`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Filed: April 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC dba NARTRON
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00355
`
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EX. #
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`UUSI-2001
`
`Declaration of Lawrence M. Hadley in support of patent owner’s
`_
`_
`_
`motlon for pro hac vice adm1$s1on
`
`UUSI—2002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Darran Cairns in support of patent owner
`_
`_
`prellminary response
`
`UUSI-2003
`
`Declaration of David W. Caldwell in support of patent owner
`
`preliminary response
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
`A.
`The Invention of the ’183 Patent ........................................................... 3 
`B.
`The Asserted Prior Art References........................................................ 7 
`1.
`Caldwell ’205 .............................................................................. 7 
`2.
`Ingraham ’735 ........................................................................... 11 
`3. Meadows ’061 ........................................................................... 12 
`4.
`Leech ’954 ................................................................................. 13 
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THE PETITION BASED ON SAMSUNG’S RECENT,
`UNSUCCESSFUL IPR CHALLENGING THE SAME CLAIMS .............. 13 
`IV. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHOULD
`NOT BE ADOPTED ..................................................................................... 21 
`A.
`Claim Construction Standard .............................................................. 21 
`B. Apple’s Proposed Construction of “providing signal output
`frequencies” Is Legally Wrong and Conflicts with the Board’s
`Prior Decision ...................................................................................... 22 
`THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ON ANY
`GROUND ...................................................................................................... 27 
`A.
`[All Grounds]—None of the Asserted References Disclose a
`“Microcontroller” that “Selectively” Provides “Signal Output
`Frequencies” as Required in Each Challenged Claim ........................ 27 
`1.
`Caldwell Does Not Disclose Selectively Providing
`“Signal Output Frequencies” .................................................... 27 
`Caldwell’s “Microcomputer” Does Not Provide any
`“Frequencies” ............................................................................ 32 
`[All Grounds]—Apple Fails to Offer a Motivation to Combine
`Caldwell with Ingraham ...................................................................... 35 
`1.
`Legal Standard .......................................................................... 35 
`2.
`Apple Offers No Reason Why One of Skill In The Art
`Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Caldwell’s
`Cooktop Key Pad With Ingraham’s Closely-Spaced,
`More Sensitive Touch Plate, to Obtain the Claimed
`Invention ................................................................................... 36 
`[All Grounds]—Apple Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence
`that the Proposed Caldwell-Ingraham Combination Would
`Work to Solve the Problem Addressed in the ’183 Patent .................. 39 
`1.
`Legal Standard .......................................................................... 39 
`2.
`Substituting Ingraham’s Touch Plate for Caldwell’s
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Touch Pads as Apple Proposes Would Not Work to
`Achieve the Challenged Claims ................................................ 39 
`[Ground 1B]—Claims 107-109, and 41-43 Are Not Obvious
`Over Caldwell Combined with Ingraham and Meadows .................... 47 
`[Ground 1C]—Claims 37-39Are Not Obvious Over Caldwell
`Combined with Ingraham and Leach .................................................. 50 
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 50 
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“’183 Patent”) addresses the problem of
`
`unintended actuation in densely-spaced, capacitive responsive electronic switching
`
`circuit arrays on touch-operated devices. Ex 1001, 3:64-4:3. This is Apple’s first
`
`of six separate petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) challenging the ’183
`
`patent on obviousness grounds. In this IPR, Apple challenges three independent
`
`claims (37, 40, and 105, and a number of their dependent claims) on three grounds:
`
`(i) Caldwell ’205 in combination with Ingraham ’735 (claims 40, 45, 47, 48, 105-
`
`106, 115-116); (ii) Caldwell ’205 in combination with Ingraham ’735 in
`
`combination with Meadows ’061 (claims 41-43, 107-109); and, (iii) Caldwell ’205
`
`in combination with Ingraham ’735 in combination with Leach ’954 (claims 37-
`
`39).
