throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Byron Hourmand
`In re Patent of:
`5,796,183 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0062IP2
`U.S. Patent No.:
`August 18, 1998
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/601,268
`
`Filing Date:
`January 31, 1996
`
`Title:
`CAPACITIVE RESPONSIVE ELECTRONIC SWITCHING
`CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PHILLIP WRIGHT
`
`1. My name is Dr. Phillip Wright. I am a Managing Director and Chief
`
`Analyst at WRT Associates. My current curriculum vitae is attached and some
`
`highlights follow.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Purdue
`
`University in 1972. I received a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from
`
`the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign in 1975. I received a Ph.D in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, IL in
`
`1977.
`
`3.
`
`Since completing my graduate studies, I have worked at Fortune 500
`
`and start-up companies on semiconductor, electronic, optical, information display
`
`and optoelectronic technology development. I have contributed to several
`
`industries including communications, consumer electronics, mobile handsets,
`
`displays, engineering services and defense electronics.
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`4.
`
`As a manager, I have led project teams that were granted more than 50
`
`issued U.S. patents and related foreign filings. I have contributed as an inventor to
`
`16 issued U.S. patents.
`
`5.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I was an engineer at Varian Associates, a Palo
`
`Alto, CA based company that developed, manufactured and sold semiconductor
`
`devices, high vacuum material processing equipment, semiconductor processing
`
`equipment, and medical diagnostic equipment among other products. My
`
`significant projects included research on crystal growth of semiconductor materials
`
`for light emitting diodes (LEDs) and semiconductor lasers.
`
`6.
`
`From 1979-1984, I held positions as a member of technical staff and
`
`supervisor at Bell Telephone Laboratories, a Murray Hill, NJ company that was the
`
`research arm of the Bell System and the American Telephone and Telegraph
`
`Company (AT&T). In 1984, I was a district research manager of the newly formed
`
`Bell Communications Research (Bellcore). My significant projects included
`
`research and development of laser designs and fabrication processes for high
`
`reliability semiconductor lasers used in the first transatlantic optical
`
`communication system.
`
`7.
`
`From 1984-1987, I was a founder and manager of Lytel Incorporated,
`
`a Branchburg, NJ firm that developed, manufactured and sold optoelectronic
`
`devices and modules for optical communications systems.
`
`2
`
`

`

`8.
`
`From 1987-1990, I was a manager at Ford Microelectronics, Inc., a
`
`Colorado Springs, CO company that designed electronic engine controllers for the
`
`parent Ford Motor Company and conducted independent research and development
`
`on behalf of Ford Aerospace Corporation. My significant projects included
`
`development of integrated circuit (IC) technology with performance at frequencies
`
`up to 80 GHz and analysis of the influence of transistor design parameters on
`
`device performance resulting in improved understanding and achievement of
`
`device performance at frequencies greater than 100 GHz.
`
`9.
`
`From 1990-1993, I was the founder, president, and general manager at
`
`Martin Kestrel Company, Inc., a Colorado Springs, CO company providing device
`
`oriented semiconductor material evaluation services to the global epitaxial
`
`semiconductor material industry.
`
`10. From 1993-1998, I was a manager at Motorola in Tempe, AZ. I
`
`helped establish the Displays Division of the Consumers Systems Group. The
`
`Displays Division was formed to market and manufacture low power, high
`
`information content displays for portable products such as mobile phone handsets
`
`and digital cameras. While at Motorola, I led technology development for a new
`
`display business based on miniature light emitting diode array displays, and liquid
`
`crystal displays on silicon, combined with magnifying injection molded plastic
`
`optics yielding a low cost, low power, high information content display for
`
`3
`
`

`

`portable products. I established an optical design group for lens and
`
`optomechanical system design, and managed an interdisciplinary team of engineers
`
`and scientists with expertise in optics, optoelectronics, electronic system design,
`
`display technology, display human factors, and portable product user-interface
`
`design. I managed product and technology development, evaluated technology
`
`alternatives and business alliances, and partnered with customers and suppliers to
`
`bring the Motorola VirtuoVueTM display to market. I engaged in an early
`
`customer partnership with Gemplus (La Ciotat, France) that delivered the
`
`SmartVue card reader and won an Innovation Award at the international smart card
`
`exhibit. I established a business alliance with Kopin Corporation to manufacture
`
`and market low cost color display products. I identified and engaged with a wide
`
`range of critical display customers and product definers including Microsoft,
`
`Philips, Nextel, AT&T, Telcordia, DARPA, and the Motorola equipment divisions.
`
`I established key vendor relationships and negotiated supply agreements for
`
`injection molded plastic diffractive optics with Kodak, Polaroid, and Donnelly
`
`Corporation. I initiated a program for display applications research and rapid
`
`prototyping. This effort delivered several new product prototypes including
`
`wireless email and internet browsers, cell phones with color graphical user
`
`interfaces, and a visual communicator mobile handset integrating a digital cell
`
`4
`
`

