user reduces the applied pressure and
`
`drags the icon across the screen; and (3) the user applies pressure a second time, on
`
`the destination for the icon. Ex. 1103 at 9:3-65.
`
`27. Astala never discloses or suggests determining a touch input or press
`
`based on a change in pressure or change in pressure threshold. Astala expressly
`
`teaches that both the “first” and “second” touch inputs of its drag-and-drop
`
`sequence are determined based only on the pressure and duration of the touch. Ex.
`
`1103 at 9:27-30 (“At step 710, a determination is made that the value of the
`
`pressure z of touch input 732 is greater than a predetermined value Za over the
`
`period of time.”), 9:50-53 (“At step 716, a second touch input is detected by
`
`determining that the value of the pressure z of the object on the touch screen 70 is
`
`greater than a predetermined pressure value zB (which may be equal to zA) over a
`
`period of time.”). Every single reference in Astala to determining a touch input of
`
`any kind involves at most only those two criteria—pressure and time. Ex. 1103 at
`
`9:27-30 (first touch input), 9:50-53 (second touch input), cl. 14 (two touch inputs
`
`described in Claim 14).
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p13
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`28.
`
`I understand that Petitioner contends that a reduction (change) in
`
`
`
`pressure is required as part of the first touch input of the drag-and-drop sequence.
`
`Petition at 33-34. I disagree. Astala only looks at change in pressure after the first
`
`touch input has been determined based on pressure and time. The change in
`
`pressure requirement is used to determine whether the user intends to initiate the
`
`“dragging” mode, where the selected icon may be dragged across the touch screen
`
`to another location (such as a destination folder). In other words, after the user has
`
`“selected” an icon by performing the first touch input (based on pressure and time),
`
`then the user may initiate a “drag” by reducing the applied pressure on the selected
`
`icon. Ex. 1103 at Fig. 6(a) (step 712), 9:40-56. This is represented in Astala’s
`
`flowchart figure by step 712. Id.
`
`29. Once the user has initiated the “drag” in step 712 by reducing the
`
`applied pressure, the user may then proceed to drag the selected icon around the
`
`touchscreen by sliding his or her finger across the surface. Ex. 1103 at 9:40-56.
`
`The selected icon is then “dragged across the face of the touch screen 70 at the
`
`reduced pressure z,” i.e., following the dragging movement of the user’s finger.
`
`Ex. 1103 at 9:40-42, Fig. 6b (illustrating “drag path 734” for the selected icon).
`
`This is represented in Astala’s flowchart by step 714, “FOLLOW DRAG.” Ex.
`
`1103 at Fig. 6a (step 714). The dragging process ends when the user performs a
`
`second touch input to “drop” the icon on a destination. As with the first touch
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p14
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`input, Astala clearly explains that this second touch input is determined based only
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`on pressure and time. Ex. 1103 at 9:50-55 (“At step 716, a second touch input is
`
`detected by determining that the value of the pressure z of the object on the touch
`
`screen 70 is greater than a predetermined pressure value zB (which may be equal
`
`to zA) over a period of time t2 of the object touching the touch screen 70 which is
`
`greater than a predetermined period of time tB.”), Fig. 6a (step 716).
`
`30. A POSITA would recognize that any time a user is touching a
`
`touchscreen with variable amounts of pressure, such as when pushing down on a
`
`displayed icon, the “x,y position” values reported by the touchscreen will be
`
`constantly varying because as the finger pushes down it moves slightly on the
`
`screen. If the “drag” step in Astala were initiated solely by a change in x,y
`
`position of the finger, as I understand Petitioner contends, the result would be the
`
`system switching into “drag mode” and moving the displayed icon while the user is
`
`in the middle of trying to push on the icon to select it. This is why Astala instead
`
`describes using a reduction in pressure as a delimiter for the beginning of the
`
`“drag” step, and describes detecting this reduction in pressure in step 712, after the
`
`first touch input has been detected in step 710.