`
`The ’183 Patent has been reexamined twice. More recently, all of the
`
`challenged claims were the subject of a recently-concluded IPR in which the
`
`Board, after institution, found insufficient evidence to support Petitioner
`
`Samsung’s obviousness grounds.1
`
`This new IPR challenge, filed shortly on the heels of the last, should not be
`
`instituted. Petitioner Apple makes the same challenges using essentially the same
`
`
`1 The Board denied institution as to claims 37-39.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`prior art that Samsung asserted in the recently-concluded IPR. For this reason
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`alone, the Board should exercise its discretion to not institute this successive
`
`Petition. But even aside from Apple’s duplicative challenge, the Petition should
`
`not be instituted because Apple fails to show that both (1) the asserted references
`
`contain all limitations of the challenged claims, and (2) a skilled artisan would
`
`have combined the references to make the challenged claims of the ’183 patent.
`
`First, Apple proposes a construction of one phrase used in each challenged
`
`claim—“providing signal output frequencies”—that is legally wrong and conflicts
`
`with how the Board used the phrase in the prior Samsung IPR. Under the legally
`
`correct construction—the same construction already used by the Board in the
`
`Samsung IPR—none of the asserted references in the proposed combinations
`
`contains the limitation in which the phrase appears.
`
`Second, Apple offers no evidence-based rationale for substituting the touch
`
`plate keypad used in Ingraham, which contains densely-spaced, highly-sensitive
`
`touch pads, into Caldwell’s touch pad used on a touch-control cooktop surface. In
`
`fact, Apple’s proposed combination would result in a touch control cooktop
`
`susceptible to accidental activation—even if it worked, which it would not.
`
`Third, Apple fails to offer evidence that Caldwell’s high frequency
`
`oscillator, which reduces unintended activation of a single touch pad due to spilled
`
`liquids on a touch-control cooktop, together with its driver and detection circuit,
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`would work with Ingraham’s touch plate to solve the problem addressed in the
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`’183 patent—namely, cross-coupling between adjacent touch pads in a densely
`
`spaced array caused by surface contamination.
`
`Institution should be denied.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Invention of the ’183 Patent
`
`The ’183 patent addresses the problem of unintended actuation of small
`
`touch switches used in capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit arrays on
`
`touch-operated devices—providing the foundation upon which today’s touch
`
`screen technology is built. Ex. 2002, ¶ 15. Capacitive response electronic
`
`switching circuits, in contrast to manual electronic switches, can be used in “zero
`
`force” touch switches. These switches have no moving parts and do not require
`
`direct contact to switch loads. Ex. 1001 (2:39-41). “Rather, these switches operate
`
`by detecting the operator’s touch and then use solid state electronics to switch the
`
`loads or activate mechanical relays or triacs to switch even larger loads.” Id.
`
`(2:41-44). Zero force touch switches used in touchpad arrays make use of a human
`
`operator’s capacitance by detecting the change in capacitive coupling between a
`
`touch terminal and ground caused by the operator’s touch. Id. (3:44-46, 53-56).
`
`With capacitive response circuits, a human operator need not come into conductive
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`contact with the touch terminal, but instead can activate the switch when in close
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`proximity. Id. (3:57-59).
`
`While allowing for actuation without actual touch, capacitive response
`
`circuits are susceptible to unintended actuation from environmental conditions and
`
`surface contamination. Id. (4:18-24). In solving the problem of unintended
`
`actuation in capacitive touch circuit arrays, the’183 Patent teaches using an
`
`oscillator providing a periodic output signal, a microcontroller that selectively
`
`provides signal output frequencies to small sized input touch terminals, and a
`
`detector circuit that responds to signals from the oscillator via the microcontroller
`
`and the presence of an operator’s capacitance to ground. Id. (Abstract, 6:60-7:5).
`
`The inventors also determined that operating the output signals at “a higher
`
`frequency than prior art touch sensing circuits” would mitigate unintended
`
`actuation. Id. (8:9-14); Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 19-23.
`
`The unintended actuation problem is particularly acute in dense arrays of
`
`touch circuits as illustrated in Figure 11:
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (Fig. 11). Prior to the ’183 patent, solutions for preventing unintended
`
`touch pad actuation in dense arrays included placing guard rings about each touch
`
`pad and adjusting detection sensitivity of the threshold voltage such that the
`
`operator’s finger had “to entirely overlap a touch terminal and come into contact
`
`with its dielectric facing plate before actuation occurs.” Id. (4:1-14).
`
`The inventors took a different approach. By analyzing the impedance of
`
`contaminants, the inventors concluded that most unintended actuation could be
`
`avoided by setting the oscillator frequency at 50 kHz and preferably at 800 kHz or
`
`higher. Id. (8:9-14, 11:4-11). More specifically, as described in the specification,
`
`the inventors conducted extensive testing to determine the required frequency
`
`ranges. For example, with reference to Figure 3A, the ’183 Patent describes tests
`
`designed to find the ideal frequency ranges that, for a particular surface and array,
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`would provide a substantial enough “impedance difference between the paths to
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`ground of the touched pad 57 and adjacent pads 59.” Id. (11:1-9) (“This ...
`
`result[s] in a much lower incidence of inadvertent actuation of adjacent touch pads
`
`to that of the touched pad.”); id. (11:19-25, 17:11-67) (describing tests to reduce
`
`crosstalk and resistance due to contaminants); id. (Fig. 9) (showing signal to noise
`
`ratio versus body capacitance); Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 25-29.
`
`In addition to the use of high oscillator frequencies, the ’183 patent discloses
`
`“a floating common and supply that follow the oscillator signal to power the
`
`detection circuit.” Ex. 1001 (6:1-22, 18:66-19:6). The floating common provides
`
`a reference that is 5V away from the high-frequency oscillator output signal,
`
`enabling the system to compare the signals that are only 5V apart. This 5V
`
`differential minimizes noise that otherwise would be generated due to the presence
`
`of contaminants on the touch pad. Id. (4:18-20, 5:48-53, 16:12-24); Ex. 2002, ¶
`
`25.
`
`In Figure 11’s array, the frequencies selected through the front-end testing
`
`are supplied to each row. The microcontroller activates each row of the touch
`
`circuits by selectively providing a signal from the oscillator to individual rows of
`
`the touch circuit. “In this manner, microcontroller 500 can sequentially activate
`
`the touch circuit rows and associate the received inputs from the columns of the
`
`array with the activated touch circuits.” Ex. 1001 (18:43-49). Supplying high
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`frequencies in this manner substantially reduces unintended actuation (crosstalk)
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`without requiring “any physical structure to isolate the touch terminals” and
`
`allowing the terminals to be more closely spaced together. Id. (18:66-19:6).
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Prior Art References
`
`Caldwell ’205 and Ingraham ’735 are earlier capacitive touch inventions
`
`from the same inventors that the Board considered and rejected in the Samsung
`
`IPR. In other words, to avoid asserting the exact same art considered in the just-
`
`concluded IPR, Apple turned to the same inventors, but picked earlier patents from
`
`those inventors—patents that disclose inventions much less relevant to the ’183
`
`Patent than those already considered (and rejected) in the Samsung IPR. Neither
`
`Meadows nor Leach adds anything to the Caldwell ’205 and Ingraham ’735 patents
`
`that would have made the ’183 Patent any more obvious.
`
`1.
`
`Caldwell ’205
`
`Although considered during the prosecution of the ’183 Patent, Apple asserts
`
`Caldwell ’205 as its primary reference for each asserted ground:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`In each alleged obviousness combination, Apple argues that a person skilled in the
`
`art would have substituted the touch pad in Caldwell with the touch plate in
`
`Ingraham ’735. For grounds 1B and 1C, Apple further argues that a person skilled
`
`in the art would have not only substituted the touch pad in Caldwell with the touch
`
`plate in Ingraham ’735, but then also substituted other components from Caldwell
`
`with either components from Meadows ’061 or Leach ’954 to arrive at the
`
`challenged ’183 Patent claims.
