`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01766
`Patent No. RE44,913
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,913
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.10-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ I
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 3
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .......................................... 3
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ................................................................................. 4
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING, POWER OF ATTORNEY, AND
`FEES ............................................................................................................. 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................... 5
`A. How the Claims Are Unpatentable .................................................... 6
`B.
`Supporting Evidence .......................................................................... 6
`THE ’913 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY ............................. 7
`A.
`The Purported Invention of the ’913 Patent ....................................... 7
`B.
`The Challenged Claims of the ’913 Patent ...................................... 11
`1.
`Independent Claims 1, 3 and 4 ............................................... 11
`2.
`Dependent Claims 5, 9 and 13 ............................................... 12
`3.
`Dependent Claims 6, 10 and 14 ............................................. 13
`4.
`Dependent Claims 7, 11 and 15 ............................................. 13
`5.
`Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16 ............................................ 14
`Prosecution History .......................................................................... 14
`1.
`Prosecution of the ’318 Patent ............................................... 14
`2.
`Prosecution of the ’913 Reissue Patent ................................. 15
`a.
`Initial Prosecution and Allowance............................... 15
`b.
`Request for Continued Examination ........................... 17
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 21
`VII. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .......................... 22
`A.
`“character” ........................................................................................ 23
`B.
`“keypad” ........................................................................................... 23
`C.
`“touchscreen” ................................................................................... 24
`D. Means-Plus-Function Limitations .................................................... 24
`1.
`Claim 4 ................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 6 ................................................................................... 29
`3.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................... 29
`4.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................... 30
`VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY ....... 30
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3-16 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Sakata II ............................................................................................ 31
`1.
`Independent Claims 1, 3, and 4 .............................................. 31
`2.
`Dependent Claims 5, 9, and 13 .............................................. 56
`3.
`Dependent Claims 6, 10, and 14 ............................................ 57
`4.
`Dependent Claims 7, 11, and 15 ............................................ 58
`5.
`Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16 ............................................ 60
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3-16 Are Obvious Over Sakata II in
`View of Buxton ................................................................................ 62
`IX. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 68
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446 (June 20, 2016) .............................................................................. 22
`
`Page
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .......................................................... 24
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Acer Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Asustek Computer Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01125-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Double Power Technology, Inc. et
`al.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Southern Telecom, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01128-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Visual Land, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01127-gms (D. Del.) .............................................................. 3
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01131-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................ 3
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... 41, 67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Andrew Cockburn (“Cockburn Decl.”)
`Ex. 1003
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`2000-56912 (“Sakata I”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`2000-148366 (“Sakata II”)
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,271,835 to Hoeksma (“Hoeksma”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197 to Buxton (“Buxton”)
`Ex. 1007
`Certified USPTO File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,318
`(“’318 Patent File History”)
`Certified USPTO File History of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`(“’913 Patent File History”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 4,737,980 to Curtin (“Curtin”)
`Ex. 1010
`Japanese Patent No. 4019512 (“Sakata ‘512 Patent”)
`Shneiderman, B., “Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond
`Ex. 1011
`Programming Languages”, Computer, IEEE., 16(8), 57-69
`(Aug. 1983)
`Ex. 1012 Apple Newton MessagePad Handbook (1995) (“Newton
`Manual”)
`Ex. 1013 Matias, E., MacKenzie, I.S., and Buxton, W., Half-QWERTY:
`A one-handed keyboard facilitating skill transfer from
`QWERTY, Proceedings of the INTERCHI ’93 Conference on
`Human Factors in Computing Systems, 88-94, New York:
`ACM (1993)
`Ex. 1014 Matias, E, MacKenzie, I.S. and Buxton, W., One-handed
`Touch-Typing on a QWERTY Keyboard, Human-Comput.
`Interact., 11, 1-27 (March 1996) (“HCIJ Paper”)
`Psion 5mx User Guide (1999)
`Ex. 1015
`Psion Series 3a User Guide (1993)
`Ex. 1016
`IBM Simon Users Manual (1994)
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,689,253 to Hargreaves
`Ex. 1019 Kurtenbach, G. and Buxton, W., The Limits of Expert
`Performance Using Hierarchic Marking Menus. Proceedings
`of the INTERCHI ‘93 Conference on Human Factors in
`Computing Systems, 482-87, New York: ACM (1993)
`Shneiderman, B., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction Ch. 2, 60-62,
`Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1987)
`Ex. 1021 Nielsen, J., Usability Engineering, Ch. 5, 115-163, Morgan
`Kaufmann Pub., San Francisco (1993)
`Ex. 1022 Matias, E., MacKenzie, I.S., Buxton, W, Half-QWERTY:
`Typing With One Hand Using Your Two-handed Skills, Chi
`’94 Companion, 51-52, Boston, Mass: ACM (1994)
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,258,748 to Jones (“Jones”)
`Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,761 to Burrell (“Burrell”)
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 3,675,513 to Flanagan (“Flanagan”)
`Ex. 1026 U.S. Patent No. 5,818,437 to Grover (“Grover”)
`Ex. 1027
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew Cockburn
`Ex. 1028 Declaration of Anthony Dale
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Microsoft”) respectfully request inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1 and 3-
`
`16 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913 patent”), Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1001.