`
`31. Astala’s claim 14 describes an alternative version of the “drag-and-
`
`drop” gesture where the user can forgo the “dragging” step and simply apply
`
`pressure to an icon and then its desired destination. For example, in the claim 14
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p15
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`embodiment a user applies pressure to an icon to select it and then can, for
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`example, lift his or her finger entirely off of the screen (without dragging) and then
`
`apply pressure again on the target destination. Notably, because claim 14 contains
`
`no description of the “dragging” step, claim 14 also contains no description of
`
`detecting a reduction or change in pressure (step 712), because that step is
`
`unnecessary in an embodiment with no “dragging” step.
`
`32. A POSITA reading claim 14 and comparing it to the other claims
`
`(such as claim 1) and the embodiment described in the specification would
`
`recognize that, in Astala, the detection of a change in pressure is directly tied to
`
`detecting a “dragging” movement across the screen, such that when the “dragging”
`
`is omitted, the detection of change in pressure is also omitted. In other words, the
`
`detection of the change in pressure associated with the drag is totally independent
`
`of Astala’s detection of the first and second touch inputs (which remain in claim
`
`14).
`
`33.
`
`I understand that Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious
`
`for a POSITA to modify Astala’s system to arrive at the ‘507 patent invention.
`
`Petition at 35-36. I disagree. For example, Petitioner’s suggestion that the “drag”
`
`could instead be detected “based on finger movement,” see Petition at 36, would
`
`not have been obvious to a POSITA. A POSITA would have recognized that
`
`detecting the beginning of a “drag” movement based only on finger movement
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p16
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`would result in problems because some amount of finger movement is inevitably
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`detected during the application of pressure to a touchscreen. Such a system would
`
`prematurely detect the initiation of a “drag” while the user was still attempting to
`
`press, and so a POSITA would avoid modifying Astala to determine the “drag” in
`
`this manner.
`
`34. Furthermore, as I discussed previously, Astala’s “drag-and-drop”
`
`gesture includes both a first touch input (to select an icon) and a second touch input
`
`(to drop the icon at its destination). Astala describes both the first and second
`
`touch inputs as being performed in the same way: by applying sufficient pressure
`
`for a sufficient amount of time. A POSITA would not be motivated to modify
`
`Astala’s first touch input to require a reduction in pressure as an additional
`
`limitation, because it would be confusing for the user if the first touch input
`
`required a reduction in pressure to perform when the second touch input had no
`
`such requirement. A POSITA would generally avoid modifying a system in a way
`
`that created confusion and inconsistency for the user regarding the type of physical
`
`actions required to perform functions such as a touch input or press.
`
`35. Additionally, as I discussed previously, when Astala describes an
`
`embodiment of its invention without the “dragging” step, in claim 14, Astala also
`
`drops all references to detecting changes in pressure. Ex. 1103 at cl. 14. In this
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p17
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`regard, Astala clearly teaches a POSITA that “change in pressure” is associated
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`with dragging, not pressing.
`
`36. The claims of the ‘507 patent also contain the limitation “responsive
`
`to determining the gesture, outputting the haptic effect.” Ex. 1103 at cls. 1, 9, 14.
`
`Astala contains no disclosure whatsoever of outputting haptic effects and its
`
`disclosed system has no haptic capability at all, so it cannot meet this limitation.
`
`37. The ‘507 patent claims include the requirement “responsive to
`
`determining the gesture, outputting a haptic effect.” Ex. 1101 at cls. 1, 9, 14. I
`
`understand that Petitioner contends that this “gesture” is disclosed by the “drag-
`
`and-drop” sequence in Astala. Petition at 38. Therefore, the “haptic effect” output
`
`by the combination of Astala and Shahoian would need to be output “responsive
`
`to” determining the drag-and-drop gesture.
`
`38. Astala contains no disclosure regarding haptics. I understand that
`
`Petitioner relies on Shahoian’s disclosure of haptic feedback and contends that a
`
`POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Shahoian into Astala.
`
`Petition at 38. Shahoian describes providing a vibration while the user is in a
`
`“drag mode,” to let the user know that the “drag mode” is currently active. Ex.
