UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING CO. LTD.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00354
`Patent 8,641,525
`_______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLEN STEVICK
`
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 1
`
`
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`COLLECTIVE MINDS GAMING CO. LTD.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00354
`Patent 8,641,525
`_______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLEN STEVICK
`
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................ 4
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION .............. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Law ................................................................... 5
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ............................... 6
`
`Technology Overview ...................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR “INHERENTLY RESILIENT AND
`FLEXIBLE” ................................................................................................ 8
`
`VI. THE KOTKIN REFERENCES (EX1003 AND EX1004) .......................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Housing Bottom 320 ........................................................................11
`
`Line 219 ..........................................................................................13
`
`Kotkin Provisional – Figures A-O ...................................................14
`
`VII. WILLNER (EX1005), KOJI (EX1006) AND RAYMOND (EX1007)
`REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 15
`
`VIII. REPRESENTATIONS .............................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`I, Dr. Glen Stevick, declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg” or
`
`“Petitioner”) to consider the merits of Valve Corporation’s (“Valve”)
`
`unpatentability assertions set forth in the above-captioned Petition with
`
`regard to United States Patent No. 8,641,525 (“the ‘525 patent”). I have
`
`personal knowledge of the facts and opinions stated in this Declaration, and
`
`am competent to testify thereto.
`
`2. My company, Berkeley Engineering and Research, Inc. (BEAR) is
`
`being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $450.00 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the substance of my declaration, any
`
`statements or opinions made, or the outcome of this matter.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a true and accurate copy of my current curriculum
`
`vitae has been identified and will be filed by Ironburg as Exhibit 2002.
`
`Several of the details concerning my educational background, work
`
`experience, academic appointments, honors, awards, and publications are
`
`further discussed below.
`
`1
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`4.
`
`I have over 35 years of experience in the general field of mechanical
`
`engineering, mechanical-electrical engineering and related engineering
`
`disciplines. My expertise includes years of experience in failure analysis
`
`and design of structures, material behavior, consumer products, industrial
`
`equipment and medical devices, including specifically mechanical-electrical
`
`systems, aortic, hip and knee implants, turbines and reciprocating engines,
`
`automotive and aircraft components; structural dynamics, electronic control
`
`systems, material behavior, heat transfer and structure/fluid interaction.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from Michigan Technological University in 1980 and a Masters of Science
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California,
`
`Berkeley in 1981.
`
`6.
`
`I worked for Chevron Corporation during and after my time at
`
`Michigan Technological University and U.C. Berkeley while working
`
`toward my Master’s degree. From 1981 to 1989, I worked as an engineering
`
`mechanics specialist assisting field engineers with difficult failure and re-
`
`designs ranging from refinery equipment controls to cracks in an offshore
`
`platform in the North Sea.
`
`2
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`7.
`
`In 1989, I returned to the University of California, Berkeley and
`
`started Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc. (“BEAR”). BEAR
`
`provides mechanical and electrical engineering services ranging from project
`
`analysis and consultation to accident investigations and expert testimony.
`
`8.
`
`I completed my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University
`
`of California, Berkeley in 1993 majoring in material behavior and design,
`
`and minoring in structural analysis and dynamics and controls (electronic
`
`controls). In my work at BEAR, I have designed, and analyzed the failures
`
`of, controllers for use at BEAR, in products we have sold and/or consulted
`
`on, and in general use on a wide variety of equipment.
`
`9.
`
`I am a registered Mechanical Engineer in California, Texas, Louisiana
`
`and Nevada and a member of the American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, I have taught mechanical engineering at U.C. Berkeley,
`
`serving as an instructor for the department’s senior design course,
`
`“Mechanical Engineering Design,” and have conducted various lectures on
`
`mechanical engineering topics.
`
`11. Currently, I serve as a mechanical engineering consultant at BEAR,
`
`specializing in failure analysis and design of dynamic structures, industrial
`
`3
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`equipment and consumer products, including mechanical and electrical
`
`systems.
