throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Robert Lacroix, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,619,051
`Issue Date:
`December 31, 2013
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/195.383
`Filing Date:
`August 1, 2011
`Title:
`HAPTIC FEEDBACKSYSTEM WITH STORED EFFECTS
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0060IP1
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEREMY COOPERSTOCK
`
`1. My name is Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock. I am a professor in the
`
`
`
`department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at McGill University. My
`
`current curriculum vitae is attached as SAMSUNG-1004 and some highlights
`
`follow.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.A.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`of British Columbia, my M.Sc. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`Toronto in 1992, and my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the
`
`University of Toronto in 1996.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, and a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology at McGill University. I also direct the Shared Reality Lab at McGill,
`
`which focuses on computer mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human
`
`communication and the synthesis of perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive
`
`environments. I led the development of the Intelligent Classroom, the world's first
`
`Internet streaming demonstrations of Dolby Digital 5.1, multiple simultaneous
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG 1003
`
`1
`
`

`

`streams of uncompressed high-definition video, a high-fidelity orchestra rehearsal
`
`simulator, a simulation environment that renders graphic, audio, and vibrotactile
`
`effects in response to footsteps, and a mobile game treatment for amblyopia.
`
`4. My work on the Ultra-Videoconferencing system was recognized by
`
`an award for Most Innovative Use of New Technology from ACM/IEEE
`
`Supercomputing and a Distinction Award from the Audio Engineering Society.
`
`The research I supervised on the Autour project earned the Hochhausen Research
`
`Award from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and an Impact Award
`
`from the Canadian Internet Registry Association, and my Real-Time Emergency
`
`Response project won the Gold Prize (brainstorm round) of the Mozilla Ignite
`
`Challenge.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked with IBM at the Haifa Research Center, Israel, and the
`
`T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, the Sony Computer
`
`Science Laboratory in Tokyo, Japan, and was a visiting professor at Bang &
`
`Olufsen, Denmark, where I conducted research on telepresence technologies as
`
`part of the World Opera Project. I led the theme of Enabling Technologies for a
`
`Networks of Centres of Excellence on Graphics, Animation, and New Media
`
`(GRAND) and I am an associate editor of the Journal of the AES.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently leading a research project (SenseProxy) that uses
`
`vibrotactile patterns to convey background information between two people on an
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`ongoing basis as part of a mobile remote implicit communication system. I am
`
`also actively exploring the design space for wearable haptics as an interaction
`
`paradigm in everyday conditions. This requires energy efficient, wireless devices
`
`that can be attached to the body or inserted into regular clothing, and that are
`
`capable of both sensing human input and delivering richly expressive output to the
`
`wearer.
`
`7. My experience in academic and practical situations as well as my
`
`hands on experience with haptic systems has given me a detailed appreciation of
`
`the technology involved with the ’051 patent.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) to offer technical opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,619,051 (“the ’051 Patent” or SAMSUNG-1001), and
`
`prior art references relating to its subject matter. In writing this Declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: my own knowledge and experience, including my work
`
`experience in the above fields; my experience in teaching those subjects; and my
`
`experience in working with others involved in those fields. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed the ’051 patent and relevant excerpts of the prosecution history of the
`
`’051 patent (“the Prosecution History” or SAMSUNG-1002). Additionally, I have
`
`reviewed the following:
`
`
`
`PCT Publication No. WO99/40504 to Baron (“Baron” or SAMSUNG-
`1005)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,657,117 to Weare et al. (“Weare” or SAMSUNG-
`1006)
`PCT Publication No. WO 2005/085981 to Malmberg, et al.
`(“Malmberg” or SAMSUNG-1007)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,356 to Chang, et al. (“Chang” or SAMSUNG-
`1008)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,777,445 to Motegi (“Motegi” or SAMSUNG-1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,426 to Hayashi (“Hayashi” or SAMSUNG-
`1010)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,742,278 to Chen (“Chen” or SAMSUNG-1011)
`PCT Publication No. WO 2004/053671 to Grant (“Grant” or
`SAMSUNG-1012)
` WO 97/25657, Corrected Version (“Schuler II” or SAMSUNG-1013)
`
`Pasquero et al., Perceptual Analysis of Haptic Icons: an Investigation
`into the Validity of Cluster Sorted MDS, 14th Symposium on Haptic
`Interfaces For Virtual Environment And Teleoperator Systems - IEEE
`Virtual Reality 2006 (IEEE-VR2006) (“Pasquero” or SAMSUNG-
`1014)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,089 to Skarbo (“Skarbo” or SAMSUNG-1015)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,738,152 to Roth (“Roth” or SAMSUNG-1016)
`Corrected Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan
`Regarding Validity of United States Patent Nos. 6,429,846;
`7,982,720; 8,031,181; 8,619,051; 9,323,332; and 7,969,288
`(Redacted), filed on Jan. 16, 2019 in Immersion v. Samsung, et al.,
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00572 (E.D. Tex) (SAMSUNG-1017)
`Consolidation Order, issued on Jun. 7, 2018 in Immersion v.
`Samsung, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00572 (E.D. Tex) (SAMSUNG-
`1018)
`Defendant Samsung’s Witness List, filed on February 27, 2019 in Case
`No. 2:17-cv-00572 (E.D. Tex) (SAMSUNG-1019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`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 ’051
`
`patent at the time of the earliest purported priority date of the ’051 patent, and I
`
`have done so during my review of these materials. The ’051 patent claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on February 20, 2007. See SAMSUNG-1001,
`
`Face. It is therefore my understanding that the earliest priority date purported by
`
`the ’051 patent is February 20, 2007 (hereinafter the “Critical Date”).
`
`10. Based upon my experience in this area and taking into account the
`
`above references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’051 patent
`
`(a “POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area
`
`emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and
`
`at least five years of experience in the field of haptic technologies. Superior
`
`education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. I
`
`base this on my own practical and educational experiences, including my
`
`knowledge of colleagues and others at the time of the invention of the ’051 patent
`
`on or shortly before its claimed priority date of February 20, 2007 filing date. I am
`
`familiar with the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing
`
`date and the claimed priority date.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`11.
`
`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, colleagues from academia, 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.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13. 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.
`
`14. This declaration is organized as follows:
`
`I. 
`Overview .......................................................................................................... 7 
`II. 
`Legal Standards for Prior Art .......................................................................... 8 
`III.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 14 
`IV.  Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 17 
`V. 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 61 
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Overview
`A. Brief Description
`15. The ’051 patent describes a “haptic feedback system” that “can be
`
`implemented” in “any device that uses an actuator to generate vibrations.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, Abstract, 2:44-46. The patent describes that the system
`
`includes a collection of “pre-defined haptic effects” stored in a memory. Id. at
`
`claim 1. Applications executing on the device can “call, via software commands,
`
`for a specific stored haptic effect to be played.” Id. at 3:16-17. In response to
`
`these commands, the system controls an actuator to produce the requested haptic
`
`effect. Id. at claim 1.
`
`16.
`
`Independent claim 1 is representative, and recites:
`
`1. A haptic feedback system comprising:
`a processor;
`a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores
`a plurality of pre-defined haptic effects;
`an actuator drive circuit coupled to the processor; and an
`actuator coupled to the actuator drive circuit;
`wherein the processor is adapted to output a first stored haptic
`effect of the pre-defined haptic effects in response to a haptic effect
`request;
`wherein the haptic effect request is a control signal generated in
`response to a first application that identifies the first stored haptic effect
`to be played;
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`wherein the output causes the first stored haptic effect to be
`played;
`wherein the entire haptic output in response to the haptic effect
`request consists of the first stored haptic effect;
`wherein an application program interface (API) receives the
`haptic effect request from the first application and retrieves the
`requested first stored haptic effect, wherein the first application is
`registered with the API and a second application is also registered with
`the API and has access to the first stored haptic effect.
`B.
`Terminology
`17.
`I have been informed by petitioner's counsel that claim terminology
`
`must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during an IPR proceeding. I
`
`have been informed by petitioner's counsel that this means the claims should be
`
`interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow, but that such interpretation
`
`should not be inconsistent with the patent’s specification and with usage of the
`
`terms by a POSITA. Counsel has also informed me that this may yield
`
`interpretations that are broader than the interpretation applied during a District
`
`Court or ITC proceedings.
`
`II. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`18.
`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.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`20.
`
`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, qualifies as prior art to an asserted patent if the date of publication is
`
`prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`21.
`
`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,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United Stated before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`A. Legal Standards for Anticipation
`23.