`
`1104 at ¶ 189 (“When the user is in such a drag mode, a vibration or other haptic
`
`sensation can be output to indicate to the user that this mode is active.”).
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p18
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`39. Even if Shahoian were combined with Astala, as Petitioner contends,
`
`
`
`this combination would not output a haptic effect “responsive to” the drag-and-
`
`drop gesture of Astala. At most, the combined system would vibrate while the user
`
`was dragging his or her finger across the screen (i.e., “when the user is in such a
`
`drag mode”), before the user has finished the drag-and-drop gesture by “dropping”
`
`the icon on a destination location.
`
`40. Astala and Shahoian also fail to disclose the “pseudo pressure”
`
`limitation in claims 2, 10, and 15 of the ‘507 patent. These claims include the
`
`limitation “wherein the contact data comprises an actual pressure and a pseudo
`
`pressure.” Ex. 1101 at cls. 2, 10, 15. Neither Astala nor Shahoian disclose contact
`
`data comprising a pseudo pressure.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that Petitioner argues that Shahoian “discloses capacitive
`
`sensors in the context of detecting pressure,” because it discloses “capacitive
`
`touchpads that do not require significant pressure.” Petition at 45. I disagree.
`
`Shahoian is not discussing capacitive touchpads in the context of pressure
`
`detection. Shahoian simply states that a capacitive touchpad is capable of
`
`measuring the location of a user’s touch even when the user is pressing lightly (i.e.,
`
`without significant pressure). Ex. 1104 at ¶ 41 (“Capacitive touchpads typically
`
`sense the location of an object on or near the surface of the touchpads . . .”)
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p19
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added). Shahoian never discloses or suggests using capacitive sensors
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`to actually measure pressure (directly or indirectly).
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Petitioner argues that Shahoian discloses a pseudo
`
`pressure because it discloses a “resistive” pressure-sensitive touchpad. Petition at
`
`45. I disagree. As I discussed previously regarding claim construction, the fact
`
`that a sensor uses resistance does not mean that it is necessarily measuring “pseudo
`
`pressure.” Electrical resistance is simply the degree to which a conductor opposes
`
`an electric current through that conductor. Actual pressure sensors can measure
`
`changes in resistance in order to directly determine how much actual pressure a
`
`user is applying to a surface. Similarly, a pseudo pressure sensor can measure
`
`changes in resistance in order to determine the area of the screen being contacted
`
`by the user’s finger, which could be indirectly correlated with applied pressure.
`
`The fact that a sensor uses resistance is not dispositive, one way or another, of
`
`whether the sensor is an actual pressure sensor or pseudo pressure sensor.
`
`Moreover, Shahoian describes its sensors as measuring actual pressure directly, not
`
`indirectly. See Ex. 1104 at ¶ 188 (what is “sensed” is “the amount of pressure the
`
`user is exerting on the touchpad”). Shahoian never discloses or suggests that its
`
`touchpad measures pressure indirectly, such as via a “pseudo pressure” technique
`
`based on contact area.
`
`9698602
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2001 - p20
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL WIGDOR
`Case IPR2017-01310
`
`43.
`
`I understand that Petitioner argues that Shahoian discloses a pseudo
`
`
`
`pressure because it includes a “palm check” feature, which “computes the contact
`
`area made by the conductive object (finger, palm, arm, etc.).” Petition at 46. I
`
`disagree. Shahoian’s “palm check” feature is totally unrelated to the determination
`
`of pressure based on contact data. Shahoian teaches that if a large contact area
`
`(associated with the user accidentally touching with a palm) is encountered, the
`
`system should “ignore input that is determined to be provided by a user’s palm.”
`
`Ex. 1104 at ¶ 51. In other words, Shahoian only uses contact area to determine
`
`whether “the contact is rejected.” Id. Shahoian’s disclosure would not lead a
`
`POSITA to use contact area as a pseudo pressure as claimed in the ‘507 patent.
`
`44.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Executed on the 9th day of August 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9698602
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`Professor Daniel Wigdor,