`
`The ’913 patent claims a method of text entry on devices such as handheld
`
`computers. When a keypad key corresponding to particular character is pressed
`
`for a short period of time, the device returns that character as an input. But when
`
`that key is pressed for a longer period of time, the device instead displays one or
`
`more secondary characters that can then be chosen for input.
`
`During prosecution, Patent Owner admitted that interfaces in which a key
`
`is associated with primary and secondary characters were “obvious.” Its primary
`
`argument for allowance of the ’913 patent instead focused on claim limitations
`
`directed to the timing aspect of its purported invention, i.e., distinguishing
`
`between selection and display of primary or secondary characters based on how
`
`long a key was pressed.
`
`Using short and long presses to distinguish between primary and secondary
`
`characters (and other desired GUI functionalities) was well-known in the art as of
`
`the priority date. See Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 47-51, 69-76. As of the 1990s,
`
`entering text became an important function of mobile devices, and numerous
`
`techniques became available to enter primary and secondary characters on those
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`devices. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 62-68, 77-83. Among those was the concept of
`
`using short and long presses to distinguish between and select among primary and
`
`secondary characters. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 69-76. This concept was
`
`explicitly disclosed in a Japanese-language reference to Sakata (“Sakata I”) (Ex.
`
`1003). Patent Owner cited Sakata I and the patent that issued from Sakata I
`
`during prosecution.1 However, Patent Owner was notably silent during
`
`prosecution regarding Sakata I’s distinction between primary and secondary
`
`characters based on the length of time a key was selected. Patent Owner’s only
`
`nod to its duty of disclosure was submission of a barely-comprehensible machine
`
`translation of the reference. The same time-based concept also was expressly
`
`disclosed in the primary reference relied on in this petition, Japanese Unexamined
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2000-148366 (“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004). Sakata
`
`II likewise was not discussed during prosecution.
`
`
`1 Sakata I refers to Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication Number
`
`2000-56912 (Ex. 1003). The patent that issued from the Sakata I application was
`
`Japanese Patent No. 4,019,512 (Ex. 1010) (“Sakata ’512 Patent”). Their
`
`disclosures are substantially identical and, unless stated otherwise, they are
`
`referenced interchangeably throughout this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`In light of Sakata II and other references cited herein, Microsoft petitions
`
`for review and cancellation of claims 1 and 3-16 of the ’913 patent on the ground
`
`that the claims are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft
`
`Mobile Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`An IPR was recently instituted for the ’913 patent based on the same
`
`grounds that are set forth below. See, IPR2017-00386, Paper Nos. 2 and 8. The
`
`’913 patent is asserted in the following pending cases in the District of Delaware
`
`(“the Delaware Actions”): (1) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Acer Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-GMS (D. Del.); (2) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v.
`
`Asustek Computer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01125-GMS (D. Del.);
`
`(3) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Double Power Technology, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.); (4) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-GMS (D. Del.); (5) Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`et al. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01128-GMS (D. Del.);
`
`(6) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Visual Land, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01127-
`
`gms (D. Del.); (7) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc., Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-01131-GMS (D. Del.).
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Microsoft
`
`appoints the following lead and backup counsel and has filed the required Powers
`
`of Attorney concurrent with this petition. Microsoft consents to electronic service
`
`at MSFT-913-IPRService@perkinscoie.com and the below listed counsel
`
`e-mail addresses.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Christina J. McCullough
`Reg. No. 58,720
`CMcCullough@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Phone: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`
`
`
`Chad Campbell
`Pro Hac Vice to be requested upon
`grant of authorization
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`Phone: 602.351.8393
`Fax: 602.648.7193
`Jared Crop, Reg. No. 62,459
`JCrop@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`Phone: 602.351.8000
`Fax: 602.648.7000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING, POWER OF ATTORNEY, AND FEES
`Petitioner certifies that the ’913 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is filing a power of attorney and an Exhibit List concurrently
`
`with this petition, as well as all required fees.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The ’913 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,885,318 (the ’318 patent)
`
`(Ex. 1007). The ’318 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 10/156,409, filed
`
`on May 28, 2002, which claims priority to an application filed in Great Britain on
`
`June 30, 2001.2
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1 and 3-16 of the ’913 patent and requests that
`
`these claims be found unpatentable in view of the following references:
`
`(1) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2000
`
`148366 (“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004), which published on May 26, 2000.