`
`12.
`
`I am an author of numerous engineering publications and reports
`
`listed in my Curriculum Vitae attached as Exhibit 2003, as well as the co-
`
`inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,119,461, entitled “Thermal-Electric
`
`Container,” U.S. Patent Nos. 7,620,209 and 7,961,912, entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Dynamic Space-Time Imaging System,” and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,395,376, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Magnetic Response Imaging
`
`System,” and U.S. Patent No. 9,279,739, entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Detecting and Monitoring Oil Spills and Leaks.”
`
`13.
`
`I am currently a member of American Society of Testing and
`
`Materials (ASTM) Committee E05 on Fire Standards, Committee F15 on
`
`Consumer Products and Committee E08 on Fatigue and Fracture.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘525 patent specification, its
`
`claims, and its file history.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ‘525 patent filed by Collective Minds on January 3, 2018 (the
`
`“Petition”), as well as the Declaration of Mark Benden filed in support
`
`thereof (the “Benden Declaration”).
`
`4
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the exhibits cited in the Petition
`
`and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION
`
`17. While considering the ‘525 Patent and stating my opinions, I am
`
`relying on legal principles that have been explained to me by counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction Law
`
`18.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two
`
`types of claims - independent claims and dependent claims. An independent
`
`claim stands alone and includes only the features it recites. A dependent
`
`claim can depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all the features that it recites in
`
`addition to all of the features recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review the claims must be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation, but that interpretation must be
`
`consistent with the specification and prosecution history. Specifically, the
`
`interpretation must correspond with what and how the inventors described
`
`their invention in the specification.
`
`5
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claim terms are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`unless the inventor provides a special meaning for a term.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that if there are specific statements in the specification
`
`that define the invention, those statements are strong evidence of a definition
`
`for a term.
`
`22.
`
`In this declaration, I have used the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard when interpreting the claim terms.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is used to
`
`analyze the prior art without the benefit of hindsight. I further understand
`
`that a POSITA is presumed to be one who thinks along the lines of
`
`conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate,
`
`whether by extraordinary insights or by patient and often expensive
`
`systematic research.
`
`24.
`
`I have been asked to offer my opinion regarding the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art with respect to the ’525 Patent. Based on my review of the
`
`patent and the relevant art, my opinion is that the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art relating to the ’525 Patent is low, specifically that of a person with a
`
`6
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`year of experience or other training in video game controller assembly or
`
`tooling.
`
`25. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on my review of the ‘525 Patent, my education, my experience in the field of
`
`mechanical engineering, and my related experience.
`
`26.
`
`I meet these criteria and consider myself a person with at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the patent. I would have been such a
`
`person at the time of invention of the patent. I have supervised those with
`
`ordinary skill in the art and I am therefore familiar with their qualifications.
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that the Benden Declaration (¶ 8) asserts that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘525 Patent is “(i) a Bachelor’s
`
`degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing mechanical
`
`engineering or similar discipline and (ii) at least 2 years of industry
`
`experience in product design or the equivalent.”
`
`28. My statements and opinions set forth herein are true and correct
`
`regardless of which of these two descriptions of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is ultimately adopted.
`
`C. Technology Overview
`
`29. To understand how a POSITA would have viewed the claims and the
`
`specification, the problem addressed by the ‘525 patent must be put in
`
`7
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`context with the overall technology. At the time of the priority date of the
`
`‘525 Patent, there was a need for an improved hand-held video game
`
`controller that mitigated the need for the gamer to move his or her thumb
`
`from one control to operate additional controls, which takes time and can
`
`cause a loss of control. EX1001, 1:33-45.