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`25.
`
`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).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be proven
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B.
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`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.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would
`
`employ under the circumstances.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34. 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.
`
`35.
`
`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.
`
`36.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`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.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be
`
`proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`41.
`I have been instructed to give all terms in the claims of the ’051 patent
`
`their plain meaning, except for the three terms discussed below.
`
`A.
`“stored haptic effects” / “pre-defined haptic effects” (claim 1)
`42. Counsel has informed that, in a prior IPR proceeding involving the
`
`’051 patent, the Board, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`standard, construed the terms “stored haptic effects” and “pre-defined haptic
`
`effects” to mean “haptic effect[s] predefined with low-level haptic parameters such
`
`as voltage levels over time.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion, IPR2016-01371, Paper 7 at
`
`9-10 (PTAB January 11, 2017) (decision denying institution). In my opinion, this
`
`construction of the terms “stored haptic effects” and “pre-defined haptic effects” is
`
`correct.
`
`43. The ’051 patent defines what it intends when referencing a pre-
`
`defined haptic effect by stating “the haptic effect in FIG. 6 is predefined with the
`
`low level haptic parameters such as voltage levels and time duration.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 5:29–31. The ’051 patent also uses a parenthetical to equate the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`terms “stored haptic effects” and “pre-defined haptic effects,” thereby indicating
`
`that these terms should be construed to have the same meaning. See id., 4:18–19
`
`(“pre-defined effects (‘stored haptic effects’)”).
`
`44. Accordingly, in the context of the ’051 patent, it is my opinion that
`
`the terms “stored haptic effects” and “pre-defined haptic effects” should be
`
`construed to mean “haptic effect[s] predefined with low-level haptic parameters
`
`such as voltage levels over time.”
`
`B.
`
`45.
`
`“the entire haptic output in response to the haptic effect request
`consists of the first stored haptic effect” (claim 1)
`I have been informed that, in the pending litigation proceeding
`
`involving the ’051 patent, Petitioner and Patent Owner have agreed that the term
`
`“the entire haptic output in response to the haptic effect request consists of the first
`
`stored haptic effect” means that “[t]he haptic output in response to the haptic effect
`
`request is limited to a single stored haptic effect” under the Phillips standard.
`
`SAMSUNG-1017, 16. In my opinion, this construction is consistent with the ’051
`
`specification.
`
`46. For example, the ’051 patent describes that handling haptic requests
`
`received from applications “requires some form of API client marshaling, where
`
`the API must determine whose request is most important.” SAMSUNG-1001,
`
`4:28-31. The patent describes applying a “last caller wins” scheme in which
`
`“[w]hen multiple applications try to use the vibration resource simultaneously, the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`last caller interrupts whatever was playing before and its effect plays.” Id., 4:31-
`
`35. The patent also describes a “priority scheme” in which “when launching an
`
`effect, the caller” (e.g., the application) “specifies the priority to be used” and
`
`“[p]layback” of the requested effect “succeeds when priority is equal to or higher
`
`than the current effects playback priority.” Id., 4:37-40. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that each of these schemes is aimed at choosing a time when the
`
`requested haptic output associated with the received haptic request can be played,
`
`and both schemes describe the requested haptic output as being played separately
`
`from other requested effects. See id., 4:28-40 A POSITA would thus have
`
`understood that the haptic output played in response to the request includes only
`
`the requested haptic effect, as both scheduling schemes aim to ensure that no other
`
`effect is playing at the same time. See id.
`
`47. Accordingly, in my opinion, the term “the entire haptic output in
`
`response to the haptic effect request consists of the first stored haptic effect” means
`
`that “[t]he haptic output in response to the haptic effect request is limited to a
`
`single stored haptic effect” in the context of the ’051 patent.
`
`C.
` “digitized streamed envelope construct” (claim 3)
`48. The ’051 patent describes a “digitized stream envelope (‘DSE’)
`
`construct” as a digital file storing data for generating a haptic effect. See
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 3:23-29, 4:59-62, FIG. 4. The patent describes the data as “a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`set of magnitudes, or strengths, over time, for a number of effects” such as the
`
`voltage of the signal used to generate a haptic effect. See SAMSUNG-1001, 4:59-
`
`60. The ’051 patent sets forth one example “DSE” as including information that
`
`specifies “magnitude control information” for a voltage over time. See
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 5:18-19. In the example, the DSE represents an “idealized
`
`voltage, from -127 [volts] to 127 [volts], [that] is modulated over time to drive a
`
`vibration actuator.” Id. at 5:19-20. Accordingly, in the context of the ’051 patent,
`
`it is my opinion that the term “digitized streamed envelope construct” must be
`
`broad enough to encompass “a digital file including data representing a set of
`
`magnitudes over time for an effect, such as a signal voltage.”
`
`IV. Prior Art
`A. Baron
`1. Overview of Baron
`49. Baron describes a “system and method for input, outputting,
`
`processing and storing force, tactile or other vibro output.” SAMSUNG-1005,
`
`Abstract. Baron describes that “vibro data” is information used for generating
`
`“vibro effects,” which are “force or other physical sensation[s] for output … to be
`
`experienced by a user.” Id. at 2:5-6. Baron describes these vibro effects as
`
`“haptic” effects. Id. at 6:29-30, 7:13-15; see SAMSUNG-1001, 1:23-27 (“haptic”
`
`effects include “vibration effects”).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`50. Baron describes that “vibro effects” are produced by providing vibro
`
`data associated with a particular effect to a “vibro output device,” which is “any
`
`device that can generate a vibro effect that can be sensed by a user.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1005, 3:23-24. Examples of “vibro output devices” include “vibrating devices
`
`such as chairs or plates, motion simulation devices such as vibro feedback
`
`joysticks and steering wheels, and tactile devices such as a vibro glove.” Id. at
`
`3:24-26.
`
`51. Further, Baron describes that the vibro effects can be used “to provide
`
`feedback or to signal information to [a] user” of a particular application, thereby
`
`“enhanc[ing] the experience of [the] user.” Id. at 1:13-16. For example, “when a
`
`user fires a gun as part of a game, a force output device in a force feedback
`
`joystick may cause a slight force to be applied to the joystick handle as the user
`
`actuates the gun during the game,” thereby “provid[ing] extra depth to the
`
`experience for the user playing the game and also signal[ing] to the user that the
`
`gun has been fired as part of the game.” Id. at 1:20-24.
`
`2.
`Analysis
`52. Baron describes a “system and method for input, outputting,
`
`processing and storing force, tactile or other vibro output.” SAMSUNG-1005,
`
`Abstract. Baron describes that “vibro data” is information used for generating
`
`“vibro effects,” which are “force or other physical sensation[s] for output … to be
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`experienced by a user.” Id. at 2:5-6. Baron describes these vibro effects as
`
`“haptic” effects. Id. at 6:29-30, 7:13-15; see SAMSUNG-1001, 1:23-27 (“haptic”
`
`effects include “vibration effects”).
`
`53. Baron describes that vibro effects are produced by providing vibro
`
`data associated with a particular effect to a “vibro output device,” which is “any
`
`device that can generate a vibro effect that can be sensed by a user.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1005, 3:23-24. Examples of “vibro output devices” include “vibrating devices
`
`such as chairs or plates, motion simulation devices such as vibro feedback
`
`joysticks and steering wheels, and tactile devices such as a vibro glove.” Id. at
`
`3:24-26.
`
`54. Further, Baron describes that the vibro effects can be used “to provide
`
`feedback or to signal information to [a] user” of a particular application, thereby
`
`“enhanc[ing] the experience of [the] user.” Id. at 1:13-16. For example, “when a
`
`user fires a gun as part of a game, a force output device in a force feedback
`
`joystick may cause a slight force to be applied to the joystick handle as the user
`
`actuates the gun during the game,” thereby “provid[ing] extra depth to the
`
`experience for the user playing the game and also signal[ing] to the user that the
`
`gun has been fired as part of the game.” Id. at 1:20-24.
`
`55. Baron describes a “vibro server” (also referred to as a “vibro data
`
`system”) that “generates vibro output from stored vibro files or a vibro library, or
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`creates vibro data,” and “send[s] the vibro data to a vibro output device to be
`
`sensed by a user.” Id. at 3:27-30; see also 18:19-30, 19:15-18, 24-27, FIG. 16.
`
`Baron describes that the “vibro server can be implemented on any computer or
`
`processor such as a personal computer.” Id. at 3:30-31; see also 14:20-26, FIG. 11,
`
`18:19, FIG. 16. The processor can be “a microprocessor, dedicated logic, a digital
`
`signal processor, a programmable gate array, a neural network, or a central
`
`processor unit implemented in any other technology.” Id. at 14:26-28. FIG. 16
`
`from Baron shows an example of a vibro server (“vibro data system 1604”)
`
`including the processor:
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 16 (annotated)
`
`56. Baron further teaches that the “processor [is] coupled to [a] memory.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 18:19-20, FIG. 16; see also 14:20-28, FIG. 11. FIG. 16 of
`
`Baron shows the memory coupled to the processor:
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 16 (annotated)
`
`57. Baron describes that “data for generating a vibro effect on the vibro
`
`output device” (the “vibro data”) “is stored in memory in the computer.” Id. at
`
`4:10-11. “The memory may further contain a library of different vibro effects[.]”
`
`Id. at 4:11-12; see also 18:22-26. Baron describes that this “vibro data library”
`
`includes “a data base of vibro data” including “predefined vibro scenarios (e.g.,
`
`one or more of position, force, amplitude, frequency, and duration) corresponding
`
`to the occurrence of particular situations or states of vibro output system.” Id. at
`
`18:23-29. For example, Baron renders obvious that the “vibro data” can be “stored
`
`in the memory in a format used to generate sound by the computer,” and then
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`“converted into a format suitable to drive the vibro actuator in the vibro output
`
`device” when the particular effect is requested. Id. at 4:18-22.
`
`58. The stored vibro effects of Baron conform to the proper construction
`
`of “stored / pre-defined haptic effects” in the context of the ’051 patent. As
`
`previously discussed, the terms “stored haptic effects” and “pre-defined haptic
`
`effects” are properly construed to mean “haptic effect[s] predefined with low-level
`
`haptic parameters such as voltage levels over time.” Baron describes that the
`
`vibro data in the vibro data library (the pre-defined haptic effects) is stored “in a
`
`way similar to the processes used for streaming audio data,” in that “[e]ach sample
`
`provides information about the desired vibro output at a particular point in time.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 2:26-29. Baron indicates that the vibro data can be stored in the
`
`memory in the well-known “wave file” format (i.e., a “.wav” file) “consistent with
`
`the generation of audio signals on a computer system.” Id. at 22:27-29, 7:10.
`
`Baron describes that the stored vibro data from these wave files is sent “as a
`
`continuous stream of vibro samples through an analog or digital line to the vibro
`
`output device” in order to play a particular vibro effect. Id. at 2:17-18. Baron
`
`describes that the vibro data is “proportional to an amplitude of [an] analog signal”
`
`used to drive the actuator to produce the associated vibro effect. Id. at 35:15
`
`(claim 56). Thus, Baron renders obvious that the vibro data (the pre-defined haptic
`
`effects) is stored in the memory as digital files containing a stream of sampled
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`values that are proportional to the amplitude (magnitude) of an analog signal used
`
`to drive the actuator at particular points in time. See, e.g., SAMSUNG-1005, 2:17-
`
`29, 7:10, 22:27-29, 35:15, FIG. 4, FIGS. 6-8. Under the proper interpretation of
`
`the term in light of the specification of the ’051, each digital file storing vibro data
`
`in Baron is a “stored haptic effect.”
`
`59.
`
`In addition, Baron describes that the stored vibro effects can stored as
`
`“.wav” files, which are commonly encoded using “pulse code modulation” (PCM)
`
`encoding. SAMSUNG-1005, 11:15-16, 22:27-29. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would have found the “stored haptic effect” recited in the claim to be obvious over
`
`the “.wav file[]” encoding vibration data in Baron, because, in the PCM encoding
`
`scheme used in .wav files, an “analog signal amplitude is sampled (measured) at
`
`regular time intervals,” and the sampled values are stored in a digital file. See, e.g.,
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 15:44-47.
`
`60. Baron further describes that vibro data system (1604) “is coupled to”
`
`a vibro output device (1602) by a connection (1606). SAMSUNG-1005, 17:19-21.
`
`The connection 1606 “can be any type of connection for transmitting analog or
`
`digital data” such as “a wire, a coaxial cable, [or] a USB” cable. Id. at 17:21-24.
`
`FIG. 16 from Baron shows the vibro data system 1604 coupled to the vibro output

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