RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KEYNETIK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: August 6, 2019
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KEYNETIK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: August 6, 2019
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PHILLIP W. CITROEN, ESQUIRE
`CHETHAN BANSAL, ESQUIRE
`ARVIND JAIRAM, ESQUIRE
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-551-1991
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`EDWARD F. BEHM, ESQUIRE
`MARK W. HALDERMAN, ESQUIRE
`Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
`2005 Market Street, 29th Floor
`One Commerce Square
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`267-780-2000
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, August 6,
`2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`THE USHER: All rise.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Please be seated. Good morning. This is a
`hearing for IPR2018-00985, Samsung v. Keynetik.
`Judges White and Branch are participating remotely, so please
`identify particular slide numbers as you move through your demonstratives
`so they can follow along.
`We remind the parties that demonstratives are not evidence, but
`instead are aids to assist the Panel in understanding your arguments
`presented today at the hearing.
`We are aware that each party has filed objections to certain of the
`other side's demonstratives. At this time we will allow the parties to use any
`of the demonstratives, but we caution you that ultimately we will not
`consider any evidence or arguments that we determine are newly made if
`they were not presented in the papers.
`For this case this morning each party has 45 minutes to argue. And
`Petitioner will argue first, and may save no more than half of its total time
`for rebuttal. Patent Owner will argue second and may reserve no more than
`half of the total time for sur-rebuttal.
`Counsel, when you begin your argument please identify yourself and
`the party you represent, for the record, and also indicate how much time you
`would like to reserve for rebuttal. Petitioner, you may begin when you're
`ready.
`MR. CITROEN: Good morning. May it please the Board? My name
`is Phillip Citroen, on behalf of Petitioner, Samsung. And with me here
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`today is Arvind Jairam and Chetan Bansal, also with Petitioner, Samsung.
`I'd like to reserve roughly 15 minutes for rebuttal, and I --
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: The clock will show your total time, but I'll
`let you know when you're getting close to rebuttal time.
`MR. CITROEN: Thank you. Your Honor, I do have hard copy of our
`slides, if you would like?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes, please.
`MR. CITROEN: May we approach?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Yes. Thank you.
`MR. CITROEN: If we can look at slide 2: Your Honors, just quickly,
`slide 2 presents the grounds that are at issue in this proceeding. There are
`two here, one is anticipation based on Liberty, the second ground is a
`combination of the 103 ground based on Noguera and Liberty. Based on the
`evidence relied upon to institute these proceedings as well as the additional
`evidence that is now on the record, we believe these claims should be found
`unpatentable based on both grounds and cancelled in the final written
`decision.
`If we can go to slide 3: I want to begin first by just looking at the
`challenged claims quickly. In this proceeding Keynetik faults Samsung for
`reading these claims as broadly as they were written.
`According to Keynetik these incredibly broad claims are actually
`incredibly narrow, although not recited in any of the limitations, Keynetik
`argues that these claims require ignoring return motion, require ignoring
`intentional and unintentional motion, require reactivating motion input
`algorithm only after the elapse of a defined period of time, require seeing the
`sleep command as a direct cause of the executing of prior command, require
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`sleep command to be sent each and every time a sense motion is translated
`into a command.
`I could keep going, but at the end of the day these claims recite none
`of these limitations, instead Keynetik pursued and was awarded a much
`broader claim which is what you see here in claim 22 on slide 3. Keynetik
`cannot now ask the Board to redraft the claims to avoid the prior art. The
`law doesn’t allow it, and the Board shouldn’t allow it.
`So, if we can go to slide 4: that's where I'd like to start. I want to talk
`about what do these claims actually mean. And the three overarching issues
`are here on slide 4, and I'm just going to focus, in the interest of time, on
`issues 1 and 2. After that I want to talk about some specific issues related to
`the prior art.
`So, if go to slide 5, the first issue I'd like to discuss is, what does
`"sleep command" mean, and what does "an instruction to reactivate motion
`sensing algorithm" mean?