`
`30. The ‘525 Patent is directed to a hand-held video game controller
`
`intended to be held by a user in both hands. EX1001, Abstract. It comprises
`
`an outer case with two handles, a front control, is shaped to be held in the
`
`hand of a user such that the user’s thumb is positioned to operate the front
`
`control, and two back controls with elongated members along the
`
`longitudinal axes of the handles, such that the user’s other fingers are
`
`position to operate the back controls. Id., 1:49-58.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR “INHERENTLY RESILIENT AND
`FLEXIBLE”
`
`31.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “inherently resilient and flexible”
`
`elongate members. EX1001, Claim 1.
`
`32. The Board has previously construed this claim phrase to mean
`
`inherently, the elongate member itself “may be bent or flexed by a load, such
`
`as that from a user’s finger, and will then return to its unbiased position
`
`when not under load.” See IPR2016-00948, Paper 44 at 36-38 (maintaining
`
`8
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`interpretation stated in the Institution Decision); IPR2016-00948, Paper 55
`
`at 3-7 (maintaining interpretation stated in the Institution Decision).
`
`33. As explained below, I agree with the Board’s construction. It is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would understand the phrase “inherently resilient
`
`and flexible” in the context of the ‘525 Patent to mean “inherently, the
`
`elongate member itself returns to an unbiased position when not under load”
`
`(e.g., the load from a user’s finger), and is “flexible” in that it is “formed
`
`from a material that may be bent or flexed by that load.” This is true for
`
`several reasons.
`
`34. First, the ‘525 Patent specification confirms that “inherently resilient
`
`and flexible” are physical characteristics of the elongate member.
`
`Specifically, the ‘525 Patent describes the elongate members (e.g., paddles
`
`11) as “inherently resilient, which means that they return to an unbiased
`
`position when not under load.” EX1001, 3:33-35. Further, the ‘525 Patent
`
`explains that elongate members (e.g., paddles 11) “are formed from a thin
`
`flexible material such as a plastics material, for example polyethylene.” Id.,
`
`3:28-30 (emphasis added).
`
`35. Second, these descriptions clearly demonstrate that “inherently
`
`resilient and flexible” are physical characteristics of the elongate members.
`
`9
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`As such, to meet the express claim language, the elongate member itself
`
`(“inherently”) must be capable of being bent or flexed by a load and returns
`
`to an unbiased position when not under a load. Thus, “inherently” refers to
`
`the inherent characteristics of the elongate member and not to other
`
`components.
`
`36. The ‘525 Patent does not disclose biasing by a spring. Based on my
`
`analysis of the ‘525 Patent specification and claims, it is my opinion that a
`
`solid nonflexible object biased by a spring was not intended to meet the
`
`express claim language and does not meet the express claim language.
`
`37. Thus, consistent with the Board’s construction, the proper
`
`construction in light of the specification is that the elongate member itself is
`
`“inherently resilient and flexible.” Inherently, the elongate member itself is
`
`resilient in that “returns to an unbiased position when not under load” (e.g.,
`
`the load from a user’s finger), and is “flexible” in that “it is formed from a
`
`material that may be bent or flexed by that load.”
`
`VI. THE KOTKIN REFERENCES (EX1003 AND EX1004)
`
`38.
`
`I understand that Petitioner contends that the limitation for “inherently
`
`resilient and flexible” elongate members is met by each of Kotkin’s
`
`disclosures of (i) the housing bottom 320 in Exhibit 1003, (ii) the line 219 in
`
`Exhibit 1003, and (iii) the nondescript features in Fig. J of Kotkin’s
`
`10
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`provisional application in Exhibit 1004. (Petition at 25-27.) I disagree with
`
`Petitioner’s contention and I address below the basis of my conclusion.
`
`A. Housing Bottom 320
`
`39. For housing bottom 320, I understand that Petitioner suggests that
`
`Kotkin’s statement of “applying a slight pressure to one of the left or right
`
`sides of the housing bottom 320, relative to the top housing 310 (i.e., thus
`
`‘squeezing’ the housing), will actuate a trigger button,” is evidence that it is
`
`capable of being flexed by a load. Petition at 25 (quoting EX1003 at ¶¶
`
`0043-0044).