`
`Caldwell ’205 pertains to capacitance-responsive touch-control input devices
`
`on horizontal substrates, such as smooth-top induction, radiant, and halogen burner
`
`cooking appliances. Caldwell illustrates the touch control in Figure 1:
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 (1:5-10); Ex. 2003, ¶ 3. The Caldwell patent addresses issues unique to
`
`horizontal touch-control surfaces such as interference with the touch controls from
`
`liquids spilled on a cooktop. Id. (1:18-23); Ex. 2003, ¶ 4. Rather than avoid
`
`interference from spills by separating the touch control from the cooking surface or
`
`by using guard rings around the touch-control, Caldwell teaches several alternative
`
`solutions. Ex. 2003, ¶ 4.
`
`First, Caldwell uses a source signal generator that inputs a high frequency
`
`signal—a single frequency in the range between 150 kHz and 500 kHz—to the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`drive lines of the touch keypad sequentially from a demultiplexer at the direction
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`of a microcontroller. Ex. 1004 (2:26-30; 6:18); Ex. 2003, ¶ 4. Within a single
`
`touch pad, the touch pad couples the electrical signal to another portion of the
`
`touch pad in order to develop a detection signal, and responds to the presence of a
`
`user’s capacitance to selectively attenuate the detection signal. A decoding circuit
`
`responds to the detection signal in order to determine the presence of the
`
`capacitance of a user. Ex. 1004 (2:22-25); Ex. 2003, ¶ 4. This circuit is illustrated
`
`in Figure 5:
`
`Second, Caldwell juxtaposes the display with the substrate’s modulated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`surface to provide visual indications to a user. Ex. 1004 (3:3-12); Ex. 2003, ¶ 5.
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`An optical correction material is provided between the display and the substrate,
`
`which corrects optical distortion of the visual indications of the display caused by
`
`the modulated surface. The optical correction material is a transparent adhesive
`
`that adheres a flexible carrier carrying the display device or the touch pad flexible
`
`conductor to the glass substrate. Ex. 1004 (3:3-12); Ex. 2003, ¶ 5.
`
`2.
`
`Ingraham ’735
`
`Ingraham ’735, like the later Ingraham ’825 patent (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,087,825)—invented by Nartron employee Ronald D. Ingraham and assigned to
`
`Nartron—was considered and extensively discussed in the ’183 Patent. Ex. 1001
`
`(3:44-50; 4:3-8; 5:43-50; 6:6-16; 8:11-18; 18:1-10). Additionally, both Ingraham
`
`’735 and Ingraham ’825 were expressly considered, and rejected, in the recently-
`
`concluded Samsung IPR. Indeed, Samsung asserted the later Ingraham ’825 patent
`
`as its primary reference. Samsung Elect. Co. v. UUSI, IPR2016-00908, Paper 2 at
`
`2, 3. Unlike the ’183 Patent, Ingraham ’735, like Ingraham ’825, lacks any
`
`disclosure of the signal voltage supplied to Ingraham’s circuit. Accordingly,
`
`neither Ingraham reference teaches or suggests an oscillator voltage greater than a
`
`supply voltage as taught in the ’183 Patent.
`
`The early Ingraham ’735 patent disclosed a breakthrough in capacitive touch
`
`technology at the time. But it not only differs vastly from the ’183 Patent, it
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`addresses an entirely different problem. In particular, the Ingraham ’735 patent is
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`directed to a capacitive touch-controlled electrical switching circuit for portable
`
`direct current devices where no alternating current voltage is available, such as in
`
`automobiles, trucks, boats, and airplanes. Ex. 1017 (1:10-14, 30-40). A direct
`
`current operates an oscillator, which applies a signal to a touch plate coupled to a
`
`detector circuit. The detector includes either a voltage dividing capacitive system
`
`or a phase detector circuit. In either case, the output signal from the phase detector
`
`circuit or the voltage divider provides a control signal, which can be used for
`
`actuating a solid-state switch for providing control functions. Id. (1:41-50).
`
`3. Meadows ’061
`
`Meadows discloses a capacitive touch panel system of the type used with a
`
`pen or stylus. Ex. 1013 (1:12-15). The Meadows patent addresses electromagnetic
`
`interference caused by the conductive coating on the faceplate and the touch panel
`
`system, which generates electromagnetic noise that can make it difficult to
`
`determine a touch location. Id. (1:51-63).
`
`As disclosed, Meadows reduces susceptibility to electromagnetic noise by
`
`using a “lock-in type” signal demodulator and low-pass filter. Id. (2:61-68). The
`
`signal demodulator, in response to a pseudo-random number signal, employs a
`
`random frequency measurement signal with a frequency between 150 kHz and 250
`
`kHz as reference for demodulating the positive and negative differential output
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`signal. Id. (2:61-64, 4:28-32). This signal is fed into the low pass filter, which
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`provides from the demodulated signal a substantially steady-state address signal
`
`that corresponds to an average of the magnitude of the current drawn through a bar
`
`electrode. Id. (2:64-68).
`
`4.
`
`Leech ’954
`
`Leech ’954 adds little to the capacitive touch-control art. Invented nearly 35
`
`years ago, Leech ’954 discloses a low power oscillator circuit, including a latch
`
`connected to two loops, that can be used to reduce the cost and size in digital
`
`processing devices such as electronic calculators. Ex. 1008 (Abstract, 1:17-19,
`
`1:37-39).
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THE PETITION BASED ON SAMSUNG’S RECENT,
`UNSUCCESSFUL IPR CHALLENGING THE SAME CLAIMS
`The Board has discretion “to deny a petition that challenges a patent that was
`
`previously challenged before the Board.” Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. iRobot, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 (Oct. 1, 2018); General Plastic
`
`Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept.
`
`6, 2017); 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 314(d) (providing the Board with discretion to
`
`reject petitions where the same, or substantially the same, prior art or arguments
`
`have already been presented). General Plastic addresses the factors considered in
`
`determining whether to institute review for serial, or “follow-on” petitions.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Apple argues that the factors “weigh heavily against denial because any
`
`delay in Apple’s IPR relative to Samsung’s IPR was caused by Patent Owner’s
`
`delay in bringing suit against Apple.” Pet. at 4-5. But Apple strategically waited
`
`until the one-year deadline after Patent Owner filed the underlying lawsuit against
`
`it to maximize both the time between IPRs and the time it could ask that the
`
`underlying case be stayed.
`
`While Patent Owner did bring the underlying action against Apple
`
`approximately two years after suing Samsung, it did so for good reason. Rather
`
`than litigate multiple cases simultaneously, Patent Owner decided to complete
`
`claim construction proceedings in the Samsung case before evaluating potential
`
`claims against others. But shortly before the District Court’s claim construction
`
`hearing, Samsung filed its IPR on all asserted claims and moved to stay the
`
`underlying case. Prior to issuing a claim construction ruling, the District Court
`
`granted the stay, which remains in place to this day while Samsung appeals the
`
`Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit.2 Filing new cases against other accused
`
`infringers almost certainly would have been futile because any such cases would
`
`have been stayed pending the conclusion of the Samsung IPR.
`
`
`2 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has scheduled oral argument on
`
`Samsung’s appeal for May 13, 2019.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`In the meantime, the Samsung IPR proceeded. During the IPR proceeding,
`
`the ’183 Patent expired on January 31, 2016. The Board in the Samsung IPR
`
`issued its Final Written Decision on October 18, 2017. With the ’183 Patent
`
`expired and the limitations period on past damages running, Patent Owner filed
`
`suit against Apple on November 29, 2017, approximately six weeks later. At the
`
`time, Apple certainly knew about the Samsung IPR and could have evaluated the
`
`docket to quickly determine the status of the Samsung IPR, whether Samsung had
`
`made the best arguments, and whether Samsung had asserted the closest prior art.
`
`But rather than bring its own IPRs within a reasonable time, Apple waited an entire
`
`year, until November 29, 2018 (the one-year anniversary of the lawsuit against it),
`
`to file six new IPRs. By waiting a year, Apple cannot claim to be a victim of
`
`Patent Owner’s delay.
`
`Denying this petition is not only fair but warranted under the General
`
`Plastic factors. The first two factors weigh in favor of non-institution. Although
`
`Apple did not previously file a petition directed to the same claims of the same
`
`patent, Samsung did. Apple certainly knew of Samsung’s IPR—Apple even
`
`suggested that the case against it be stayed pending the completion of Samsung’s
`
`appeal of the Final Written Decision to the Federal Circuit. Apple also must have
`
`studied Samsung’s IPR because Apple argues that its six IPRs make “new”
`
`arguments about the same prior art that the Board did not consider in finding that
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Samsung failed to prove obviousness of any challenged claims. Pet. at 3-6.
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`With respect to the second factor in particular, Apple’s assertion that it “did
`
`not know of any of the prior art references relied on in [its] Petition when Samsung
`
`filed its IPR” is at best misleading. A quick search of the USPTO’s records reveals
`
`that Caldwell ’205 and Meadows each apparently have been cited in connection
`
`with at least 20 issued Apple patents—numerous ones of which were filed and
`
`granted years before Samsung was even sued. (For instance, Caldwell ’205 was
`
`cited in Apple Patent No. 8,416,209 issued April 9, 2013, and Meadows was cited
`
`in Apple Patent No. 8,232,970 issued July 31, 2012.) The second factor alone thus
`
`weighs strongly against institution, insofar as half of the references (including the
`
`main reference it relies upon) were known to Apple years before Apple filed its
`
`Petition.
`
`The third factor—whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first
`
`petition—plainly weighs in favor of denial, and Apple does not argue otherwise.
`
`Indeed, the timing of Apple’s filing in this case raises the potential for abuse,
`
`because Apple had ample opportunity (nearly 11 months) to study all of the
`
`arguments raised by Patent Owner and Samsung regarding the commonly
`
`challenged claims of the ’183 patent. See Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech,
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`IPR2018-00761, Paper 15, 11-12 (09/05/2018). In fact, it appears that Apple used
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Samsung’s earlier petition as a guide to find the additional relied-upon art that it
`
`was not already aware of, and then used the Final Written Decision as a roadmap
`
`for this IPR. Compare Pet. at 3-4 & 8-9 (confirming the attempt to use Caldwell
`
`‘205 and the two Ingraham references as had Samsung, and adopting claim
`
`constructions from the Final Written Decision Apple apparently perceives as
`
`favorable to it), with Pet. at 7-8 (attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to distinguish
`
`an implicit claim construction Apple apparently perceives as unfavorable to it).
`
`General Plastic and Shenzhen confirm that this gamesmanship is impermissible—
`
`and this factor thus weighs in favor of denial for these further reasons.
`
`Apple argues that the fourth factor—the length of time that elapsed between
`
`the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and
`
`the filing of the second petition—weighs against denial. But it does not. Apple
`
`asserts that the prior art it now raises was unknown at the time the Samsung IPR
`
`concluded. Pet. at 5. That is false. Apple’s statement overlooks the fact that
`
`Caldwell ’205 and Meadows were cited in connection with numerous of Apple’s
`
`own patents. Rather than assert the same prior art that Apple knew Samsung had
`
`asserted in Samsung’s IPR petitions, and prior art that formed the core of the
`
`Board’s analysis in the Final Written Decision, Apple simply picked earlier patents
`
`from the same inventors—namely, Caldwell and Ingraham—that disclose earlier,
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`less developed versions of their later inventions. Apple’s selection of less relevant
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`patents from the same inventors as those relied upon by Samsung—two of which
`
`were known to Apple based on its own patent prosecution activities—weighs in
`
`favor of discretionarily denying Apple’s petition, not granting it.
`
`Apple argues that the fifth factor weighs against denial because the time
`
`elapsed between Samsung’s petition and Apple’s petition rests with Patent Owner.
`
`But as discussed above, the facts show that Apple willingly elected to delay for a
`
`year the filing of its own IPRs to maximize the time between IPRs challenging the
`
`same claims in the ’183 Patent, and so it could keep the underlying district court
`
`action stayed as long as possible.
