`
`_______________________
`
`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
`
`