`If we can go to slide 8 really quickly, I just want to look at the claim
`language again. These two issues relate to the last two instructions that you
`see here in claim 22. Instructions to sending sleep command, et cetera, and
`then the last one: instructions to reactive the motion sensing algorithm, et
`cetera.
`And if you can go back to slide 6, please? As you can see here, in
`slide 6, what Keynetik argues is -- what they argue for is a very narrow
`construction, they argue that all movements must be ignored, that's what's
`required by claim 22, they also argue that all movements, including
`intentional an unintentional movements, must be ignored even though that's
`not recited in the claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor?
`MR. CITROEN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WHITE: Patent Owner has put forth the argument that sleep
`has a meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, as indicated by the use of a
`sleep command in the UNIX system or in the Windows system. How do
`you respond to that?
`MR. CITROEN: Sure, Your Honor. So, their argument is that those
`UNIX and Windows systems essentially mean that the sleep command
`pauses some process. We're not necessarily disputing that point. The
`question is: what does "pausing some process" mean? What is the extent
`that the system must be put to sleep?
`Obviously there are variations, there is some breadth to what sleep
`means, and none of the things that they point to, UNIX or Windows
`specifies that sleep means that you completely shut down some portion of
`the system, or some portion of a process so that it doesn’t operate as
`intended or as it normally would.
`So, the question then is, in the context of the claims, in the context of
`the specification, what does sleep mean? And when you look at the claims,
`they're much broader, it doesn’t define the sleep command.
`If we can actually go to slide 8 please: The claims don't define the
`sleep command, it merely states and this is the second instructions,
`"Instructions to send the sleep command to the motion input algorithm after
`the command is executed." Nothing here indicates to what extent any
`process must be put to sleep. At most, you need to -- the motion input
`algorithm, we need to stop translating sense motion, sense moving, I should
`say, to some extent, but it does not state that all sense movement whatsoever
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`must not be translated into commands, and there's certainly no mention of
`intentional and unintentional movements in the claim language.
`And if you look at the specification -- if we go to slide 10 -- again,
`there's no definition of sleep command in the specification, most of the
`specification which you can see here, deals with ignoring changes in the
`orientation, or what's sometimes called return motion, very specific types of
`movements. It doesn’t say, all movements that are sensed are ignored, it
`repeatedly refers to return motions, changes in orientation, so there's no
`support that sleep command is defined in the specification, that the standard
`for lexicography has not been met here. There's no clarity, deliberateness,
`precision that's required.
`So that's -- our position is, if you look at the claims, going back to
`slide 8, it's much, much broader, they want to narrow these claims to avoid
`the prior art, and they haven't shown that that's proper to do here.
`JUDGE WHITE: Well, and in the section of the specification that
`you have over there on slide 10, it indicates that you're supposed to be
`ignoring or insensitive to the movements to move your device to a new more
`comfortable angle, would that not mean that you are ignoring or being
`insensitive to intentional motion in order to have that period of insensitivity
`that's called for?
`MR. CITROEN: I don't think it goes that far, Your Honor, to be
`honest. The specification talks about certain types of motion that should be
`ignored, but doesn’t say all types of motion should be ignored whether
`intentional or unintentional. It's very specific about orientation changes. So
`very specific movements of moving your device so that you can reposition it
`so you're more comfortable, it doesn’t talk about if you want to move your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`device in some much larger motion to perform some action, it doesn’t go
`that far. And the claims, especially, don't go that far.
`So, even if you want to say that the specification is narrower in order
`to review -- in order to construe the claims that narrowly, you would have to
`import these examples from the specification, and I don't think that would be
`proper here as well, especially under the BRI Standard.
`So, I'd like to talk -- if we can go to slide 9 -- unless Your Honor has
`any more questions on that specific issue -- about the reactivation portion of
`this issue. Here, for the reactivation portion. Keynetik argues that the
`limitation means you cannot have additional instructions that reactivate the
`motion input algorithm for some reason, other than the elapse of time, and
`still meet this limitation.
