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. 7,336,260
`Filing Date: November 1, 2002
`Issue Date: February 26, 2008
`Title: Method and Apparatus For Providing Tactile Sensations
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MAJID SARRAFZADEH
`
`
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`F.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1
`B.
`Information Considered ........................................................................ 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ............................................................... 4
`B.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation ......................................................... 5
`C.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ......................................................... 6
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’260 PATENT ......................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary of the ’260 Patent ............................................................... 10
`B.
`Challenged Claims of the ’260 Patent ................................................ 14
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 16
`D.
`Instituted IPR2016-01884 .................................................................. 16
`E.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 16
`1.
`“input device” .......................................................................... 17
`2.
`“first/second/third/fourth/fifth tactile sensations” ................... 17
`3.
`“second pressure greater than the first pressure”
`(claims 3-9) / “third pressure greater that the second
`pressure” (claims 3-9) / “fifth pressure greater than the
`fourth pressure” (claim 7) ........................................................ 18
`“the first/second tactile sensation based at least in part on
`the first/second pressure” (all claims) ...................................... 19
`Prior Art reference Komata 036 ......................................................... 20
`1.
`Komata 036 .............................................................................. 20
`i.
`Komata 036 discloses an embodiment in which a
`pressure on a button controls the rate at which a
`system parameter is changed and a tactile
`sensation is output ......................................................... 20
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 25
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`i
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Preamble:“[a] computer-readable medium having
`instructions, the instructions including instructions
`that cause a processor to” .............................................. 25
`Limitation 1.a: “detect a first pressure on a first
`input device” .................................................................. 28
`Limitation 1.b: “provide a first tactile sensation to
`the first input device, the first tactile sensation
`based at least in part on the first pressure” .................... 34
`Limitation 1.c: “detect a second pressure on the
`first input device, the second pressure greater than
`the first pressure” ........................................................... 42
`Limitation 1.d: “provide a second tactile sensation
`to the first input device, the second tactile
`sensation based at least in part on the second
`pressure” ........................................................................ 42
`Limitation 1.e: “detect a third pressure on the first
`input device, the third pressure greater than the
`second pressure” ............................................................ 43
`vii. Limitation 1.f: “provide a third tactile sensation to
`the first input device” .................................................... 44
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 45
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 46
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 47
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 48
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 50
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 51
`i.
`Limitation 8.a: “upon detecting the first pressure,
`provide a first signal indicating a first
`alphanumeric character” ................................................ 52
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`ii
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 3
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`9.
`
`2.
`
`G.
`
`Limitation 8.b: “upon detecting the second
`pressure, provide a second signal indicating a
`second alphanumeric character” .................................... 53
`Limitation 8.c: “upon detecting the third pressure,
`provide a third signal indicating a third
`alphanumeric character” ................................................ 54
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 55
`i.
`Limitation 9.a: “upon detecting the first pressure,
`display the first alpha-numeric character” ..................... 55
`Limitation 9.b: “upon detecting the second
`pressure, display the second alphanumeric
`character” ....................................................................... 56
`Limitation 9.c: “upon detecting the third pressure,
`display the third alpha-numeric character” .................... 56
`Prior Art references Komata 036 and Komata 849 ............................ 57
`1.
`Komata 849 .............................................................................. 57
`i.
`Komata 849 discloses the same entertainment
`system and controller that Komata 036 discloses ......... 57
`Komata 849 discloses a game program that outputs
`tactile sensations based on an association of 255
`drive signals with 255 detected pressures ..................... 59
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 60
`i.
`It would have been obvious to output different
`tactile sensations based on the detected pressure .......... 61
`It also would have been obvious to implement
`different tactile sensations for incrementing and
`decrementing a parameter .............................................. 64
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`V.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`iii
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITION EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 to Martin et al.
`1002
`This document, my declaration
`1003
`U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/335,493
`1004
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.: US 2001/0009036 A1 of U.S. Pat. App.
`No. 09/758,102 to Komata (“Komata 036”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.: US 2001/0008849 A1 of U.S. Pat. App.
`No. 09/757,812 to Komata (“Komata 849”)
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY
`(Sandra Haynes et al. eds., 5th ed. 2002)
`Paper 11 in IPR2016-01884, “Decision, Institution of Inter Partes
`Review 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108”
`“Order No. 27: Construing the Terms of the Asserted Claims of
`the Patent at Issue” in Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1004 and 337-TA-990
`(Consolidated)
`
`1008
`
`
`
`iv
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 (Ex. 1001, the “’260
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained at my normal hourly rate of $600 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon the outcome of this proceeding or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3. My curriculum vitae, which includes a detailed record of my
`
`professional qualifications, including a list of publications, awards and honors, and
`
`professional activities, is attached as Exhibit A. Relevant highlights are
`
`summarized below.