`
`Sakata II is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)-(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`2 Because the application on which the ’913 patent issued was filed before
`
`March 16, 2013, the effective date of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), it is
`
`subject to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 as they existed pre-AIA. All citations herein to
`
`§§ 102-103 accordingly refer to the pre-AIA provisions.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`Both the original Japanese application and a certified translation thereof are
`
`included in Exhibit 1004.
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,094,197 to Buxton (“Buxton”) (Ex. 1006),
`
`which issued from an application filed in the United States of May 17,
`
`1995. Buxton is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e)
`
`(pre-AIA).
`
`Petitioner asserts the following specific grounds of rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103: (i) claims 1 and 3-16 are obvious over Sakata II; and (ii) claims 1
`
`and 3-16 are obvious over Sakata II in view of Buxton.
`
`A. How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), an explanation of how the challenged
`
`claims of the ’913 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified
`
`above, including the identification of where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art, is provided in Section VIII, infra.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), the supporting evidence relied upon
`
`and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including identification
`
`of specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are provided
`
`herein. An Exhibit List identifying the exhibits is included. See supra at iv. In
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`further support of the proposed grounds of rejection, this Petition is accompanied
`
`by the declaration of Dr. Andrew Cockburn (“Cockburn Decl.”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`V. THE ’913 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. The Purported Invention of the ’913 Patent
`The ’913 patent, “Text Entry Method and Device Therefor,” issued on
`
`May 27, 2014. See Ex. 1001. The purported invention relates to a method “of
`
`entering text into a device, and to a device such as a portable radio telephone or a
`
`handheld computer suitably adapted to implement [the] method.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:18-21.
`
`The specification distinguishes two prior art methods of text entry. It
`
`criticizes methods that require the user to tap “keys several times until [a]
`
`required special character is selected,” also known as the “multitap” method.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:55-62. This method reportedly presents challenges to the user
`
`because it “often requires more than two key taps to select a character, and the
`
`entering of special characters can take many key taps,” making the method “slow
`
`and prone to error.” Ex. 1001 at 1:62-67. Second, the specification criticizes
`
`methods that employ “dynamic predictive keyboard[s]” that continually change
`
`the layout of the keypad in response to text inputs. Ex. 1001 at 2:1-11. While
`
`predictive techniques ensure that the “most likely character[s] [are] displayed on
`
`the keyboard,” the techniques involve “constant changing of the keyboard
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`layout.” Ex. 1001 at 2:11-19. All of the keyboard’s keys continually change,
`
`which “necessitates much practice and learning for proficient and quick text
`
`entry.” Ex. 1001 at 2:11-19. The ’913 patent claims to have overcome the
`
`problems associated with these prior art techniques. It states that it “provide[s] a
`
`method of quick and accurate character input wherein secondary characters are
`
`available with only two key selections.” Ex. 1001 at 4:3 8; see Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶¶ 84-88.
`
`The specification describes the invention by reference to Figures 1 and 2 of
`
`the ‘913. Figure 1 illustrates a mobile phone keypad in a “default display state.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:25-27.
`
`Each of the twelve keys “has a primary character 104 and a plurality of secondary
`
`characters 106 associated with it.” Ex. 1001 at 3:27-28. The “key associated
`
`with primary character ‘2’ has an associated secondary character grouping ‘abc’,
`
`the key ‘3’ the associated secondary characters ‘def’ and so on.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`3:32-37. A table known as the “key character table[]” (or KCT) “provides
`
`information to the [device’s] microprocessor relating to the default keypad to be
`
`displayed on the touchscreen, and also provides the primary and secondary
`
`characters which are to be displayed upon a first key selection.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:52-55; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 89-90.
`
`The ’913 patent states that one could select a primary character displayed
`
`above by employing what was known in the art as a “short press.” Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶¶ 2, 48, 69-76, 91. The specification discloses that such “quick
`
`tapping” (a press that lasts less than a pre-determined time period) may be used
`
`“to select the default primary characters displayed on a default keypad.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 6:1-5. In the embodiments described in the ’913 patent, a quick tap does
`
`not alter the keypad display state. Ex. 1001 at 6:5-6; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn)
`
`¶ 91.
