CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1004
`Inv. No. 337-TA-990
`(Consolidated)
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE AND PORTABLE
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES
`INCORPORATING HAPTICS
`(INCLUDING SMARTPHONES AND
`LAPTOPS) AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT
`IMMERSION CORPORATION’S SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 94, 95,
`98, 99, 100, 103 AND 104)
`
`Pursuant to Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.29 and
`
`210.30, the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s Ground Rules (Order No. 2) and the Protective
`
`Order (Order No. 1) in Inv. No. 337-TA-990 and Order No. 5 in Inv. No. 337-TA-1004,
`
`Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby provides supplemental responses to the Sixth Set of
`
`Interrogatories propounded by Complainant Immersion Corporation (“Immersion” or
`
`“Complainant”) as follows:
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference the General Statement and Objections included in
`
`its original responses to the Sixth Set of Interrogatories propounded by Immersion, as if fully
`
`stated herein.
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Apple responds as follows:
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p1
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 94:
`
`If Respondent contends that one or more claims of one or more of the Pressure Patents
`
`is/are invalid, state all bases for Respondent's contention(s), including all facts, witnesses,
`
`information, and documents that relate to such contention(s).
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94:
`
`Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds set forth in its General Statement and
`
`Objections above, and hereby incorporates these by reference as if fully set forth herein. Apple
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad as to subject matter and unduly burdensome. Apple
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, joint defense or common
`
`interest privilege and/or any other applicable privileges, protections, or immunities. Apple
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and seeks expert
`
`testimony. Apple objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requests information regarding
`
`products outside the scope of this Investigation. Apple objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`
`that it seeks disclosure of confidential information from third parties that Apple is under an
`
`obligation not to disclose. Apple objects to this Interrogatory as premature on the grounds that it
`
`seeks Apple’s contentions and analysis before: (1) the time prescribed in a procedural schedule
`
`and (2) Apple has completed discovery relating to these issues. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.29(b)(3); In
`
`the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`512, Order No. 10 (Aug. 20, 2004); In the Matter of EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and
`
`Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`395, Order No. 57 (Nov. 2, 1999).
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p2
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Apple
`
`responds as follows: Apple incorporates by reference its Response to the Complaint and Notice
`
`of Investigation. Apple will respond to this Interrogatory on the initial deadline that Chief ALJ
`
`Bullock sets for responses to contention interrogatories on issues for which the responding party
`
`bears the burden of proof.
`
`Apple reserves the right to modify or supplement its response to this Interrogatory as
`
`discovery and inquiry continue.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94:
`
`Apple incorporates its prior objections and responses to this interrogatory, and further
`
`responds as follows:
`
`As stated in its initial response, Apple objects to this interrogatory as premature, given
`
`the early stage of discovery, and because the interrogatory is properly the subject of expert
`
`testimony. Apple’s discovery and investigation of Complainant’s claims is ongoing, and these
`
`contentions are based on information reasonably available to Apple as of this date. Accordingly,
`
`Apple reserves the right to amend or supplement its contentions in light of ongoing discovery
`
`and investigation.
`
`Further, Apple’s final position on the invalidity of the asserted claims will depend on
`
`how the claims are construed. Apple reserves the right to supplement its invalidity contentions
`
`as the parties clarify or modify their claim construction positions, or as otherwise appropriate or
`
`permitted by the Chief ALJ. Nothing in these invalidity contentions should be construed as a
`
`concession that Apple agrees with Complainant’s interpretation of how the asserted claims
`
`should be construed or that any accused devices practice the asserted claim limitations. Apple
`
`reserves all rights to modify, supplement, and/or amend this response as appropriate and on the
`
`basis of further construction of the asserted claims of the asserted patents.
`
`- 3 -
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p3
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Apple objects that certain limitations of the asserted claims of the asserted patents are
`
`indefinite, and therefore cannot be analyzed to determine whether the prior art practices certain
`
`limitations. Apple reserves all rights to modify, supplement and/or amend this response on the
`
`basis of subsequent construction, if any, of those terms.
`
`This response is based on the information that Complainant has provided to date. Apple
`
`has yet to receive infringement contentions from Complainant, and the claim charts included in
`
`the Complaint lack proper and complete disclosure as to Apple’s accused products.