`

`phone with a color display, and a color CMOS VGA resolution digital camera
`
`system for wireless image transfer using packet data services.
`
`11.
`
`In 1999, I was director, development engineering at AMP
`
`Incorporated in Harrisburg, PA, which was acquired that year by Tyco Electronics.
`
`At AMP, I managed a staff of 30 engineers and technicians at two locations
`
`responsible for product development of optoelectronic components, packaging, and
`
`transceivers for optical data communications.
`
`12. From 2000-2001, I was project director, Corning Inc., Corning, NY.
`
`At Corning, I directed a fast track optical switch project with an annual operating
`
`budget of $140 million working with geographically dispersed project teams at six
`
`locations in the US and Europe.
`
`13. Beginning in 2002, I commenced work as an independent consultant.
`
`My significant consulting engagements involved business development and
`
`commercialization of new products such as printed wiring boards with embedded
`
`optical waveguides, and business development for a company establishing a new
`
`high technology facility in the United Kingdom to provide leased manufacturing
`
`facilities and new business incubation. I also provided market research and
`
`international outreach services for the Optoelectronics Industry Development
`
`Association (OIDA).
`
`5
`
`

`

`14.
`
`In 2007, I founded WRT Associates LLC to formalize and expand my
`
`consulting practice. Presently I am the founder, managing director, and chief
`
`analyst of WRT Associates in Fort Collins, Colorado.
`
`15. My ongoing consulting engagements have included projects involving
`
`printed light emitting diodes for general illumination applications, optical
`
`characteristics of metal mesh touch sensors for mobile device displays,
`
`semiconductor laser devices for projection displays, as well as patent analysis and
`
`patent litigation engagements involving mobile handset technologies, touch
`
`sensors, touch screen displays, touch-based user interfaces for mobile devices,
`
`substrates, materials, design and fabrication of light emitting diodes used for
`
`general illumination and display backlighting, electronic lighting control systems,
`
`and dimmable LED lighting fixtures.
`
`16.
`
`I provide technical consulting and market analysis for new and
`
`emerging high technologies including optoelectronics, optics, high brightness light
`
`emitting diodes (HBLEDs), Organic LEDs (OLEDs), solid state lighting (SSL),
`
`displays, display applications, touch sensors, wireless handsets, mobile devices,
`
`user interfaces, wireless device applications of optoelectronics, and semiconductor
`
`materials and devices. Engagements include technical consulting, intellectual
`
`property assessment, and expert testimony in litigations.
`
`6
`
`