`
`40. Based on my review of the Kotkin reference (EX1003), this statement
`
`merely suggests that the housing bottom 320 can be displaced from a biased
`
`position under a load to unbiased position when not under load. In my
`
`opinion, a person skilled in the art would understand, in the full context of
`
`the Kotkin disclosure, that the suggested effect of “squeezing” the housing is
`
`due to biasing by springs 334a, 334b.
`
`41. This is true because Kotkin explains the alleged “squeezing” in the
`
`context of biasing springs in EX1003 at ¶ [0046]: “Thus, each screw 336a,
`
`336b adjusts the amount of spring force on the corresponding trigger 318a,
`
`318b, and the springs 334a, 334b pull back on a corresponding trigger lever
`
`11
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`318a, 318b to assist in the trigger pull when the users grip “squeezes” a
`
`respective side of the housing bottom 320.”
`
`42. These biasing springs 334a, 334b are annotated in red in Figs. 6C and
`
`6D below:
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In connection with the ‘525 Patent, I understand that the Board
`
`concluded that biasing by a spring does not establish that the elongate
`
`members are flexible as claimed. IPR2016-00948, Paper 54 at 5, 8. I agree
`
`with the Board’s conclusion.
`
`44. Likewise, in my opinion, the biasing by springs 334a, 334b “to assist
`
`in the trigger pull when the users grip ‘squeezes’ a respective side of the
`
`12
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`housing bottom 320” does not establish that the elongate member is
`
`inherently flexible.
`
`B.
`
`Line 219
`
`45. For the line 219, I understand Petitioner (and the Benden Declaration)
`
`contend that it is rigid because it is under tension, and thus, “would return to
`
`an unloaded position when a user’s finger is removed.” Petition at 26. This
`
`contention is incorrect for at least two reasons.
`
`46. First, it ignores the Board’s instruction that resiliency is an inherent
`
`characteristic of the elongate member. IPR2016-00948, Paper 54 at 5.
`
`Here, Kotkin teaches a “flexible cable or line 219” (EX1003, ¶ [0033]), but
`
`nowhere does it disclose that such cable or line is made of a material that has
`
`the inherent characteristic to be moved to a biased position under load and
`
`then returns to an unbiased position when not under load. In fact, if it was
`
`inherently resilient, then there would no reason to place the line 219 under
`
`tension. Otherwise, without the tension, it would merely be a loose string or
`
`cable line with an indeterminate position.
`
`47. Second, the Board’s construction mandates that the elongate member
`
`moves from a biased position to an unbiased position. IPR2016-00948,
`
`Paper 54 at 5. Here, line 219 is under tension, which means that it is already
`
`biased by a certain load. The application of a user’s finger on the line 219
`
`13
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`adds more load to the line 219. Thus, the line 219 moves from one biased
`
`position to another biased (not unbiased) position.
`
`C. Kotkin Provisional – Figures A-O
`
`48.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and the Benden Declaration are relying on
`
`the Kotkin provisional application (EX1004) to suggest that certain features
`
`depicted in Figures A-O, particularly in reference to Figure J, are back
`
`controls with elongate members that are inherently resilient and flexible.
`
`49. The Kotkin provisional application does not describe or label the
`
`features or components shown on the back of the controller in any of these
`
`figures, including Fig. J, as back controls or elongate members that are
`
`inherently resilient and flexible.
`
`50. Nor does the Kotkin provisional application provide any labels or text
`
`to identify, disclose, teach or suggest the nondescript shapes or components
`
`that Petitioner contends are back controls with elongate members that are
`
`inherently resilient and flexible.
`
`51. There is no rational basis or underlying facts for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to understand that these nondescript features are back controls
`
`with elongate members that are inherently resilient and flexible.
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, these nondescript features could represent (1) hand
`
`grips, (2) support structures, or (3) decorative features.
`
`14
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`VII. WILLNER (EX1005), KOJI (EX1006) AND RAYMOND (EX1007)
`REFERENCES
`
`53.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and the Benden Declaration attempt to
`
`combine Willner (EX1005) with Koji (EX1006) and Raymond (EX1007).
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would not have combined Willner’s device
`
`with Koji and Raymond.
`
`55. As an initial matter, Raymond is non-analogous to Willner and Koji,
`
`and therefore, there is no reason to combine these references. Raymond is
`
`also non-analogous to the ‘525 Patent.
`
`56. Here, the pertinent field of endeavor for the ‘525 Patent is “hand held
`
`controllers for video game consoles.” EX1001, 1:7-8. Even both
`
`independent claims recite a “hand held controller for a game console” with a
`
`plurality of controls. EX1001, 4:41 and 6:13.
`
`57. Raymond is not directed to hand held controllers for video game
`
`consoles nor is it directed to controls. Rather, the pertinent field of endeavor
`
`for Raymond is a “twin lever mechanical radio key” used in generating
`
`“code signals in Amateur Radio”, i.e., “to produce the dot and dash code
`
`signals in iambic predetermined code sequences.” EX1007, 1:5-8 &
`
`Abstract).
`
`15
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`58. Raymond is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem of the ‘525
`
`patent. The ‘525 patent addressed the problem of loss of control and time
`
`due to a video game player moving his or her thumb over to operate
`
`additional controls on the hand-held video game controller, and the problem
`
`of hand strain or injury from having to operate many different controls on
`
`the front of the controller with only a user’s thumbs. EX1001, 1:33-45 &
`
`3:56-61.
`
`59. Meanwhile, Raymond sought to overcome the problem of radio keys
`
`placed and held in the vertical plane with a twin lever key having horizontal
`
`finger pads for code transmission. EX1007, 1:10-30, 2:15-17. The radio key
`
`is operable by downward finger pressure on the finger key pads to close a
`
`physical and electrical circuit at contact points (13), while opening of the
`
`circuit being effected by release of the pressure, in single or in combination
`
`of both key arms, generates a predetermined continuous wave code
`
`sequence. (EX1007, 1:53-57, 2:49-55, 3:1-6.)
`
`60. Thus, in my opinion, Raymond would not have logically commended
`
`itself to the attention of a POSITA, particularly given the low level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`16
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`61.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner does not explain or show how or why a POSITA
`
`with “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or similar discipline”
`
`and “at least 2 years of experience with product design or the equivalent”,
`
`would have looked at Raymond’s electrical radio keys to solve the problems
`
`addressed in the ‘525 patent.
`
`62.
`
`I understand Petitioner (and the Benden Declaration) argue that a
`
`POSITA would be motivated to combine Raymond with Koji “to provide a
`
`more efficient and responsive lever for the user” (Petition at 50; EX1008,
`
`¶¶29-30) that is “both more durable and less costly to produce” (Petition at
`
`59; EX1008 at ¶31). I disagree with this argument for several reasons.
`
`63. First, neither Petitioner nor its declarant recognize or acknowledge
`
`that Raymond is non-analogous, and consequently, fail to provide any
`
`rational underpinning or corroborating evidence regarding why the teachings
`
`of this non-analogous art, Raymond, might be combinable with Koji or
`
`Willner to arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner (and its declarant) also
`
`did not present any arguments suggesting that Raymond is not non-
`
`analogous art. Notably, they did not present any evidence that Raymond is
`
`in the same field of endeavor or that it is directed to the same problem
`
`addressed in the ‘525 Patent.
`
`17
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`64. Second, neither the Petition nor the cited evidence explains what
`
`efficiency or durability may be provided by the alleged responsive lever, nor
`
`does Petitioner provide a reason for why a POSITA would combine the
`
`references in the same manner as claimed.