`
`4.
`
`I am a distinguished professor at the University of California at Los
`
`Angeles (“UCLA”) and the director of the UCLA eHealth and Data Analytics
`
`Research Laboratory (“ER Lab”) and a co-director of the UCLA Center for
`
`SMART Health. I earned Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Ph.D.
`
`degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering in 1982, 1984, and 1987, respectively. I became an
`
`Assistant Professor at Northwestern University in 1987, earned tenure in 1993, and
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`1
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`became a Full Professor in 1997. In 2000, I joined the Computer Science
`
`Department at UCLA as a Full Professor. In 2008, I co-founded and became a co-
`
`director of the UCLA Wireless Health Institute. And in 2016 I co-founded and
`
`became a co-director of the Center for Small health.
`
`5.
`
`I have experience as a system designer, circuit designer, and software
`
`designer. This experience includes positions as a design engineer at IBM and
`
`Motorola and a test engineer at Central Data Corporation. I was the main architect
`
`of an Electronic Design Automation (“EDA”) software tool for Monterey Design
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Monterey”). Monterey was acquired by Synopsys in 2004. I co-
`
`founded and managed the technical team at Hierarchical Design, Inc. (“Hier
`
`Design”), an EDA company that specialized in reconfigurable FPGA systems.
`
`Hier Design was acquired by Xilinx in 2004. I have cofounded MediSens
`
`Wireless, Bruin Biometrics, and WANDA Health.
`
`6.
`
`I have experience with Human Computer Interaction through design
`
`related to exergaming and mobile health (mhealth). I have designed systems
`
`wearable on foot and other parts of the body that facilitated interactions with
`
`games such as Soccer (FIFA), Guitar Hero, Dance-Dance Revolution to name a
`
`few. I have also designed systems that patients with chronic illness (e.g., heart
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`2
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`failure) to interact with a communication device such as a smart phone or a smart
`
`watch.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
`
`Inc. (“IEEE”) for my contributions to “Theory and Practice of VLSI Design.” I
`
`have served on the technical program committees of numerous conferences in the
`
`area of system design. I cofounded the International conference on Wireless Health
`
`and have served in various committees of this conference.
`
`8.
`
`I have published approximately 545 papers, and have received a
`
`number of best paper and distinguished paper awards. I am a co-author of the
`
`book “Synthesis Techniques and Optimizations for Reconfigurable Systems”
`
`(2003 by Springer), a co-author of the book “An Introduction to VLSI Physical
`
`Design” (1996 by McGraw Hill), and a co-editor of “Algorithmic Aspects of VLSI
`
`Layout” (1993 by World Scientific Publishing).
`
`9.
`
`Additional details regarding my qualifications and background can be
`
`found in my CV in Exhibit A at the end of this document.
`
`B.
`Information Considered
`10. 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.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on
`
`my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`13.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`4
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`16.
`
`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.
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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).
`
`20.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`21.
`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.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`5
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`6
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28. 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
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`7
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`8
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’260 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the ’260 Patent
`35. The ’260 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing Tactile
`
`Sensations.” The ’260 patent discloses providing tactile sensations (e.g., haptic
`
`feedback) to input devices or electronic devices in response to one or more events
`
`or situations. Ex. 1001 at 2:16-35. Embodiments include using a controller to
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`9
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`receive signals from the input devices and to send signals to actuators, which
`
`generate the tactile sensations. Id.; see also, e.g., at Figs. 1-6, 3:44-4:3, 5:38-47,
`
`8:26-61, 11:11-54.