`Again, nothing in the claims precludes instructions that are not
`specifically recited in these claims. And if you look at these claims, claim
`22 is a comprising claim, and it appears twice in the claim, at the very
`beginning, an article comprising, and again, the step motion algorithm
`including instructions comprising. So, twice it mentions comprising, and the
`law of comprising means that you were not limited to the specific steps that
`are recited in the claim.
`That means the algorithm may include instructions other than the
`three that are recited here. Also, I'd just like to point out, the claims also
`don't recite that the motion input algorithm is reactivated from the sleep
`command only after the elapse of a defined period of time. So, as written
`another instruction in the prior art could exist as long as this instruction
`reactivates after the elapse of a defined period of time also exists, it's still
`met.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor, Patent Owner seems to be arguing that
`your view of the usage of the word "comprising" in this context causes
`comprising to, I guess, overwhelm or the language that is specified here,
`because they're saying that if comprising means that you can awaken with
`other means, then you have basically removed the instruction to reactivate,
`that it no longer has a real purpose if you can reactivate due to the motion, or
`whatever have you, instruction. What is your response to that?
`MR. CITROEN: Sure, Your Honor, and that's -- if we can go to slide
`12, please, Arvind? Their argument -- actually let's go to slide 13 -- their
`argument, and they focus a lot on this Liberty Ammunition case, is that, we're
`construing in the claims -- we're construing in the claims in a way that would
`essentially nullify this last instruction to reactivate, but if you look at this,
`this Federal Circuit, this case, just as an example to illustrate why we believe
`his point is wrong.
`If we can go to slide 13 -- I'm sorry -- 14. The Federal Circuit in this
`case rejected the construction of intermediate opposite ends, and it was all
`about whether the interface, which is on the figures in the left-hand side, the
`vertical line where -- I'm sorry -- the highlighted purple portions, whether
`those fell within the intermediate opposite ends.
`The Federal Circuit -- excuse me -- the Federal Circuit rejected the
`construction for this term, because the construction would cover an interface
`that is not only between the opposing ends, but also outside of that position,
`so the bottom left picture there where the purple goes all the way around,
`which would render that limitation, intermediate opposite ends, a nullity.
`In other words, the construction broadened the term itself so that it
`could be met based on something that didn’t actually fall within an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`intermediate opposite end. That's not the situation that we have here.
`Samsung isn't arguing if the limitation instructions to reactivate the motion
`sensing algorithm from the sleep command after elapsed at a defined period
`of time, also covers instructions to reactivate after some other event.
`As Keynetik contends, all we're arguing is that this limitation would
`still be met even if there are other instructions that could reactivate the
`motion sensing algorithm in addition to an instruction that reactivates after
`the elapse of the defined period of time, which we argue is still required by
`the claims. So, the point is, if there's an additional instruction. I'm going to
`give an example. If you have a claim for a razor blade comprising a first,
`second, and third razor, and the prior art discloses a razor blade that has four
`razors, it still meets the limitation because it has three razors, and that's
`actually the Gillette case, the facts from the Gillette case which is discussed
`in the Liberty Ammunition case,
`Our example here, or our claim here is similar, we have three
`instructions. All we're arguing is, you could have a fourth instruction and
`the claims can still be met, as long as the three instructions that are explicitly
`recited in the claims are still satisfied. That's our point, and that's what we
`believe the prior art discloses, Liberty in particular, which I'll get to.
`And one other thing, just on this slide I want to point out, one of the
`reasons, the Federal Circuit rejected this construction is because it would
`have encompassed a prior art projectile within the construction of the claim,
`it would have encompassed that prior art projectile, and that couldn’t be
`right. So, there's that basis as well, I was relying on, and it was an important
`part of the Federal Circuit's decision, that scenario doesn’t exist here either.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`So, one other point I'd like to make on this reactivation limitation, and
`if we can go back to slide 11, Arvind? I just want to go to the specification,
`we've already talked about the claim language, well, what does the
`specification say? If you look at Figure 12, in the corresponding course and
`specification which is column 14, line 27 to 29, it broadly describes sending
`a wakeup command without reference to what actually triggers that
`command. It's much broader. Only later in the specification does it state
`that the command maybe sent after a certain amount of time, but that portion
`of the specification explicitly states that it's an example, and that portion is
`column 14, line 29 to 43.