`
`65.
`
`In light of the above, a POSITA would have no reason to rely on
`
`Raymond or combine with Koji or Willner because it is non-analogous art.
`
`66. A POSITA would also have no reason to combine Koji with Willner
`
`as both references disclose different structures and solve different problems,
`
`and Willner teaches away from such proposed combination.
`
`67.
`
`In particular, Koji addresses the problem of operating “buttons
`
`simultaneously” on an “analog controller” by using a “multistage trigger
`
`device” that is capable “of pressing the plurality of trigger buttons of the
`
`controller” to “enable pseudo-analog” functionality. EX1006, ¶ [0004]-
`
`[0006].
`
`68.
`
`In contrast, Willner addresses the problem of keyboard data entry
`
`systems not “adapted to be supported by the two hands of the user while the
`
`user operates the key switches during data entry” and proposes “an
`
`ergonomic keyboard system for providing data entry and/or gaming inputs”.
`
`EX1005, 1:13-15, 33-57.
`
`18
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`69. Neither Willner nor Koji are directed to solving the problem
`
`addressed in the ‘525 Patent – the problem of loss of control and time due to
`
`a video game player moving his or her thumb over to operate additional
`
`controls on the hand-held video game controller, and the problem of hand
`
`strain or injury from having to operate many different controls on the front
`
`of the controller with only a user’s thumbs. EX1001, 1:33-45 & 3:56-61.
`
`70. Neither Petitioner nor its declarant provide any persuasive reason why
`
`a POSITA would be motivated to modify Willner in view of Koji,
`
`particularly since the references solve different problems from one another
`
`and from the ‘525 Patent.
`
`71. Finally, Willner teaches away from such proposed combination with
`
`Koji. While Koji is directed at operating “buttons simultaneously” using the
`
`“multistage trigger device” ((EX1006, ¶ [0004]-[0006](emphasis added)),
`
`Willner discloses a device that specifically is designed to operate the buttons
`
`“independently.”
`
`72. Specifically, Willner discloses that all of its “alphabetic characters of
`
`an alphabet (lower case) can be generated without the use of chording (the
`
`simultaneous operation of two or more keyboard switches).” EX1005, 2:14-
`
`16. It also discloses that “this invention pertains to a hand held system
`
`19
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`wherein the first surface controls and the second surface controls can be
`
`operated independently, for producing character codes without chording, to
`
`generate all of the lower case characters of an alphabet. EX1005, 1:22-27
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`73. Thus, while Koji teaches to operate buttons simultaneously, Willner
`
`teaches to operate the buttons independently.
`
`74.
`
`In view of the forgoing, it is my opinion that there is no reason for a
`
`POSITA to combine Willner’s device (which was purposely designed to
`
`have its keys operate independently) with Koji’s device (which was
`
`purposely designed to trigger several buttons simultaneously).
`
`VIII. REPRESENTATIONS
`
`75. The statements set forth in this Declaration do not reflect the limits of
`
`my opinions, and the fact that any assertions contained within the Second
`
`Petition or any supporting documents have not been addressed herein should
`
`not be interpreted as an admission that they are accurate or uncontested in
`
`any way. I may consider additional documents as they become available or
`
`other documents that are necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right
`
`to revise, supplement, or amend my opinions based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis.
`
`20
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00354
`Patent No. 8,641,525
`
`76.
`
`I declare under penalty of the laws of the United States that all
`
`statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and correct, and that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and
`
`further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the likes so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`77.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize
`
`that I may be subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-
`
`examination will take place within the United States. If cross-examination is
`
`required of me, I will appear for cross-examination within the United States
`
`during the time allotted for cross-examination
`
`
`
`Executed this 27th day of March, 2018, at Berkeley, California.
`
`_________________________
`Glen Stevick, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`21
`
`IRONBURG EX2001, Page 23
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