`
`36. More particularly, the ’260 patent discloses providing tactile feedback
`
`associated with user input on devices such as smartphones and PDAs (personal
`
`digital assistants). Ex. 1001 at 2:16-35. In one embodiment, the ’260 patent
`
`discloses an electronic device including a CPU 43, a display 44, input devices 40, a
`
`controller 41, and an actuator 46 controlled by control circuitry 45 as shown in
`
`block diagram form in Fig. 7 reproduced below:
`
`
`
`10
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`37. The ’260 patent discloses that the “input devices 40 produce input
`
`signals in accordance with the present invention, and the input signals are
`
`communicated to the controller 41 across the communication bus 39.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`13:28-31. “In some embodiments, the input signal includes pressure data, or data
`
`from which the pressure applied to the input device can be calculated, position
`
`data, or a combination of pressure and position data.” Id. at 14:17-21. Another
`
`embodiment of the ’260 patent includes an input device with fixed or pre-assigned
`
`alphanumeric input buttons 10a-l as shown below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`38. The ’260 patent further discloses that embodiments can include input
`
`devices, of which the numeric buttons of Fig. 2 are an example, capable of
`
`determining or sensing multiple levels of pressure:
`
`Embodiments of the present invention include an input
`device having a means for determining or sensing
`pressure. The input device is capable of resolving
`multiple levels of pressure placed on the input device,
`and of transmitting a signal associated with the level of
`pressure placed on the input device. These multiple levels
`of pressure may be defined by, for example, the physical
`location of, or distance traveled by, a switch-type input
`device in the x-plane when pressed by a user
`(higher/lower), the magnitude of pressure placed on a
`touchpad-type input device, or other means.
`
`The buttons of FIG. 2 are illustrative of such an
`embodiment. Each of the alphanumeric input buttons 10
`shown in FIG. 2 is a keypad button. Each of the buttons
`10 is capable of resolving multiple levels of pressure
`placed on the buttons 10. For example, the button 10i
`(corresponding to the number 9 on the keypad) is capable
`of resolving five levels of pressure placed on the button
`10i. In the embodiment shown, the first level is a state in
`which no pressure is placed on the button by a user, the
`second level being a first magnitude of pressure placed
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`12
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`on the button (greater than no pressure placed by the
`user), the third level being a second magnitude of
`pressure placed on the button (where the second
`magnitude of pressure is different from or greater than
`the first magnitude), the fourth level being a third
`magnitude of pressure placed on the button (where the
`third magnitude is different from or greater than the
`second magnitude), and the fifth level being a fourth
`magnitude of pressure placed on the button (where the
`fourth magnitude is different from or greater than the
`third).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:48-6:9.
`
`B. Challenged Claims of the ’260 Patent
`39. Because all of the challenged claims depend from independent
`
`claim 1, the my analysis and opinions for the limitations of claim 1 demonstrate
`
`how Komata 036 discloses those limitations in the challenged claims. I have
`
`adopted the claim numbering in the Petition for all of the claims, including claim 1
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:33-46):
`
`1. A computer-readable medium having instructions,
`the instructions including instructions that cause a
`processor to:
`[1.a] detect a first pressure on a first input device;
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`13
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`[1.b] provide a first tactile sensation to the first input
`device, the first tactile sensation based at least in
`part on the first pressure;
`[1.c] detect a second pressure on the first input
`device, the second pressure greater than the first
`pressure; and
`[1.d] provide a second tactile sensation to the first
`input device, the second tactile sensation based at
`least in part on the second pressure;
`[1.e] detect a third pressure on the first input device,
`the third pressure greater than the second
`pressure; and
`[1.f] provide a third tactile sensation to the first input
`device.
`
`40.
`
`I note that any three different pressures will necessarily have the
`
`relationship that a first pressure is less than a second pressure is less than a third
`
`pressure. This applies generally and any number of different pressures can always
`
`be ordered from least to greatest. A POSITA would understand that the
`
`relationship between the three pressures in claim 1 requires only that the three
`
`pressures be different.
`
`41. This also means (and a POSITA would understand) that any input
`
`device that can detect three or more different pressures necessarily practices
`
`limitations 1.a, 1.c, and 1.e. Further, there is nothing in the claim that a POSITA
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`14
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`would understand imposes any temporal relationship between the detected
`
`pressures, and a POSITA would understand that detecting three different pressures
`
`in any order satisfies limitations 1.a, 1.c, and 1.e.
`
`42. Challenged claims 3-7 are generally directed to additional limitations
`
`that recite detecting additional pressures on and outputting tactile sensations to one
`
`or more input devices.
`
`43. Challenged claims 8 and 9 additionally recite providing signals
`
`indicating alphanumeric characters and displaying those characters.
`
`C.
`44.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’260 patent (a “POSITA”) 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, haptics programming, human-computer interaction, or other relevant
`
`industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for
`
`professional experience and significant experience in the field could substitute for
`
`formal education.
`
`D.
`45.
`
`Instituted IPR2016-01884
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted inter partes review of
`
`claims 1 and 2 of the ’260 patent in Case No. IPR2016-01884 ( “1884 IPR”) based
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`15
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`on two references: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2001/0008849 A1 and Japan
`
`Unexamined Pat. App. Pub. No. 11-212725. Ex. 1007. I also provided a
`
`declaration (Exhibit 1002) to the petition in the 1884 IPR.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`46.
`I understand from Apple counsel that in an inter partes review claims
`
`are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (the “BRI”) in view of the
`
`specification. I also understand 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, and that difference might cause the claims to cover certain things in
`
`this proceeding that a court might find are not within the scope of the claims in the
`
`ITC and district court proceedings.
`
`47.
`
`In the following paragraphs, I provide a construction for certain claim
`
`terms based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification
`
`and based on the Immersion’s apparent belief about the scope of the claim terms
`
`from its express constructions. I have used these constructions when forming my
`
`opinions.
`
`“input device”
`
`1.
`I understand that the Board the in 1884 IPR construed “input device”
`
`48.
`
`to mean “a device by which a user can interact with an electronic device to provide
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`16
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`instructions, responses, and other input to the electronic device.” Ex. 1007 at 8-10.
`
`So, I apply that construction in providing my opinions.
`
`“first/second/third/fourth/fifth tactile sensations”
`
`2.
`I understand that in the ITC Investigation, Immersion proposed to
`
`49.
`
`construe, and the Chief ALJ construed, the terms “first/second/third/fourth tactile
`
`sensations” to mean “the first second/third/fourth haptic tactile sensation can be the
`
`same or different from the other claimed tactile sensations.” Ex. 1008 at
`
`pp. 36-38, 43. It seems reasonable to me that Immersion should be held to this
`
`construction. I also understand from Apple counsel that it is improper to read into
`
`an independent claim a limitation explicitly set forth in another claim, that this is
`
`called the doctrine of claim differentiation, and that this doctrine also supports this
`
`construction because dependent claim 6 of the ’260 patent further narrows claim 5
`
`to require the “fourth tactile sensation [be] different from the first tactile
`
`sensation.” Ex. 1001 at 21:4-5. Therefore, for the purpose of this declaration, I
`
`construe the terms “first/second/third/fourth/fifth tactile sensations” to mean “the
`
`first second/third/fourth/fifth haptic tactile sensation can be the same or different
`
`from the other claimed tactile sensations.”
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`17
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`“second pressure greater than the first pressure”
`(claims 3-9) / “third pressure greater that the second
`pressure” (claims 3-9) / “fifth pressure greater than the
`fourth pressure” (claim 7)
`
`50.
`
`I understand that in the 1884 IPR, Patent Owner argued in its
`
`preliminary response that the ’260 patent claims 1 and 2 require detecting the
`
`pressures during a single interaction. I also understand that the Board requested
`
`ultimately disagreed with Patent Owner. Ex. 1007 at pp. 20-24. I also understand
`
`that Patent Owner based its argument on the relationships between the first,
`
`second, and third pressures that require the third pressure to be greater than the
`
`second pressure and the second pressure to be greater than the first pressure. Id. at
`
`22-23. Finally, I understand that the Board concluded that the claims do not require
`
`detecting pressures during a single interaction (Id. at 22-23, adding emphasis):
`
`These relationships, however, do not define any temporal
`relationship between the detections and thus fail to
`require that detecting the first, second, and third
`pressures must occur at the same time, continuously, or
`as part of a single touch interaction.
`
`51. A POSITA would understand, and as I discussed above with respect
`
`to claim 1, the relationships merely require that the three pressures be different,
`
`and nothing in the claim imposes any temporal relationship between the detected
`
`pressures.
`
`WEST\276260191.3
`
`18
`
`APPLE INC.
`Ex. 1002 - Page 23
`
`

`

`
`
`52. Therefore, I construe the terms “second pressure greater than the first
`
`pressure” and “third pressure greater that the second pressure” to require only
`
`“detecting three different pressures without any temporal relationship” for the
`
`purposes of providing my opinions. Similarly, I construe the term “fifth pressure
`
`greater than the fourth pressure” to require only “detecting a fifth pressure that is
`
`different from the fourth pressure without any temporal relationship” for the
`
`purposes of providing my opinions.
`
`4.
`
`“the first/second tactile sensation based at least in part on
`the first/second pressure” (all claims)
`
`53.
`
`I agree with the Petition (and in my opinion a POSITA would
`
`understand) that the phrase “the first/second tactile sensation based at least in part
`
`on the first/second pressure” is entitled to the entire, expansive breadth