`

`17.
`
`I am a Life Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and the author or coauthor of numerous peer reviewed technical
`
`articles. I have authored industry reports, made presentations at leading
`
`international conferences on subjects including the future of interactive displays
`
`and display technologies for mobile devices, and have contributed editorial content
`
`for Insight Media and Display Daily covering information displays, input output
`
`device technologies, user interface advances, and new mobile device technologies.
`
`18. My over forty years of professional experience with electrical
`
`engineering and design, as well as my educational background, are summarized in
`
`more detail in my curriculum vitae.
`
`19.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the above fields; and
`
`my experience in working with others involved in those fields.
`
`20.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. to offer technical
`
`opinions relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“the ’183 Patent” or APPLE-1001),
`
`and prior art references relating to its subject matter. I have reviewed the ’183
`
`Patent and relevant excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’183 Patent (“the
`
`Prosecution History” or APPLE-1002). Additionally, I have reviewed the
`
`following:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,572,205 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”) (APPLE-1004)
`
`7
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 4,561,002 to Chiu (“Chiu”) (APPLE-1005)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,560,954 to Leach (“Leach”) (APPLE-1008)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,878,107 to Hopper (“Hopper”) (APPLE-1009)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,341,036 to Wheeler (“Wheeler”) (APPLE-1010)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,237,421 to Waldron (“Waldron”) (APPLE-1011)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,650,597 to Redmayne (“Redmayne”) (APPLE-1012)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,922,061 to Meadows (“Meadows”) (APPLE-1013)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,418,333 to Schwarzbach (“Schwarzbach”) (APPLE-1014)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,293,734 to Pepper (“Pepper”) (APPLE-1015)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,731,548 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’548”) (APPLE-1016)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,758,735 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’735”) (APPLE-1017)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,189,417 to Caldwell (“Caldwell ’417”) (APPLE-1018)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,308,443 to Tucker (“Tucker”) (APPLE-1019)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,290,061 to Serrano (“Serrano”) (APPLE-1020)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,845,630 to Stephens (“Stephens”) (APPLE-1021)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,048,019 to Albertsen (“Albertsen”) (APPLE-1022)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,632,039 to Walker (“Walker”) (APPLE-1023)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,508,653 to Chu (“Chu”) (APPLE-1024)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’825”) (APPLE-1025)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,649,323 to Pearlman (“Pearlman”) (APPLE-1026)
`
`8
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 5,311,392 to Kinney (“Kinney”) (APPLE-1027)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,707,852 to Jahr (“Jahr”) (APPLE-1028)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,638,444 to Chou (“Chou”) (APPLE-1029)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,063,383 to Bobba (“Bobba”) (APPLE-1030)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,903,251 to Chapman (“Chapman”) (APPLE-1031)
`
`21. Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials
`
`through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art related to the ’183
`
`Patent at the time of the earliest purported priority date of the ’183 Patent, and I
`
`have done so during my review of these materials. I understand the ’183 Patent
`
`issued on August 18, 1998 from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/601,268 (“the ’268
`
`application”), filed January 31, 1996. See APPLE-1002. There is no claim to an
`
`earlier priority application. It is therefore my understanding that the earliest
`
`priority date purported by the ’183 patent is January 31, 1996 (hereinafter the
`
`“Critical Date”).
`
`22. A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’183
`
`patent (hereinafter a “POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a related technical field, and two or more years
`
`of experience in electrical circuits and sensor systems. APPLE-1001,
`
`(Background). I base this on my own practical and educational experiences,
`
`including my knowledge of colleagues and others at the time.
`
`9
`
`

`

`23.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of a POSITA as
`
`noted above. Specifically, my experience working with industry, undergraduate
`
`and post-graduate students, and designers and engineers practicing in industry has
`
`allowed me to become directly and personally familiar with the level of skill of
`
`individuals and the general state of the art.
`
`24.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis,
`
`for all tasks involved. My compensation is not dependent in any manner on the
`
`outcome of these proceedings or on the content of my opinions.
`
`25. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and background in the fields discussed above. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`my testimony below refers to the knowledge of a POSITA in the fields as of the
`
`Critical Date.
`
`26. This declaration is organized as follows:
`
`I. 
`Technological Overview ................................................................................ 11 
`II. 
`Brief Overview of the ’183 Patent ................................................................. 15 
`III.  Legal Standards for Prior Art ........................................................................ 16 
`IV.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 22 
`V. 
`Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 26 
`VI.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 94 
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Technological Overview
`27. A capacitor can be thought of as, and is often constructed of, two
`
`parallel electrically conducting metal plates (or electrodes) each of area, A, with a
`
`non-conducting dielectric material with relative dielectric constant, εr , located
`
`between the plates which are spaced apart a distance, d.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1. Physical example of a parallel plate capacitor and lumped circuit
`element equivalent circuit of a parallel plate capacitor.
`
`
`
`28. The capacitance, C, of the parallel plate capacitor in units of farads is
`
`given in Fig. 1 as a function of the area, A, and spacing, d, of the parallel plates,
`
`11
`
`

`

`where εo is the permittivity constant of free space, and εr is the relative dielectric
`
`constant of the dielectric material between the metal plates.
`
`29.
`
`In electrical science and engineering we are concerned with
`
`characterizing circuit elements in terms of physical quantities which can be
`
`measured externally. For example, we can characterize two lumped circuit
`
`elements, a linear resistor with resistance, R, and a linear capacitor with
`
`capacitance, C, in terms of the measurable independently variable physical
`
`quantities voltage, v, current, i, and charge, q, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Figure 2. Lumped circuit element linear resistor and linear capacitor
`representations defining the resistance, R, capacitance, C, and the measureable
`independently variable physical quantities voltage, v, current, i, and charge, q, and
`the analytical and graphical relationships between voltage and current for a
`resistor, R, and charge and voltage for a capacitor, C.
`
`
`
`30. As illustrated in Fig. 2, a linear resistor can be described analytically
`
`by v=iR and a linear capacitor can be described analytically by q=Cv. To find the
`
`current flowing in the capacitor of capacitance, C, we use the definition of current
`
`as the rate of flow of charge and substitute q=Cv, the charge-voltage relationship
`
`for the capacitor, which yields:
`
`31. The principle of capacitance touch sensing can be considered and
`
`analyzed as illustrated in Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 3. Illustration and analysis of a capacitor used as a touch sensor.
`
`32. When a finger or other conductive object approaches in proximity to,
`
`or is present on, the surface of the touch sensor, an additional capacitor to ground
`
`with capacitance, Cf, representing the self-capacitance of the human body is
`
`connected in electrical parallel with the parallel plate capacitor with capacitance Cp
`
`resulting in a larger total capacitance totaling Cp + Cf.
`
`33. Various touch electrode designs, and electronic circuit topologies,
`
`designs and approaches can be employed to implement a capacitance touch sensor
`
`based on the physical principles illustrated in Fig. 3. In each capacitance touch
`
`sensor electronic circuit approach, changes over time in the measurable physical
`
`14
`
`

