IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Byron Hourmand
`In re Patent of:
`5,796,183 Atty. Docket No.: 39521-0062IP5
`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
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 5,796,183 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’183 PATENT ............................................................. 1 
`A.  Brief Description ....................................................................................... 1 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 2 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 2 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 3 
`1.  Discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................... 5 
`C.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 8 
`D.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... 8 
`1. 
`“providing signal output frequencies” (claims 27, 83) ................... 9 
`2. 
`“supply voltage” (claim 83) .......................................................... 11 
`3. 
`“coupled” (claims 27, 83) .............................................................. 12 
`III.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 13 
`A.  [GROUND 1A] – Claims 27, 83-85, and 90 are obvious over Chiu in
`view of Schwarzbach .............................................................................. 14 
`1.  Overview of Chiu .......................................................................... 14 
`2.  Overview of Schwarzbach ............................................................ 15 
`3. 
`The combination of Chiu and Schwarzbach ................................. 15 
`4. 
`Reasons to combine Chiu and Schwarzbach ................................. 17 
`5. 
`Claim 27 ........................................................................................ 19 
`6. 
`Claim 83 ........................................................................................ 44 
`7. 
`Claim 84 ........................................................................................ 48 
`8. 
`Claim 85 ........................................................................................ 50 
`9. 
`Claim 90 ........................................................................................ 52 
`B.  [GROUND 1B] – Claims 86-88 are obvious over Chiu and
`Schwarzbach in view of Meadows ......................................................... 52 
`1.  Overview of Meadows .................................................................. 52 
`2. 
`The combination of Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Meadows ............... 53 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Meadows .............. 55 
`4. 
`Claim 86 ........................................................................................ 56 
`5. 
`Claim 87 ........................................................................................ 57 
`6. 
`Claim 88 ........................................................................................ 58 
`C.  [GROUND 1C] – Claim 91 is obvious over Chiu and Schwarzbach in
`view of Ingraham ’548 ............................................................................ 58 
`1.  Overview of Ingraham ’548 .......................................................... 58 
`2. 
`The Combination of Chiu, Schwarzbach and Ingraham ’548 ....... 58 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Chiu, Schwarzbach and Ingraham ’548 ....... 59 
`Claim 91 .................................................................................................. 60 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`D.  [GROUND 1D] – Claims 28 and 92 are obvious over Chiu and
`Schwarzbach in view of Tucker ............................................................. 61 
`1.  Overview of Tucker ....................................................................... 61 
`2. 
`The Combination of Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Tucker .................. 62 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Tucker .................. 63 
`4. 
`Claim 28 ........................................................................................ 64 
`5. 
`Claim 92 ........................................................................................ 66 
`E.  [GROUND 1E] – Claims 32, 36 and 93 are obvious over Chiu and
`Schwarzbach in view of Lawson ............................................................ 66 
`1.  Overview of Lawson ..................................................................... 66 
`2. 
`The Combination of Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Lawson ................. 66 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Chiu, Schwarzbach, and Lawson ................. 67 
`4. 
`Claim 32 ........................................................................................ 68 
`5. 
`Claim 36 ........................................................................................ 70 
`6. 
`Claim 93 ........................................................................................ 70 
`IV.  PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 70 
`V. 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70 
`VI.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 71 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 71 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 71 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 72 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................ 72 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 to Hourmand (“the ’183 patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’183 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Phillip Wright
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,572,205 to Caldwell (“Caldwell”)
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,561,002 to Chiu (“Chiu”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No. 90/012,439
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No. 90/013,106
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,560,954 to Leach (“Leach”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,107 to Hopper (“Hopper”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,036 to Wheeler (“Wheeler”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,237,421 to Waldron (“Waldron”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,650,597 to Redmayne (“Redmayne”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,922,061 to Meadows (“Meadows”)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,418,333 to Schwarzbach (“Schwarzbach”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,293,734 to Pepper (“Pepper”)
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,731,548 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’548”)
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,758,735 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’735”)
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,417 to Caldwell (“Caldwell ’417”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`U.S. Patent No. 4,308,443 to Tucker (“Tucker”)
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,290,061 to Serrano (“Serrano”)
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,845,630 to Stephens (“Stephens”)
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,048,019 to Albertsen (“Albertsen”)
`
`APPLE-1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,039 to Walker (“Walker”)
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,653 to Chu (“Chu”)
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,087,825 to Ingraham (“Ingraham ’825”)
`
`APPLE-1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,649,323 to Pearlman (“Pearlman”)
`
`APPLE-1027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,311,392 to Kinney (“Kinney”)
`
`APPLE-1028
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,707,852 to Jahr (“Jahr”)
`
`APPLE-1029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,638,444 to Chou (“Chou”)
`
`APPLE-1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,063,383 to Bobba (“Bobba”)
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,903,251 to Chapman (“Chapman”)
`
`APPLE-1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,328,408 (“Lawson”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 27, 28, 32, 36,
`
`83-88, and 90-93 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183 (“the
`
`’183 patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Apple will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’183 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`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. APPLE-1003,
`
`[27]-[34] (“Technology Overview”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`APPLE-1001, Detail of FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Apple certifies that the ’183 Patent is available for IPR. The present petition
`
`is being filed within one year of service of a complaint against Apple in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan.1 Apple is not barred or estopped from requesting this review
`
`of the Challenged Claims on the grounds identified below.
`
`
`1 This complaint was served against Apple on November 29, 2017.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`Apple requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in
`
`the table below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be found
`
`unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable is provided
`
`below, indicating where each element can be found in the cited prior art, and the
`
`relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and support for each ground is
`
`set forth in APPLE-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Phillip Wright, referenced
`
`throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`1A
`
`’183 Patent Claims
`27,2 83-85, 90
`
`86-88
`
`91
`
`28, 92
`
`32, 36, 93
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`
`
`§ 103 Basis for Ground
`Obvious over Chiu in view of
`Schwarzbach (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Chiu and Schwarzbach in
`view of Meadows (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Chiu and Schwarzbach in
`view of Ingraham ’548 (35 U.S.C. §
`103)
`Obvious over Chiu and Schwarzbach in
`view of Tucker (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Obvious over Chiu and Schwarzbach in
`view of Lawson (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`The ’183 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/601,268 on
`
`
`2 Independent claim 27 was previously cancelled, but its limitations are still
`
`incorporated into challenged dependent claims 28, 32, and 36.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`August 18, 1998. See APPLE-1002. There is no claim to an earlier priority
`
`application. Thus, the earliest effective priority date of the claims of the ’183
`
`patent is January 31, 1996 (the “Critical Date”). The ’183 patent was subject to a
`
`previous IPR challenge filed by Samsung. Samsung v. UUSI, IPR2016-00908,
`
`Paper 2 (PTAB April 15, 2016).
`
`The references cited in the present Petition are prior art to the ’183 patent, as
`
`shown in the following table:
`
`Reference
`Chiu (APPLE-1005)
`Schwarzbach (APPLE-1014)
`Meadows (APPLE-1013)
`Tucker (APPLE-1019)
`Lawson (APPLE-1032)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(b)
`102(b)
`102(b)
`102(b)
`102(b)
`
`Qualifying date
`December 24, 1985 (issued)
`November 29, 1983 (issued)
`May 1, 1990 (issued)
`December 29, 1981 (issued)
`May 4, 1982 (issued)
`
`Among the references relied upon in this Petition, Tucker was listed in an
`
`IDS during prosecution of the ’183 patent, but not relied on during that prosecution
`
`nor during subsequent Patent Owner-initiated reexamination. APPLE-1001, Face;
`
`APPLE-1002, 302, 307; APPLE-1006; APPLE-1007. The remaining references
`
`were never considered by the Patent Office during prosecution or the
`
`reexaminations.
`
`Ingraham ’548 is the only reference relied on in the present Petition to
`
`address the Challenged Claims that was previously relied on by Samsung in the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`prior IPR challenge to the ’183 patent. See Samsung v. UUSI, Paper 2. However,
`
`the present Petition relies on different disclosures from this reference, and thus
`
`presents it in a different light than the prior Samsung IPR.
`
`The Samsung IPR relies on Ingraham ’548 throughout its analysis, but
`
`specifically does not rely on it for the claim features to which it is mapped in the
`
`present Petition. See Section III.C, infra, at Ground 1C – [91a] (relying on
`
`Ingraham ’548 for “a voltage regulator supply voltage”).
`
`1.
`Discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`As previously discussed, the ’183 patent was the subject of a previous IPR
`
`challenge filed by Samsung, as well as two ex parte reexaminations initiated by
`
`Patent Owner. See Samsung v. UUSI, IPR2016-00908, Paper 2 (PTAB April 15,
`
`2016); see generally APPLE-1006, APPLE-1007.
`
`The Board has discretion “to deny a petition that challenges a patent that was
`
`previously challenged before the Board.” Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v.
`
`iRobot, IPR2018-00898, Paper 9 at 6 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018); Gen. Plastic Indus. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01360, Paper 19 at 8 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017); 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). In its prior decisions, the Board has
`
`provided a non-exhaustive list of factors it considers when determining whether to
`
`apply this discretion. Shenzhen, Paper 9 at 6-7 (citing Gen. Plastic, Paper 19 at
`
`16). These factors weigh heavily against denial because any delay in Apple’s IPR
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`relative Samsung’s IPR was caused by Patent Owner’s delay in bringing suit
`
`against Apple. Patent Owner waited over two years and until after the Samsung
`
`IPR concluded before suing Apple. Under these circumstances, rewarding Patent
`
`Owner’s delay and denying this petition for discretionary reasons would be unfair
`
`to Apple.
`
`Specifically, the first General Plastic factor (“whether the same petitioner
`
`previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent”) weighs
`
`against denial, because Apple has not filed any previous petition challenging the
`
`’183 patent. See Gen. Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. The second factor (“whether at the
`
`time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the
`
`second petition or should have known of it”) also weighs against denial, because
`
`Apple did not know of any of the prior art references relied on in the present
`
`Petition when Samsung filed its prior IPR petition. Patent Owner did not file suit
`
`against Apple until after the Samsung IPR concluded, so Apple had no reason to
`
`identify prior art applicable to the ’183 patent at the time when the Samsung IPR
`
`petition was filed. See Gen. Plastic, Paper 19, 16.
`
`The fourth General Plastic 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”) also weighs against denial, because the prior art
`
`references relied on in the present Petition were identified by prior art searching
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`and review that was not conducted (and that Apple would have had no reason to
`
`conduct) until after Patent Owner filed suit against Apple, which was after the
`
`Samsung IPR had concluded. See Gen. Plastic, Paper 19, 16.
`
`In addition, the fifth General Plastic factor (“whether the petitioner provides
`
`adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions
`
`directed to the same claims of the same patent”) weighs against denial, because
`
`any delay between Samsung’s IPR and the present Petition is due to Patent
`
`Owner’s delay in filing suit against Apple. See Gen. Plastic, Paper 19, 16.
`
`The sixth factor (“the finite resources of the Board”), and the seventh factor
`
`(“the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not
`
`later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review”)
`
`either favor institution or are at worst neutral with respect to the present Petition.
`
`See Gen. Plastic, Paper 19, 16.
`
`Further, in the Shenzhen case, the Board weighed an additional factor: “the
`
`extent to which the petitioner and any prior petitioner(s) were similarly situated
`
`defendants or otherwise realized a similar-in-time hazard regarding the challenged
`
`patent.” Shenzhen, Paper 9, 7. This factors weighs heavily against denial. The
`
`Board describes that the “purpose” of this factor “is to discourage tactical filing of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`petitions over time by parties that faced the same threat at the same time.” Id., 14.3
`
`Apple did not face “the same threat at the same time” as prior petitioner Samsung.
`
`Patent Owner filed suit against Samsung alleging infringement of the ’183 patent
`
`on February 13, 2015. See UUSI v. Samsung, et al., Case 1:15-cv-00146 (W.D.
`
`Mich. 2015). Patent Owner did not file its similar suit against Apple until
`
`November 22, 2017 – over two years after it filed suit against Samsung and over a
`
`month after the Final Written Decision in the Samsung IPR. See UUSI v. Apple,
`
`Case 2:17-cv-13798 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
`
`Accordingly, because at least these factors weigh against denial, the Board
`
`should not exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`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-1003, [22]; see, e.g.,
`
`APPLE-1001, (Background).
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In the present IPR, the claims of the ’183 patent claims are properly
`
`
`3 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`construed under the standard set forth by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH.
`
`For the purposes of this IPR, Petitioner proposes construction of the terms below.
`
`The remaining terms do not require construction. Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms in
`
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy). Petitioner reserves the right to respond to any constructions that may
`
`later be offered by the Patent Owner or adopted by the Board. Petitioner is not
`
`waiving any arguments concerning indefiniteness or claim scope that may be
`
`raised in litigation.
`
`1.
`“providing signal output frequencies” (claims 27, 83)
`Claim 83 recites “the microcontroller selectively providing signal output
`
`frequencies to a closely spaced array of input touch terminals of a keypad.” Claim
`
`85, which depends from 83, states that “the signal output frequencies have a same
`
`hertz value.” 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).
`
`In addition, a POSITA would have understood that two frequencies that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`have “the same hertz value” are the same frequency. APPLE-1003, [60]. Thus,
`
`the claimed “signal output frequencies” can be the same, and need not be different
`
`frequencies. See id.
`
`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.
`
`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.” APPLE-1003,
`
`[59]-[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”). APPLE-1003, [63].
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`2.
`“supply voltage” (claim 83)
`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.
`
`The placement of the term within a wherein clause describing the
`
`microcontroller supports this interpretation. See APPLE-1001, claim 83; APPLE-
`
`1003, [65]. 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; APPLE-1003, [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”
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`referred to a supply voltage of the microcontroller 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.
`
`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.”
`
`3.
`“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 configuration:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, Detail of FIG. 13 (annotated)
`
`The ’183 patent includes several other examples of indirect coupling
`
`between components. See, e.g., APPLE-1001, 12:60-62, 13:46-48.
`
`Accordingly, the term “coupled” in claims 27 and 83 should be construed
`
`broadly enough to include indirect coupling via intervening components. APPLE-
`
`1003, [72].
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The following analysis shows how the cited references render obvious all
`
`limitations of the Challenged Claims.
`
`13
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`[GROUND 1A] – Claims 27, 83-85, and 90 are obvious over
`Chiu in view of Schwarzbach
`1. Overview of Chiu
`Chiu describes a capacitive touch control panel for capacitive coupling that
`
`is alterable by a human touch. APPLE-1005, Abstract. The touch control panel
`
`has a capacitive touch switch cell arrangement that employs a touch responsive pad
`
`or electrode and a receiver electrode on opposing surfaces of a dielectric substrate
`
`for capacitive coupling. Id. Signal generating circuitry is coupled to the touch
`
`responsive pad and generates a scan signal with a peak voltage of 30 volts. Id.,
`
`Abstract, FIG. 6A, 9:21-23. Signal detection circuitry senses the signal coupled to
`
`the receiver electrode to detect changes in the coupled signal signifying the
`
`touching of the touch pad. Id., Abstract, FIG. 6A.
`
`Chiu teaches that the signal generating circuitry is included in a
`
`“microprocessor 90,” which “is a TMS 1670 microprocessor commercially
`
`available from Texas Instruments Incorporated.” See id., 9:7-9. A POSITA would
`
`have understood that the “microprocessor 90” functions as a microcontroller since
`
`the terms “microprocessor” and “microcontroller” were used interchangeably in
`
`the art. APPLE-1003, [74]; see, e.g., APPLE-1030, 2:46-48 (“The terms
`
`‘microcontroller’ and ‘microprocessor’ are used interchangeably … both terms
`
`being used to refer to single chip data processing circuits.”).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`2. Overview of Schwarzbach
`Schwarzbach describes an “appliance control system” utilizing a
`
`“microprocessor 100” for detecting key presses on a keyboard. APPLE-1014, 6:6-
`
`9. Schwarzbach’s “microprocessor 100 is [a] TMS 1670” processor manufactured
`
`by Texas Instruments—the same processor described in Chiu. Id., 15:62-63. As
`
`discussed above (see Section III.A.1, supra), a POSITA would have understood
`
`that the “microprocessor 100” operates as a microcontroller due to the
`
`interchangeability of the terms “microprocessor” and “microcontroller” in the art.
`
`APPLE-1003, [75].
`
`Schwarzbach also teaches that a “supply voltage of approximately + 16 volts
`
`is supplied to the microprocessor 100,” thereby indicating that the TMS 1670
`
`microprocessor takes a supply voltage of 16 volts. APPLE-1014, 6:6-9.
`
`Schwarzbach also teaches that the microprocessor is provided with a supply
`
`voltage from a connected battery to “retain any information stored in the
`
`microprocessor 100 when the AC power fails[.]” APPLE-1014, 19:51-55.
`
`3.
`The combination of Chiu and Schwarzbach
`Chiu describes that it’s “microprocessor 90” is a TMS 1670 processor – the
`
`same processor described in Schwarzbach. APPLE-1005, 9:7-9. Since
`
`Schwarzbach describes that the TMS 1670 processor takes a supply voltage of 16
`
`volts, Chiu’s “microprocessor 90” would have been understood to take a supply
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`voltage of 16 volts by virtue of its identification of the TMS 1670 microcontroller.
`
`APPLE-1003, [77]. To the extent that this not already taught in Chiu,
`
`Schwarzbach is combined with Chiu such that its “microprocessor 90” is provided
`
`with a supply voltage of 16 volts, as taught by Schwarzbach, resulting in the scan
`
`pulse signal generated by the microprocessor having a peak voltage (30 volts)
`
`greater than the supply voltage (16 volts). APPLE-1005, Abstract, FIG. 6;
`
`APPLE-1014, 4:50-5:1; APPLE-1003, [77].
`
`Also in the combination, Chiu’s touch circuit is modified such that the
`
`supply voltage of the “microprocessor 90” is provided by Schwarzbach’s battery.
`
`APPLE-1014, 19:51-55. A POSITA would have understood that Schwarzbach’s
`
`battery was capable of driving Chiu’s “microprocessor 90” since Chiu and
`
`Schwarzbach teach using the same microprocessor and that the “microprocessor
`
`90” would operate in the same manner as taught in Chiu as long as the battery
`
`provided the same voltage at necessary current levels, as taught in Schwarzbach.
`
`APPLE-1003, [78]; see, e.g., APPLE-1005, 9:7-9; APPLE-1014, 19:51-55;
`
`APPLE-1017, 2:28-30. A POSITA would have understood that Schwarzbach’s
`
`battery was capable of producing sufficient current and voltage to drive Chiu’s
`
`microcontroller, since the microcontroller in Schwarzbach is the same
`
`microprocessor described in Chiu. APPLE-1003, [78]; see, e.g., APPLE-1005,
`
`9:7-9; APPLE-1014, 15:62-63.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`4.
`Reasons to combine Chiu and Schwarzbach
`A POSITA would have modified the touch circuit of Chiu based on the
`
`teachings of Schwarzbach in order to operate at the supply voltage described in
`
`Schwarzbach, such that the output voltage of the signal generator circuitry of the
`
`“microprocessor 90” is greater than its supply voltage. APPLE-1003, [79]. Chiu
`
`teaches that “microprocessor 90 is a TMS 1670 microprocessor commercially
`
`available from Texas Instruments Incorporated[.]” APPLE-1005, 9:7-9, FIG. 6A.
`
`Since Schwarzbach teaches that its microprocessor is the same “TMS 1670”
`
`processor described in Chiu, a POSITA would have understood that it was well-
`
`known to operate the TMS 1670 with a supply voltage of 16 volts as taught by
`
`Schwarzbach. See APPLE-1014, 4:50-5:1. A POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to perform this modification to Chiu because Chiu does not teach any
`
`particular supply voltage for the microprocessor, which would have led the
`
`POSITA to look to well-known supply voltages used with the specific
`
`microprocessor described in Chiu—such as the supply voltage described in
`
`Schwarzbach. See APPLE-1005, 9:7-9, FIG. 6A; APPLE-1014, 4:50-5:1; APPLE-
`
`1003, [79].
`
`The results of the combination would have been predictable because
`
`Schwarzbach describes its microprocessor being a commercially available
`
`microprocessor of the same type as the microprocessor described in Chiu (a TMS
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,796,183
`1670 microprocessor), and describes the processor as operating at the disclosed
`
`supply voltage. APPLE-1014, 4:50-5:1; APPLE-1003, [80].
`
`A POSITA also would have modified Chiu’s touch circuit based on
`
`Schwarzbach to allow the microprocessor to continue operation in the event of a
`
`power failure. APPLE-1014, 19:51-55. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`add such a feature to make the Chiu’s appliance more resilient in the event of
`
`power failures, and to avoid inconvenient user experiences such as having to reset
`
`t