`
`With respect to the fourth and fifth factors collectively, as shown above, the
`
`record establishes that Apple in 2013 was aware of two of the four references
`
`asserted in the instant Petition—and was aware of a third reference (Ingraham),
`
`and a more relevant version of it, prior to the filing of this IPR, from Samsung’s
`
`IPR. Apple does not provide any credible explanation related to the timing of its
`
`Petition and, as the Board has noted, “[t]o the extent a reasonable explanation
`
`exists for Petitioner’s delay, it [i]s incumbent upon Petition to identify those
`
`circumstances to the Board.” See Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech., Paper 15,
`
`at 13 (finding factor four weighing strongly against institution and factor five
`
`weighing moderately against institution).
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Apple asserts that the sixth factor—the finite resources of the Board—either
`
`favors institution or at worst is neutral. But as noted above, this patent has been
`
`reexamined twice. And a Final Written Decision confirming patentability has
`
`already been issued in an IPR. The Board should not have to expend resources to
`
`reach the same patentability decision that other branches of the USPTO have
`
`reached and, indeed, that the Board itself has reached in connection with another
`
`IPR. Moreover, Apple omits the fact that this is not the only Petition that it has
`
`filed against the ’183 Patent. To the contrary, this is one of six new Petitions
`
`challenging different groupings of claims based on two “main” rejections. Apple
`
`in essence has submitted two groups of Petitions, with three IPR Petitions in each
`
`group—and with the collection including two at least nominally different
`
`rejections for virtually all claims challenged across the six IPRs. Apple’s strategy
`
`is tantamount to a circumvention of the Board’s page limits and clearly places an
`
`undue burden on the finite resources of the Board. Patent Owner therefore submits
`
`that this factor weighs against institution or at worst is neutral.
`
`Patent Owner agrees with Apple that the seventh factor—the requirement to
`
`issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director
`
`notices institution of review—is neutral, at least when viewed in isolation. That
`
`said, with respect to factors six and seven collectively, the Board found in Valve
`
`Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, -00063, and -00084,
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`paper 13 (April 2, 2019), p. 16, that “[i]n general, having multiple petitions
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`challenging the same patent, especially when not filed at or around the same time
`
`as in this case, is inefficient and tends to waste resources. Here, [the petitioner]
`
`waited until after the institution decision in the [related] IPR, and then filed not one
`
`but three additional petitions.” Nearly identical facts apply here—i.e., serial and
`
`repetitive attacks against the same patent, with not one but six additional
`
`petitions—except that Apple waited until after the Final Written Decision in the
`
`earlier case (rather than just after the institution decision) before filing its own
`
`IPRs (including this one). As in Valve, “[t]hese serial and repetitive attacks
`
`implicate the efficiency concerns underpinning General Plastic, and, thus, favor
`
`denying institution.” Id.
`
`Finally, Apple argues that “the extent to which the petitioner and any prior
`
`petitioner(s) were similarly situated defendants,” weighs against denial because
`
`“Apple did not face ‘the same threat at the same time’ as Samsung.” Pet. at 6
`
`(citing Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech., Paper 9). But Apple did face the
`
`same threat of infringement litigation in district court regarding the ’183 patent at
`
`the same time as Samsung, making them “similarly situated defendants.”
`
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech., Paper 9. After the Board issued its Final
`
`Written Decision in the Samsung IPR, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal to the
`
`Federal Circuit. During the continuing IPR processes—on appeal before the
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`Federal Circuit—Apple faced the same ongoing threat of Patent Owner’s
`
`Case IPR2019-00355
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`infringement claims as Samsung. Yet Apple did not bring an IPR for an entire
`
`year, undoubtedly for the strategic reason of maximizing the time between IPRs
`
`and the delay it would obtain in the District Court. Thus, even though Patent
`
`Owner did not sue Apple until shortly after the Board issued the Final Written
`
`Decision in the Samsung IPR, Apple still tactically timed its filing of