`
`By contrast, when the user employs a “long press,” the keypad is altered to
`
`display secondary characters. For example, when the ‘5’ key is pressed for longer
`
`than “a pre-determined time period,” the display changes to one such as that
`
`shown in Figure 2. Ex. 1001 at 6:1-3; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 92.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`In this example, numerous secondary characters associated with the “5” key are
`
`displayed on neighboring keys, including the ‘j,’ ‘k,’ and ‘l’ characters, as well as
`
`additional characters “representing an exclamation mark, a double quote, a pound,
`
`a dollar sign, left and right brackets, a percentage symbol and a caret.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:44-45, 3:52-57. These displayed secondary characters may be entered in one
`
`of two ways: the user can either “tap[] [the] second key” with a finger or stylus,
`
`or “slid[e] or drag[] said finger or stylus across the keypad from the first key to
`
`the second key and pausing on, or removing the finger or stylus from, the
`
`required second key.” Ex. 1001 at 3:63-4:2. After the user selects a secondary
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`character, “the keypad of FIG. 2 is returned to the default display state as shown
`
`in FIG. 1.” Ex. 1001 at 3:60-62; see Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’913 Patent
`1.
`Independent claim 1 is a method claim. It reads:
`
`Independent Claims 1, 3 and 4
`
`A method for inputting a character to a device,
`1.
`the device including a keypad, the keypad including a
`plurality of keys, at least one of the keys has a primary
`character, a plurality of secondary characters and an
`associated display area, the keypad in a default state
`displaying the primary character associated with the at
`least one key in the associated display area, the method
`comprising acts of:
`
`in the default state,
`returning the primary character as an input
`character in response to selection of the at least
`one key for a period shorter than a predetermined
`time period;
`switching to a second state after detecting a first
`key selection of the at least one key for a period
`longer than the predetermined time period;
`
`in the second state:
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`displaying each of the secondary characters
`associated with the first selected key in a
`respective display area;
`detecting a second key selection;
`selecting for the input character the secondary
`character associated with the second key
`selection; and
`
`returning the keypad to the default state.
`Ex. 1001 at 6:48-7:3.
`
`Independent claims 3 and 4 are substantively identical to claim 1, but
`
`implemented with different claim formats: claim 3 is directed toward a software
`
`implementation of the text entry method, while claim 4 is an apparatus claim
`
`containing means-plus-function limitations. Ex. 1001 at 7:11-8:4; see also
`
`Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 95-97.
`
`Dependent Claims 5, 9 and 13
`
`2.
`Dependent claim 9 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 9 adds a
`
`limitation requiring that the keypad and the key corresponding to the selected
`
`primary character be displayed on a “touchscreen.” The same limitation appears
`
`in claim 13 (which depends from independent claim 3), and in claim 5 (which
`
`depends from independent claim 4). Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 100.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 10 and 14
`
`3.
`Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1. It adds a limitation requiring
`
`that “at least one key” has a display for displaying information associated with the
`
`key. Dependent claim 6 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 14
`
`(depending from claim 3) have the same limitation. The specification explains,
`
`“the display of primary or secondary characters associated with a key is achieved
`
`by providing an associated display area within [or] on . . . the key.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:7-10 (emphasis added). These claims claim little more than a requirement that
`
`the device acts to display a display area on the keys of its touchscreen (for
`
`example, a display area that displays primary and/or secondary characters).
`
`Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 101.
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 11 and 15
`
`4.
`Claim 11 depends from independent claim 1. It adds a limitation requiring
`
`a display adjacent to the key for displaying information associated with the key.
`
`Dependent claim 7 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 15 (depending
`
`from claim 3) have the same limitation. The specification explains, “[i]n this
`
`embodiment the display area associated with each key 102 of the keypad 100 is
`
`provided by an area of touchscreen 302 . . . adjacent to the graphical
`
`representation of the key 102.” Ex. 1001 at 4:47-50. These claims are directed
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`toward a requirement that the device acts to display a display area adjacent to one
`
`or more keys of the device. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 102.
`
`Dependent Claims 8, 12, and 16
`
`5.
`Claim 12 depends from independent claim 1. It claims an embodiment
`
`wherein the selection of a secondary character comprises “detecting a sliding
`
`across the keypad from the first key selection to the second key selection.”
`
`Dependent claim 8 (depending from claim 4) and dependent claim 16 (depending
`
`from claim 3) have the same limitation. Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 103.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`C.
`The ’913 patent is a reissue of the ’318 patent.
`
`Prosecution of the ’318 Patent
`
`1.
`The ’318 patent issued from US. Application No. 10/156,409 (the ’409
`
`application), which was filed on May 28, 2002. The ’409 application included
`
`eight claims. Its primary independent claim claimed the steps of selecting a
`
`primary character on a keypad, displaying secondary characters associated with
`
`that primary character, and allowing the user to select one of those secondary
`
`characters before returning the keypad to its “default display state.” Ex. 1007
`
`(“’318 Patent File History”) at 13-14. The examiner issued a notice of allowance
`
`on October 6, 2004, cancelling one of the claims and allowing seven of them.
`
`Ex. 1007 (’318 Patent File History) at 110-14. The examiner noted that “the
`
`closes[t] prior art Curtin”—U.S. Patent No. 4,737,980 (Ex. 1009)—“fail[ed] to
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`teach or suggest . . . a keypad in a default state displaying the primary character
`
`associated with a key in its respective display area, displaying a selected primary
`
`key’s secondary characters in a respective display area, selecting a second key
`
`which is associated with the secondary character desired for input, and returning
`
`the keypad to a default state.” Ex. 1007 (’318 Patent File History) at 112. Curtin
`
`discloses an interface that cycles through various character “guesses” depending
`
`on how many times the user presses the “originally pressed alphanumeric
`
`character key,” much like the prior art text entry techniques criticized in the ’913
`
`patent. Ex. 1009 (Curtin) at 4:9-26; see also Ex. 1001 at 1:55-2:19; Ex. 1002
`
`(Cockburn) ¶ 105. The primary reference presented in this Petition—Sakata II—
`
`was not before the examiner or cited during the prosecution of the ’318 patent.3
`
`The ’318 patent issued on April 26, 2005.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution of the ’913 Reissue Patent
`a.
`Eight years after the ’318 patent issued, on July 31, 2013, Patent Owner
`
`Initial Prosecution and Allowance
`
`filed U.S. Application No. 13/955,345 (the “’345 reissue application”) seeking
`
`reissue of the ’318 patent Ex. 1008 (“’913 Patent File History”) at 1. The claims
`
`of the reissue application required that (1) a primary character is returned for
`
`input in the default state when that character is touched “for a period shorter than
`
`
`3 Secondary reference Buxton also was not before the examiner.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`a predetermined time period,” and (2) a display of secondary characters (a
`
`“second state”) appears when the primary character is selected “for a period
`
`longer than the predetermined time period.” Ex. 1008 (’345 application) at 4;
`
`Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 106. The ’345 reissue application also added the claims
`
`that required implementation on a touchscreen, as well as the claims that allowed
`
`secondary character selection in the second state to comprise “detecting a sliding
`
`across the keypad from the first key selection to the second key selection.”
`
`Ex. 1008 (913 Patent File History) at 7; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 106.
`
`Relying on the predetermined time limitations as distinctions from the prior
`
`art, the examiner allowed the reissue claims on March 12, 2014. Ex. 1008 (’913
`
`Patent File History). The examiner stated (mistakenly, as discussed below) that
`
`the prior art of record did not teach or suggest any invention wherein:
`
`the device displays a default character associated with a
`key when the key is pressed for a period shorter tha[n] a
`predetermined time and when the key is pressed for a
`longer period secondary characters are displayed which
`are selected by a second key pressing, wherein the
`keyboard returns to the default state after the second
`key pressing.
`Ex. 1008 (’913 Patent File History) at 234; Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 107.
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent RE 44,913
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-01766
`Request for Continued Examination
`
`b.
`On March 18, 2014, Patent Owner filed a request for continued
`
`examination (RCE). Patent Owner included with the RCE an information
`
`disclosure statement (IDS) disclosing Japanese Patent No. 4,019,512 to Sakata.
`
`Ex. 1008 (’913 File History) at 250-52; see also Ex. 1010 (Japanese Patent No.
`
`4,019,512) (“Sakata ’512 Patent”); Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶ 108.
`
`The Sakata ’512 patent corresponds to a Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2000-56912 (“Sakata I”) (Ex. 1003). The Sakata I
`
`application published on February 25, 2000, and is prior art to the ’913 patent.
`
`Patent Owner submitted with the IDS the Sakata ’512 patent, which
`
`contained a cover page with the publication date of Sakata I circled, as well as a
`
`mostly incomprehensible translation (which appears to be a machine translation)
`
`of the patent from Thomson Reuters. Ex. 1008 (’913 File History) at 255-272
`
`(Sakata ’512 patent); id. at 277-93 (submitted Thomson Reuters translation);
`
`Ex. 1002 (Cockburn) ¶¶ 108-10. Patent Owner did not submit a certified
`
`translation of the text of the Sakata I reference. Patent Owner also attached pages
`
`containing some, but not all, of the figur