`

`quantities of voltage and current in the electronic circuit corresponding to the
`
`finger touch can be used to perform a switch closure operation thus acting as a
`
`non-mechanical electronic switch key. In similar fashion, an array of multiple
`
`such capacitance sensors can be used to implement multiple independent switches
`
`or a keypad, sliding switches, or x-y position touch sensors. In each case, and in
`
`each electronic circuit approach, changes over time in the measurable physical
`
`quantities of voltage and current are used to enable switch closure or position
`
`reporting functions.
`
`II. Brief Overview of the ’183 Patent
`34. The ’183 patent relates to a capacitive responsive electronic switching
`
`circuit. APPLE-1001, Abstract. Figure 4 of the ’183 patent depicts “a block
`
`diagram of a capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit.” APPLE-1001,
`
`7:22-24. As shown below, the circuit includes an oscillator 200 (shown in blue
`
`below) providing a periodic output signal, an input touch terminal 450 (green) for
`
`an operator to provide an input by proximity or touch, and a touch circuit 400
`
`(orange) that provides a detection signal to a microcontroller 500 (yellow)that
`
`receives the output signal from the oscillator. Id., FIG. 4, 12:6-28:
`
`15
`
`

`

`APPLE-1001, Detail of FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`
`
`III. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`35.
`In view that I am not an attorney, my understanding of the legal
`
`standards throughout this section are based on discussion with petitioner’s counsel
`
`and experience in prior patent cases.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. I understand further that
`
`changes to what constitutes prior art that were introduced by the America Invents
`
`Act do not apply to the ’183 Patent, thus those changes have not been considered
`
`here.
`
`16
`
`

`

`37.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand from petitioner's counsel that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a journal, magazine or trade
`
`publication, or a publication of a patent application, qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to
`
`an asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication, or a
`
`publication of a patent application, constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the
`
`publication occurs more than one year before the effective filing date of the
`
`asserted patent.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent further qualifies as prior art to the
`
`asserted patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States
`
`before the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`A. Legal Standards for Anticipation
`40.
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior
`
`art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`17
`
`

`

`41.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in
`
`that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`43.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be proven
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B.
`44.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a POSITA.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a POSITA provides a reference point from which the
`
`prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point is applied
`
`instead of someone using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a
`
`claim is obvious.
`
`46.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`18
`
`

`

`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the linkage between two or more prior art references is common
`
`sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`49.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a POSITA
`
`looking to overcome a problem through invention will often be able to fit together
`
`the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness analysis
`
`19
`
`

`

`therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would
`
`employ under the circumstances.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`51. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
`
`POSITA can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is likely obvious.
`
`52.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`53.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`20
`
`

`

`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I understand that evidence of secondary
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, if available, should be considered as part of the
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`55.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`56.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in
`
`the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have
`
`been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the
`
`21
`
`

`

`field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`57.
`I have been informed by counsel that, in the present IPR, the claims of
`
`the ’183 patent claims are properly construed under the standard set forth by the
`
`Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH. The sections below discuss the meaning of
`
`various terms of the claims of the ’183 patent under this standard.
`
`A.
`“providing signal output frequencies” (claims 27, 83)
`58. Claim 83 recites “the microcontroller selectively providing signal
`
`output frequencies to a closely spaced array of input touch terminals of a keypad.”
`
`(Emphasis added). Claim 85, which depends from 83, states that “the signal output
`
`frequencies have a same hertz value.” (Emphasis added). Because it is a
`
`dependent claim, claim 85 further limits the claim from which it depends and
`
`independent claim 83 must be interpreted broadly enough to encompass the scope
`
`of claim 85. Thus, the limitation “providing signal output frequencies” in claim 83
`
`must be interpreted broadly enough to encompass the situation where “each signal
`
`output frequency” of the provided signal output frequencies “has the same hertz
`
`value.” See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(c).
`
`59.
`
`In addition, a POSITA would have understood that two frequencies
`
`that have “the same hertz value” are the same frequency. Thus, the claimed
`
`22
`
`