`
`Accordingly, Apple reserves the right to further supplement or modify its invalidity contentions,
`
`including the prior art disclosed and the stated grounds of invalidity.
`
`Complainant has failed to provide a sufficient substantive response to Respondents’
`
`interrogatories seeking facts related to any conception, reduction to practice or related diligence,
`
`that might support a date of invention for any particular asserted claim prior to the filing date of
`
`its respective asserted patent. Apple has relied on Complainant’s failure to provide any such
`
`facts in formulating these contentions, and will rely on Complainant’s failure when preparing
`
`Respondents’ Notice of Prior Art, due on the deadline of September 30, 2016, set by the
`
`procedural schedule. To the extent Complainant ever provides any facts to show, or makes any
`
`assertion, that any asserted claim is entitled to a date of invention prior to the filing date of its
`
`respective asserted patent, Apple reserves the right to amend and supplement these contentions
`
`and Respondents’ Notice of Prior Art, including by identifying new prior art to predate any such
`
`alleged date of invention.
`
`Apple is continuing to investigate the subject matter of this interrogatory and reserves the
`
`right to amend and/or supplement the response to the extent it locates any additional, non-
`
`privileged, relevant information or documents responsive to this interrogatory. Apple’s experts
`
`are expected to address Apple’s invalidity contentions, including the knowledge of one of
`
`- 4 -
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p4
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time designated in the procedural schedule, and this response is
`
`not intended to substitute for such expert reports or preclude expert analysis of the facts,
`
`documents, and contentions set forth herein.
`
`Apple further may rely on inventor admissions concerning the scope or state of the prior
`
`art relevant to the asserted claims, the patent prosecution history for the asserted patents and
`
`related patents and/or patent applications, any deposition or hearing testimony on the asserted
`
`patent, and the papers filed and any evidence produced or submitted by Complainant in
`
`connection with this or related litigation. In addition to any inventor testimony at the hearing in
`
`this Investigation, Apple may also rely on any inventor deposition testimony.
`
`Prior art not included in this response, whether known or not known to Apple, may
`
`become relevant. In particular, Apple is currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which
`
`Complainant will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not disclosed in the prior art.
`
`Accordingly, Apple reserves the right to identify other references that would render obvious the
`
`allegedly missing limitation(s) of the disclosed device or method.
`
`Discovery is ongoing and Apple anticipates that additional prior art may be found. Thus,
`
`Apple reserves the right to revise, amend, and/or supplement the information provided herein,
`
`including identifying, charting, and relying on additional references, should such art be found.
`
`Additionally, because third-party discovery is ongoing, Apple reserves the right to present
`
`additional items of prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g), and/or § 103 located
`
`during discovery or further investigation, and to assert contentions of invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(c), (d), or (f). For example, Apple may issue additional subpoenas to third parties
`
`believed to have knowledge, documentation and/or corroborating evidence concerning the
`
`validity of the asserted claims.
`
`Immersion has not timely or properly responded to Apple’s discovery requests seeking
`- 5 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p5
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`prior art and information and documents related to prior art, and Immersion’s responses to such
`
`requests are materially deficient. Immersion’s delays in producing prior art and related relevant
`
`information has prejudiced Apple at least by prohibiting Apple from fully responding to this
`
`interrogatory at the present time. For example, Immersion has refused to provide discovery
`
`related to the prior art asserted in Respondents’ responses to the Complaint and included herein.
`
`For example, the purported inventions underlying the patent families asserted against HTC and
`
`Motorola are asserted as prior art in this Investigation, including under Sections 102 (a), (b), (f)
`
`and (g). Despite that assertion, Immersion has failed to produce evidence regarding those
`
`purported inventions, including testimony from the named inventors, information regarding
`
`conception and reduction to practice, information regarding products that practice those
`
`purported inventions, and Immersion’s contentions and expert analysis of same. In light of
`
`Immersion’s delay in responding to Apple’s discovery requests and the material deficiencies in
`
`Immersion’s discovery responses, Apple reserves the right to revise, amend, and/or supplement
`
`the information provided herein as Immersion responds to Apple’s discovery requests.
`
`Subject to its objections, Apple further responds to this interrogatory as follows:
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`Apple contends that the asserted claims of the asserted patents are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as set forth below and in Exhibits D-G, which Apple incorporates herein
`
`by reference. Apple also incorporates by reference Respondents’ Notice of Prior Art
`
`(collectively “Respondents’ Notices of Prior Art”), which will be served on September 30, 2016,
`
`pursuant to the procedural schedule. The prior art references, evidence, witnesses and other
`
`information identified in Exhibits D-G anticipate and/or render obvious all of the asserted claims
`
`of the asserted patents under one or more of Complainant’s apparent interpretations of the claims
`
`and/or the Respondents’ interpretations of the claims.
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p6
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`The prior art identified in Exhibits D-G anticipates one or more asserted claims of the
`
`asserted patents, either expressly, implicitly, or inherently, as understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In some instances, Apple treats certain prior art as anticipatory where
`
`certain elements are inherently present in light of the apparent claim constructions applied in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent that any of the prior art references are deemed not to disclose,
`
`explicitly or inherently, any limitation of an asserted claim, Apple reserves the right to argue that
`
`any difference between that reference and the corresponding patent claim would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Apple also contends that all asserted claims of the asserted patents are invalid as obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each reference disclosed in Exhibits D-G, either alone or in combination
`
`with other prior art, renders the asserted claims invalid as obvious. In particular, each prior art
`
`reference may be combined with: (1) information known to persons skilled in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention; (2) any of the other prior art references identified in Exhibits D-G;
`
`and/or (3) any of the additional prior art identified below. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood the benefits of the combinations for at least the reasons identified below.
`
`Any obviousness combinations set forth herein are in the alternative to Apple’s
`
`anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any reference included in any
`
`combination is not anticipatory in its own right. In particular, Apple is currently unaware of the
`
`extent, if any, to which Complainant will contend that certain limitations of the asserted claims
`
`are not disclosed in the art identified by Apple as anticipatory. To the extent that an issue arises
`
`with respect to any such claim limitation, Apple reserves the right to identify other references
`
`and combinations, which may make obvious the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to
`
`the disclosed apparatus, system or method.
`
`Specific obviousness combinations identified in Exhibits D-G are not intended to be
`- 7 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p7
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`exhaustive. Additional obviousness combinations of the references are possible, and Apple
`
`reserves the right to rely on any such combinations in this Investigation. In addition, the
`
`combinations of references presented in Exhibits D-G are not intended to and should not be
`
`interpreted as suggesting that any reference or product included in the combinations does not
`
`anticipate any claim. Further, citations to the text of the references are exemplary and not
`
`exhaustive. Other portions of the references may also contain information and/or teachings that
`
`anticipate and/or render obvious elements of the asserted claims. Similarly, citations to
`
`particular text referring to a figure include the figure and caption as well. Likewise, citations to
`
`figures include the accompanying text describing or referring to the figure.
`
`Apple contends that none of the asserted patents is entitled to a priority date or date of
`
`invention earlier than the earliest non-provisional application filing date identified on the face of
`
`the patent. Complainant has not satisfied its burden of showing that any of the asserted patents is
`
`entitled to an earlier priority date or date of invention based on an earlier conception and diligent
`
`reduction to practice. The patents and publications identified in Exhibits D-G are effective as
`
`prior art to the asserted patents under one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e) and are
`
`evidence of prior invention under subsection (g). In addition, certain products and prior
`
`inventive activity are effective as prior art to the asserted patents under one or more of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a), (b), and (g), and will be described in Respondents’ Notices of Prior Art and these
`
`contentions. Immersion prior art patents, publications and products identified in Exhibits D-G
`
`are also effective as prior art to the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) given the access to
`
`that prior art by the named inventors and prosecuting attorneys and substantial similarities of the
`
`specifications and claims therein, which indicate the purported inventions were derived
`
`therefrom.
`
`To the extent that prior art identified by Apple as anticipating is found not to anticipate
`- 8 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p8
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`the asserted claims: (1) the prior art establishes that the claimed subject matter was obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention; (2) the claims are
`
`nevertheless unpatentable because the asserted claims contain nothing that goes beyond ordinary
`
`innovation; (3) no asserted claim goes beyond combining known elements to achieve predictable
`
`results (particularly in the predictable art(s) of the asserted patents); (4) no asserted claim does
`
`more than choose between clear alternatives known to those of skill in the art; and/or (5) the
`
`prior art renders the asserted claims obvious either alone or in combination with each other or
`
`one or more of the other references identified in these invalidity contentions.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits of combining the prior
`
`art that Apple has identified for each of the asserted patents. Apple contends that no showing of
`
`a specific motivation to combine prior art references is required, as each combination of art
`
`would have no unexpected results and at most would simply represent a known alternative to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739-40 (2007)
`
`(rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “rigid” application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine test, instead espousing an “expansive and flexible” approach). Indeed, the Supreme
`
`Court held that a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 1742.
`
`Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`each of the combinations of prior art identified in Exhibits D-G, and would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that the combination would be successful. Motivation to combine any of
`
`the prior art references discussed herein is found, explicitly or implicitly, in one or more of the
`
`following:
`
`1. a person of ordinary skill in the art’s own knowledge or common sense;
`- 9 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p9
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`2. the prior art references themselves;
`
`3. the subject matter acknowledged as prior art in the asserted patents;
`
`4. the interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references identified herein;
`
`5. the nature of the problem to be purported solved by the asserted patents and the
`
`existence of similar improvements in similar applications;
`
`6. design incentives and other market forces, including the advantages of creating a
`
`superior and more desirable product and the effects of demands known to the
`
`design community or present in the marketplace;
`
`7. the ability to implement the alleged invention(s) as a predictable variation of the
`
`prior art;
`
`8. combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`9. improvements in similar devices;
`
`10. applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`11. any needs or problems known in the field and purportedly addressed by the
`
`asserted patents—i.e., “obvious to try”;
`
`12. the number of identified, predictable solutions to the problem(s) purportedly
`
`addressed by the asserted patents;
`
`13. the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; and
`
`14. some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention(s).
`- 10 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p10
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`For example, it would have been obvious to combine prior art references identified by
`
`Apple because these references would have been combined using known methods to yield
`
`predictable results, known techniques used in the same way, a simple substitution of one known,
`
`equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results, and/or a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art generally. In addition, it would have been obvious to try combining
`
`the identified prior art references because there were only a finite number of predictable
`
`solutions and known work in one field of endeavor prompted variations based on predictable
`
`design incentives and/or market forces, either in the same field or a different one. Combination
`
`of the identified prior art references also would have been obvious because the combination was
`
`a known potential option with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Additional evidence that there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art
`
`references identified by Apple includes the interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references,
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, the
`
`existence of a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
`
`asserted claims of the asserted patents, the existence of a known need or problem in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of the alleged invention(s), and the background knowledge that would have
`
`been possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Numerous prior art references reflect common knowledge and the state of the prior art
`
`before the earliest priority date of the asserted patents. The motivation to combine the teachings
`
`of the identified prior art references is found in the references themselves and: (1) the nature of
`
`the problem being solved, (2) the express, implied, and inherent teachings of the prior art, (3) the
`
`knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art, (4) the fact that the prior art is generally
`
`directed towards the same subject matter as the asserted patents, and/or (5) the predictable results
`
`obtained in combining the different elements of the prior art. Additional evidence that there
`
`- 11 -
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p11
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`would have been a motivation to combine the prior art can be found below and in Exhibits D-G.
`
`In addition to the specific combinations of prior art and the specific combinations of
`
`groups of prior art disclosed in Exhibits D-G, Apple reserves the right to rely on any other
`
`combination of any prior art references for each asserted patent. Apple further reserves the right
`
`to rely upon combinations disclosed within the prosecution history of the references cited herein.
`
`These obviousness combinations reflect Apple’s current understanding of the potential scope of
`
`the claims that Immersion appears to be advocating and do not accept or rely on Immersion’s
`
`apparent interpretation of the asserted claims or any constructions that Immersion may offer.
`
`Apple also incorporates by reference the response of AT&T to any similar interrogatory,
`
`including any and all supplemental responses, and any prior art references or combinations cited
`
`in those responses or in the Staff’s Notice of Prior Art. Apple reserves the right to supplement or
`
`modify its response as discovery and this Investigation proceed.
`
`Apple also incorporates by reference its petition for inter partes review of the ’507 and
`
`’710 patents in their entirety, including all of their exhibits, as if set forth herein. See 990-RESP-
`
`ITC0069380-990- RESP-ITC0070583; 990-RESP-ITC0070584-990- RESP-ITC0071494.
`
`B.
`
`Additional Bases of Obviousness Under § 103
`
`The asserted claims are obvious over the prior art because, among other reasons, they
`
`combine familiar elements according to known methods and yield only predictable results, as
`
`shown in the exemplary combinations of Exhibits D-G. The references cited therein are in the
`
`same field of endeavor as the asserted patents, and could readily be combined for at least that
`
`reason.
`
`1.
`
`Additional Bases of Obviousness for the ’260 Patent
`
`To the extent any prior art reference of Exhibit D does not disclose the limitations of the
`
`’260 patent that recite detecting a first, second, third or fourth pressures, those limitations are
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p12
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`rendered obvious in light of that reference by itself, that reference combined with the other
`
`reference disclosed in Exhibit D, and that reference combined with any of the following
`
`references as evidenced by the exemplary citations:
`
`a) U.S. Pat. No. 5,943,044 to Martinelli at 6:28-31; 12:42-47.
`b) E.P. App. Pub. No. 0595746 A1 to Cragun at Abstract; Figs. 1, 2, and 4, and
`accompanying text.
`c) U.S. Pat. No. 4,914,624 to Dunthorn, at 5:35-47.
`d) U.S. Pat. No. 5,008,497 to Asher, at 3:19-23; 6:50-53.
`e) U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,590 to Gillespie, at 5:25-31.
`f) U.S. Pat. No. 5,952,998 to Clancy, at 5:7-10.
`g) U.S. Pat. No. 4,825,212 to Adler, at 4:59-5:1; 8:26-28; 8:60-61.
`h) Dominessy, Mary, A Literature Review and Assessment of Touch Interactive
`Devices, at 5-7; 13.
`i) Javestski, John, Touchscreen displays suit multifarious applications, at 197, 199.
`j) U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/103,281 to Rosenberg at Fig. 1 and accompanying text
`(hardware and software architectures and interactions); 11:8-12 (lookup table).
`k) U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/253,132 to Rosenberg at Fig. 4 and accompanying text
`(hardware and software architectures and interactions); 13:22-26 (lookup table).
`l) U.S. Pat. App. No. 60/160,401 to Braun et al. at Fig. 1 and accompanying text
`(hardware and software architectures and interactions); 13 (lookup table).
`m) MacKenzie, Scott, The Tactile Touchpad, at 310.
`n) Middo, Kathy, Touch panels point the way to natural data entry, at 124, 126.
`o) Synaptics TouchPad Interfacing Guide, v. 2.5, at 5-6; 8; 20.
`p) U.S. Pat. No. 5,482,051 to Reddy et al. at Figs. 2 and 3, and accompany text;
`2:54-64; 3:1-9.
`q) U.S. Pat. No. 5,790,108 to Salcudean et al. at 6:64-7:18.
`r) U.S. Pat. No. 5,984,880 to Lander et al. at 5:66-6:20.
`s) U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,168 to Rosenberg et al. at Fig. 16 and accompanying text;
`21:61-64; 28:8-26; 34:13-15.
`t) U.S. Pat. No. 6,710,764 to Burgel et al. at 14:12-19; 17:41-50; 17:62-18:3.
`u) U.S. Pat. No. 6,982,696 to Shahoian at 7:54-62.
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p13
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`
`
`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`v) U.S. Pat. No. 5,510,813 to Makinwa, at 4:55-5:6.
`w) U.S. Pat. No. 6,919,927 to Hyodo, at 3:33-41; 3:50-58.
`x) U.S. Pat. No. 6,310,610 to Beaton, at Figs. 13A, 13B, and accompanying text.
`y) U.S. Pat. No. 6,529,122 to Magnussen, at Fig. 6 and accompanying text; 6:13-16.
`z) U.S. Pat. No. 6,597,347 to Yasutake, at Figs. 4A, 5, 33d1, 33d3, 42c and
`accompanying text; 2:50-56.
`aa) U.S. Pat. No. 7,012,595 to Lu, at 4:1-6.
`bb) U.S. Pat. No. 6,002,389 to Kasser, at Figs. 2B, 3A, 3B, and accompanying text;
`1:49-55.
`cc) U.S. Pat. No. 6,380,929 to Platt, at 2:4-14; 6:30-35; 6:49-54.
`dd) U.S. Pat. No. 6,067,081 to Hahlganss, at Fig. 1 and accompanying text; 2:24-26.
`ee) U.S. Pat. No. 6,504,530 to Wilson, at 8:6-14.
`ff) U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,021 to Kubota, at 7:28-50.
`gg) U.S. Pat. No. 5,311,175 to Waldman, at 1:17-32; 1:47-57; 5:8-14; 7:5:16; 7:37-
`43; 8:1-29; 10:23-32; 11:30-53; 13:13-16.
`hh) Berkelman, Peter, Tool-Based Haptic Interaction with Dynamic Physical
`Simulations Using Lorentz Magnetic Levitation, at 48-51, 54.
`ii) Chen, Ning, Touch-Driven Robot Control Using a Tactile Jacobian, at 1738-
`1739.
`jj) Minsky, Margaret, Feeling and Seeing: Issues in Force Display, 1990, at 237.
`kk) “FEELit Overview and API Documentation” (IMM990-00027560-7580) at 38,
`66-67, 184-185.
`ll) Hui Tang, “Comparison of Tactile and Visual Feedback for a Multi-State Input
`Mechanism,” Proceedings – 19th Int’l Conf. – IEEE/EMBS (1997) 1697-1700, at
`1697-1698.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine any of these
`
`references for this purpose at least because detecting one or more different pressures on an input
`
`device was known in the art and taught as desirable by the above cited references, including for
`
`the purpose of performing a function, including providing a tactile sensation, based at least in
`
`part on detecting user input, including input of one or more pressures.
`
`To the extent any prior art reference of Exhibit D does not disclose the limitations of the
`- 14 -
`
`
`WEST\270478805.2
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex. 2010 - p14
`Apple vs, Immersion
`IPR2017-01310
`
`

`

`CONTAINS APPLE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`’260 patent that recite providing a first, second, third, fourth tactile sensation based at least in
`
`part on detecting the first, second, third or fourth pressures, those limitations are rendered
`
`obvious in light of that reference by itself, that reference combined with the other reference
`
`disclosed in Exhibit D, and that reference combined with any of the following references::
`
`a) E.P. App. Pub. No. 0595746 A1 to Cragun at Figs. 2 and 4, and accompanying
`text; 3:23-28.
`b) J.P. App. Pub. No. 2000-3652 to Oba at Figs. 2B, 3B, 4B, and 5B, and
`accompanying text; [0033].
`c) U.S. Pat. No. 4,825,212 to Adler, at 13:2-20; 14:51-64.
`d) U.S. Patent No. 5,943,044 to Martinelli at 14:23-31-31; Figures 7 and 8 and
`accompanying text.
`e) U.S. Pat. No. 5,710,844 to Capps et al. at Figs. 1-9 and accompanying text.
`f) U.S. Pat. No. 5,977,867 to Blouin at Abstract, Figs. 1 and 2 and accompanying
`text; 1:55-63.
`g) U.S. Patent No. 4,918,262 to Flowers, at Abstract; Fig. 5 and accompanying text;
`3:1-8.
`h) Middo, Kathy, Touch panels point the way to natural data entry, at 124-26.
`i) U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,202 to Ishmael, Jr. et al. at Figs. 1-10 and accompanying text.
`j) MacKenzie, Scott, A Comparison of Three Selection Techniques for Touchpads,
`April 18-23, 1998, at 336-338.
`k) “FEELit Overview and API Documentation” (IMM990-00027560-7580) at 40.
`l) Synaptics TouchPad Interfacing Guide, v. 2.5, at 8; 23-22; 77.
`m) J.P. App. Pub. No. H6-139018 to Tsuchigane at Figs. 4, 10, and accompanying
`text.
`n) U.S. Pat. No. 6,072,474 to Morimura, at Table 1; Figs. 33, 35, 39, and
`accompanying text.
`o) U.S. Pat. No. 6,919,927 to Hyodo, at 3:33-41; 5:62-6:2; 6:40-47.
`p) U.S. Pat. No. 7,012,595 to Lu, at 4:1-6.
`q) U.S. Pat. No. 6,310,610 to Beaton, at Figs. 10A, 10B, 10C, and accompanying
`text.
`r) U.S. Pat. No. 6,