`So with that, I want to go to the next claim construction issue. So, if
`we can jump to slide 19. So, the last issue here with claim construction I
`want to talk about is the time, it relates to the time in the sleep command.
`Our position is that the command need only be sent after the prior command
`is executed, because that's all the claims require.
`Keynetik argues that the sleep command cannot just be after the prior
`command, but instead must also have some direct result, there must be a
`cause and effect type relationship, and that's if we look at slide 20 that
`summarizes their position.
`But if we can go to slide 21: If you look at the intrinsic record, the
`specification, the claims, the figure, they all support Samsung's position
`here, the claims at the very top, it merely states, after. If you look at the
`specification it recites, following the execution of the command. If you look
`at the figures, it merely states that the wakeup command be sent after the
`sleep command. That's the sequence.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`So, the specification is pretty clear, there is no requirement that there
`has to be a cause and effect relationship, this is just another example of
`Keynetik trying to narrow the claims as much as possible to avoid the prior
`art here.
`If we can go to slide 22: So what Keynetik tries to do to narrow the
`claims is they point to, what is the purpose? They pull out a purpose from
`the specification of the 146 Patent, and their point is that the purpose of that
`invention relates to ignoring returning motions, so the claims must return --
`ignore return motion, in order to do that there must be a cause and effect
`relationship.
`The problem with that is it's improper to import these embodiments,
`these examples from the specification in this way. The claims say nothing
`about ignoring return motion. They just state: sending a sleep command and
`after the sleep command -- sorry -- sending the sleep command after the
`prior command is executed. That's all the claim recites, it's a very broad
`claim.
`So, I'd like to go ahead and go to some of the prior art issues, so if we
`can go to slide 24 -- let's go to 25 actually. Here, we have a summary of the
`issues. I'm going to start with Liberty, and a lot of the issues with Liberty
`come back to these claim construction disputes.
`So the first one deals with the sleep command and to reactivate -- the
`issue is whether Liberty discloses these particular instructions. And our
`position is that it does, under either construction, whether we go to
`Samsung's constructions or Keynetik's construction.
`So first, if you go to slide 26: Under Samsung's construction I think
`the issue here, the argument is pretty straightforward, and it's undisputed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`Liberty discloses the command to start the suppressing movement, and stop
`suppressing after an elapse of time. That's enough to meet these limitations
`under Samsung's constructions.
`I think where the bigger dispute lies, if you can go to slide 27, is under
`Keynetik's construction, is this limitation met? And our position is, is that it
`is. If you look at Liberty it explains that the point of movement output is
`suppressed, either -- until either the distance exceeds the distance threshold,
`or the amount of lapse time exceeds a time threshold.
`So, if the distance threshold is never reached, as recited in claim 22,
`all these limitations are met, because all movement would be ignored, and
`reactivation would occur after the elapse of a defined period of time. That's
`exactly what the claims require. So, in that particular scenario Liberty meets
`the limitations of claim 22.
`Now, if we can go to slide 28. There're a couple of cases I think are
`just good examples that help us understand the -- or we can analogize to help
`us understand the issue here and the position of why Liberty disclosed these
`limitations.
`The first is Exergen, and this case generally relates to thermometers,
`and the question here was whether the prior art discloses detecting
`temperature from two portions of biological tissues, so skin, your eardrum,
`two portions of biological tissue. Exergen, the plaintiff here, argued that that
`this limitation was not met by the prior art because the art detected radiation
`from a thermostat itself, in addition to the two portions of biological tissue.
`The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, because the claim does not
`recite the radiation must only, or the temperature must only be detected from
`biological tissue, relying on the fact that these claims are comprising claims,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`just like 22 here. The fact that the prior art detected radiation from
`biological tissue was sufficient because that's all the claim required.
`It didn’t matter that the temperature was also detected from the
`thermometer itself. And the facts here are similar, the claims don't preclude
`reactivation for reasons other than elapsed time, so long as the prior art
`discloses reactivation due to the elapse of time, this limitation is met, and as
`we just discussed, that's what Liberty discloses.
`And just quickly, if can go to slide 29, I also want to mention the
`Boesen case, and this is probably even more on point. And this case dealt
`with touch screen displays that you actually touch to give different inputs.
`So, in this claim the question was whether the prior art disclosed the
`limitations of the required input via the touch screen display. And the
`Federal Circuit found in this case an Acura navigation system, a navigation
`system in the Acura cars discloses the limitation, and in this case they
`rejected the plaintiff's argument that this limitation was not met, because the
`Acura system included a joystick, a hard joystick that could also be used to
`provide the input, in addition to the ability to provide the input on the touch
`screen itself. In this case the Court's reasoning was that as long as the Acura
`system can and does perform the claimed input via touch screen, it's of no
`consequence that the input could also be some joystick, some other type of
`input.
`The Court explains that the claims are comprising claims, just like
`here, claim 22, and the Court also explained that there's no language in the
`claim that the input must always come from the touch screen, just like here,
`the claims all say that reactivation must be always due to elapse of the
`defined period of time. So the facts look very similar.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counselor?
`MR. CITROEN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WHITE: Let's go back to the sleep command in Liberty then.
`So under -- Liberty discloses, if you have a device and you're going to define
`fine mode, while you're in that fine mode you then reorient the device as is
`discussed in the patent. Would that motion -- would that reorientation, that
`intentional movement be ignored under Liberty?
`MR. CITROEN: Under Liberty it could be, yes, because Liberty -- so
`Liberty explains that when you're in this fine mode clicking, you have set
`thresholds, and the set thresholds are adjustable, that's at Exhibit 1005,
`column 16, line 52 to 54, it also explains the techniques can be applied to
`any known device interaction that yields an undesirable movement, that's
`Exhibit 1005, column 18, line 41 to 44. What Liberty explains is that if you
`have a threshold of movement that you can change depending on the
`circumstance and what you movement you want to ignore, and you also have
`a time threshold.
`So Liberty explains that, yes, you could have a threshold that has --
`that is high enough that it would ignore those types of movements, it's a
`broad disclosure and the prior art is good for all that it teaches. So it's our
`position, yes, Liberty does explain that, or does disclose that. And of course
`that all assumes that the claims, which say nothing about return motion, say
`nothing about intentional and unintentional movement are actually required.
`Again, our position is the claims don't require any of that, they're
`much broader, they simply state a sleep command, which our position is,
`you need to ignore some sense movement, that's what Liberty discloses. But
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`if you do go that narrow with the claims based on the specification we
`believe it's still disclosed.
`So with that, Your Honor, I'd like to move to the next issue. If you
`can go to slide 30, please: So, the next issue is related -- actually let's go to -
`- whether Liberty discloses the sleep command sense after the command is
`executed, and if we could go to slide 8, really quickly, just to give us some
`contest.
`The second instruction recites, "Instruction to send the sleep
`command to the motion input algorithm after the command is executed."
`The question is, does Liberty disclose this limitation focusing specifically on
`"after"?
`So, if we can go back to -- let's go to slide 31. So, Keynetik's position
`is that, and we discussed this earlier, this limitation requires the sleep
`command to be sent as a direct result of the execution of the prior art
`command. And our position, under both interpretations, ours, which simply
`requires it to be after as the claim requires, and under Keynetik's
`construction this limitation is met.
`Let's go to slide 32. Again, our argument is pretty straightforward,
`under our construction because Liberty discloses movements, and after that
`movement you have a sleep command. I'm going to go ahead and jump to
`Keynetik's interpretation where I think there's more of a dispute here.
`So, if we go to slide 33: Even if the claims were interpreted to provide
`some direct correlation as Keynetik asked the Board to interpret these
`claims, Liberty still discloses this limitation. So, the issue deals with
`velocity, and the discussion of velocity in liberty. And if we can go back so
`we can look at some of the disclosure here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`
`So, slide 32: Liberty's system, "The sleep state is only entered if the
`velocity falls below a certain threshold, and that's shown in this bottom
`portion here, Exhibit 1005, column 18, line 25 to 34. It states, "For
`Example, if the velocity of the hand-held device is below a predetermined
`velocity threshold, then the first technique is employed, with discards
`motion data generated to subsequent to a detected event."
`Now Keynetik spends a lot of time, arguing this limitation isn't met,
`because this fine mode clicking technique, involves the user also pressing a
`button in addition to looking at the velocity, and whether it's below a certain
`threshold. So, first of all, I want to be clear that what Liberty actually
`explains, is that you look at the velocity of the -- and I'm quoting from
`Liberty, quote, "The velocity of the hand-held device at the time of button
`actuation, or at the time just before button actuation." And that's Exhibit
`1005, column 18, line 25 to 28.
`So the button press is really just used more as a reference point, it's for
`determining when to examine the velocity of the pointer movement. It's also
`worth noting that the button press is just an example in Liberty, we spend a
`lot of time -- or Keynetik spends a lot of time talking about this button press.
`Liberty applies to any time type of interaction that yields an
`undesirable movement, so some movement that you don't want to be
`reflected on the pointer. Liberty is much broader than a button press, and
`that's Exhibit 1005, column 18, line 41 to 49.
`So, either way this argument by Keynetik is just another attempt to
`narrow the claims to avoid the prior art, and in this case, instead of the sleep
`command simply being after the prior art command is executed, or even as a
`direct response to the prior execution, now Keynetik is arguing again with its
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`construction, the claim precludes any other events that may also be involved
`with triggering the sleep command in addition to some movement. The
`claims don't require this, and the spec doesn’t require that, this is just
`another attempt to avoid the prior art.
`Now I just want to, quickly, on slide 35, I just want to point out that
`even their own expert admitted during his deposition that velocity is a factor
`that you have to look at to determine whether you're going to enter into the
`sleep command as disclosed by Liberty. And that's our point. Yes, there is
`some explanation that the button presses, when you look to see what the
`velocity is, but again, the claims don't preclude, as a comprising claim, they
`don't preclude some other event, some other activity, that's also involved.
`As long as there is some movement that triggers the sleep command,
`which is the case in Liberty, this limitation is met, and their expert agrees
`that velocity is considered, which is, obviously, you're looking at the
`movement, the velocity of the pointer.
`Your Honor, how much time do I have?
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: You have about four minutes left of your
`initial.
`MR. CITROEN: Okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: But don't feel the need to use it all.
`MR. CITROEN: Okay.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: We'll reserve what you have remaining for
`your rebuttal.
`MR. CITROEN: Okay. Thank you. So we go to slide 36, I'd like to
`talk about the combination, and there's a lot of issues that are raised with
`respect to the combination, so I'll go through some of them quickly,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00985
`Patent 7,966,146 B2
`
`especially given the time. The first issue is whether the combination
`discloses the limitation after, the sleep command is after again, the command
`is executed.
`If we go to slide 37, one of their arguments is Liberty doesn’t disclose
`this limitation, sending a command after the prior command is executed.
`We've already talked about that, it does.
`But the one thing I'd really like to point out here, if we can go to slide
`41, is that this is a combination and they attack the references individually
`instead. If you look here, and this is an excerpt from our expert's declaration
`at Exhibit 1002, paragraph 134, "The combination would include sending
`the sleep command at the appropriate time, which is after movement
`command is executed." So when you look at the combination, even if you
`assume Liberty doesn’t disclose this limitation, it is in the combination, it is
`disclosed.
`If we can go to slide 44, please -- and slide 45 actually? Another
`argument that Keynetik makes with respect to the combination is that
`Noguera only discloses one type of period instead of two distinct types of
`periods, which they call an awake period and a sleep period.
`If you can go to slide 46: Noguera's delay period althou
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