`

`“signal output frequencies” can be the same, and need not be different frequencies.
`
`See id.
`
`60. Similarly, claim 86, which depends from 83, states that “each signal
`
`output frequency is selected from a plurality of hertz values.” Thus, the limitation
`
`“providing signal output frequencies” in claim 83 must also be interpreted broadly
`
`enough to encompass selection of each frequency from a plurality of hertz values.
`
`61. As claims 85 and 86 confirm, the limitation “providing signal output
`
`frequencies” in claim 83 should be construed to broadly enough to include
`
`“providing signal output frequencies, wherein each signal output frequency has a
`
`same hertz value or is selected from a plurality of hertz values.”
`
`62. Claim 27 also recites “providing signal output frequencies.” Because
`
`there is no indication that this identical claim language should have a different
`
`meaning in these claims, “providing signal output frequencies” in claim 27 should
`
`be construed consistent with the identical language in claim 83. See Pods, Inc. v.
`
`Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“the same terms appearing in
`
`different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear
`
`from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different
`
`meanings at different portions of the claims”).
`
`B.
`
`“supply voltage” (claim 83)
`
`23
`
`

`

`63. Claim 83 recites “a microcontroller using the periodic output signal
`
`from the oscillator, the microcontroller selectively providing signal output
`
`frequencies ... wherein a peak voltage of the signal output frequencies is greater
`
`than a supply voltage.” The recitation of “a supply voltage” in this claim is
`
`properly construed to be a supply voltage of the microcontroller, as opposed to a
`
`supply voltage for another component in the touch circuit.
`
`64. The placement of the term within a wherein clause describing the
`
`microcontroller supports this interpretation. See APPLE-1001, claim 83. In
`
`addition, the supply voltage being compared to the “signal output frequencies”
`
`provided by the microcontroller in claim 83 is further indicative that the recited
`
`supply voltage is a supply voltage of the microcontroller. See APPLE-1001, claim
`
`83.
`
`65.
`
`In the previous IPR challenge to the ’183 patent discussed above
`
`(Samsung v. UUSI, IPR2016-00908), the Board, in its Institution Decision, stated
`
`the following: “We determine, based on the context of the supply voltage
`
`limitations in [claim 83], that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`term ‘supply voltage’ as referring to a supply voltage of the claimed
`
`microcontroller.” Samsung v. UUSI, Paper 12 at 10. The Board found that the
`
`term’s inclusion within a claim limitation reciting “a microcontroller” meant that
`
`the recited “supply voltage” referred to a supply voltage of the microcontroller
`
`24
`
`

`

`rather than to some other circuit component (such as the oscillator). See id. In its
`
`Final Written Decision, the Board found “no need to depart” from its earlier
`
`constructions in the Institution Decision “[b]ased on the full record developed
`
`during [the] proceeding.” Samsung v. UUSI, Paper 35 at 10.
`
`66. Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above, the term “a
`
`supply voltage” in claim 83 should be construed to mean “a supply voltage of the
`
`microcontroller.”
`
`C.
`67.
`
`“coupled” (claims 27, 83)
`Independent claims 27 and 83 recites various components “coupled”
`
`to other components. For example, claim 27 recites “a detector circuit coupled to
`
`said oscillator.” The ’183 patent discloses that such coupling may be direct (e.g.,
`
`two components connected by a wire) or indirect (e.g., two components connected
`
`by a path through multiple other components).
`
`For example, the ’183 patent describes that “[o]scillator 1200 is preferably
`
`comprised of a first invertor gate 1210 having [its] input coupled to [its] output via
`
`resistors 1214 and 1216[.]” APPLE-1001, 20:6-8. The following detail from FIG.
`
`13 shows this
`
`25
`
`

`

`configuration:
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, Detail of FIG. 13 (annotated)
`
`68. The ’183 patent includes several other examples of indirect coupling
`
`between components. See, e.g., APPLE-1001, 12:60-62, 13:46-48.
`
`69. Accordingly, the term “coupled” in claims 27 and 83 should be
`
`construed broadly enough to include indirect coupling via intervening components.
`
`V.
`
`Prior Art
`A. The comb

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket