Paper No. _____
`Date Filed: September 18, 2017
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00386
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 of 77
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ......................................................................................................... vi
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`THE RE’913 PATENT ......................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`THE RE’913 PATENT CLAIMS ....................................................... 11
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`Sakata II (Ex. 1004)............................................................................. 13
`
`B.
`
`Buxton (Ex. 1006) ............................................................................... 17
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 20
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`“Primary Character” and “Secondary Character” ............................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Claim 4 Means-Plus-Function Terms ................................................. 23
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 24
`
`A. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 24
`
`VII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 25
`
`A. GROUND 2 – SAKATA II + BUXTON ............................................ 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Modification Contradicts
`the Express Teaching of Sakata II ............................................ 29
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish That a POSA Would
`Have Had Reason to Modify Sakata II ..................................... 34
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Explain Why Buxton’s
`Keyboard Would Have Motivated a POSA
`to Modify Sakata II ......................................................... 35
`
`
`
`i
`
`2 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Address the Inefficiencies
`that Would Necessarily Result From Its
`Modification ................................................................... 39
`
`The Proposed Modification is Not Merely
`“One of a Finite Number of Predictable
`Solutions” ....................................................................... 43
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on Dr. Cockburn’s
`Unsupported Opinions Cannot Serve as Evidence
`of Obviousness .......................................................................... 45
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Dr. Cockburn Fails to Provide Any
`Evidence to Support His Character Group
`Examples ......................................................................... 46
`
`Petitioner’s Declarant Mischaracterizes the
`Prior Art to Advance His Proposed
`Modification ................................................................... 52
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Hargreaves (Ex. 1018) .......................................... 52
`
`Buxton (Ex. 1006) ................................................ 56
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on “Foundational
`Concept[s]” Cannot Serve as Evidence for
`the Specific Modification that Petitioner
`Proposes .......................................................................... 60
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW
`OF SAKATA II ................................................................................... 63
`
`GROUNDS 1 & 2 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF
`CLAIM 4 ............................................................................................. 64
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
` 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................51
`
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., RW,
` 646 Fed. App’x 1019 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016) ...........................................28
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
` 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 24, 33
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
` 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 64, 65
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................38
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Co.,
` 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................39
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .....................................................................46
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
` 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................21
`
`In re Fine,
` 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................. 24, 38
`
`In re Fritch,
` 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ....................................................................34
`
`In re Giannelli,
` 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................60
`
`In re Gurley,
` 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................33
`
`In re Kahn,
` 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................40
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Sang-Su Lee,
` 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................60
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................38
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
` 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................61
`
`In re Oetiker,
` 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ....................................................................39
`
`In re Van Os,
` 844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................51
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007)......................................................................... 24, 43, 45
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp.,
` 121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................. 55, 58
`
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`No. 16-712 (S. Ct.) ........................................................................................26
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
` 600 Fed. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2015) ..............................................32
`
`Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc.,
` 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................67
`
`Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd.,
` 681 Fed. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017) ............................................64
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
` IPR2015-01358, Paper 75 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) .....................................45
`
`Daifuku Co., Ltd. v. Murata Mach., Ltd.,
` IPR2015-00083, Paper 63 (P.T.A.B. May 3, 2016) .....................................44
`
`Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
` IPR2017-00409, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2017) .....................................63
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013) ...................................25
`
`Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ...............................................................................................45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .........................................................................................25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`6 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,660,488 to Miller
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,128,672 to Kaehler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 464,892 to Prentice
`
`Microsoft.com, Capitalization, Uppercasing, and Lowercasing,
`available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/globalization/
`mt662330.aspx (retrieved Feb. 25, 2017)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Adam Porter
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Andrew Cockburn, taken on Aug.
`28, 2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. X5581 to Burt
`
`Richard N. Current, The Original Typewriter Enterprise 1867-1873 at
`391-407, in Wisconsin Magazine of History (June 1949)
`
`ASME, Sholes & Glidden ‘Type Writer,’ A Historical Mechanical
`Engineering Landmark (Oct. 6, 2011)
`
`Nokia 9000i Communicator User’s Manual Excerpts (1998)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,926,566 to Wang et al.
`
`Int’l App. Pub. No. WO 00/58816 to Now See Hear Interactive Inc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,544,276 to Horodeck
`
`Wikipedia, “List of Japanese typographic symbols,” available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_typographic_symbols
`(last accessed Aug. 24, 2017)
`
`Jerry M. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Dictionary of Computers, Data
`Processing and Telecommunications at 526, 555 (1984)
`
`Technical Note TN1152, JIS Keyboard Support in Mac OS 8,
`available at http://mirror.informatimago.com/next/
`developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1152.html (last update: Feb. 22,
`1999)
`
`vi
`
`7 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the
`
`Petition of Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) in the inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE44,913 (“the RE’913 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The RE’913 patent describes a novel method for text entry on a mobile
`
`device (e.g., a smartphone) that efficiently uses the limited space of a mobile
`
`device keypad while presenting a familiar keypad layout that requires little to no
`
`learning by new users. This is in stark contrast to the applied prior art, which
`
`describes adaptable keypad displays for quick text entry (Sakata II) and hiding
`
`modifiers (e.g., “shift”) to avoid multi-touch input (Buxton).1
`
`Early typewriters utilized a keyboard design that has come to be known as
`
`“QWERTY,” named for the first six characters that appear at the top-left of the
`
`keyboard. In addition to characters, many QWERTY keyboard designs included
`
`keys for modifiers—such as shift and caps lock—that allowed users to access
`
`additional characters without requiring more keys. The QWERTY design has
`
`become a standard keyboard layout, as it provides a familiar layout that most users
`
`recognize.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, “keyboard” and “keypad” are used interchangeably
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`8 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`By the early 1980s, technology had advanced to a point that it was possible
`
`for users to carry small, portable text input devices, which necessitated smaller
`
`keyboards. Some designers continued to use the QWERTY layout, albeit shrunk
`
`to a size accommodating a portable device. Others explored new keyboard designs
`
`in view of the limited space. The introduction of touchscreen-enabled phones in
`
`the early 1990s provided further opportunities for designers to reconsider how to
`
`present a small text entry system.
`
`During this time period, various keyboard designs were implemented on
`
`portable devices. These included multitap keypads, where one key provides access
`
`to several characters through repeated presses, and dynamic predictive keypads,
`
`where the keyboard layout changed during text input in an attempt to predict what
`
`character the user wanted to enter next. Other designs used, for instance,
`
`handwriting recognition, where the device interprets the user’s handwriting.
`
`However, each new keyboard design carried with it a risk that users may
`
`find it strange or difficult to use. Therefore, designers needed to account for both
`
`familiarity and efficiency considerations. For example, a design using a well-
`
`known layout may be the most familiar for new users, but it may not be
`
`particularly suited for a small device, and more experienced users may find it
`
`inefficient. On the other hand, dynamic predictive keypads that display different
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`9 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`characters at different times allowed for more efficient text input for experienced
`
`users, but presented newer users with difficulty.
`
`The RE’913 patent is directed to an improved method and device for text
`
`entry, which seeks to efficiently use the limited space of a mobile device keypad in
`
`such a way to allow for a familiar keypad layout for new users, while still
`
`providing for faster entry that the more experienced users sought.
`
`Specifically, the invention first presents a user with a default display state in
`
`which one or more keys display associated primary characters. In one
`
`embodiment, the default state could be a standard numerical keypad that typically
`
`would be used with a phone, where the primary characters could include numbers
`
`0 through 9. If a user wants to enter a primary character, the user simply presses
`
`the associated key for less than a predetermined amount of time. In this operation,
`
`the disclosed keypad looks and operates like well-known touch-tone phones.
`
`However, if a user wants to enter additional characters that are not accessible in the
`
`default state, the user presses a key associated with the desired character for more
`
`than a predetermined amount of time, and the keypad enters a second display state.
`
`In this second state, the keypad displays for selection previously inaccessible
`
`secondary characters associated with the selected key. By using separate display
`
`states, the keypad provides efficient access to additional characters in the minimal
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`10 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`space afforded by device keypads, while only requiring two key selections to do
`
`so.
`
`Once the keypad enters the second display state for secondary character
`
`selection, it no longer resembles the default layout. Therefore, the method requires
`
`the important step of “returning the keypad to the default state” following character
`
`selection in the second state. This return to the default state achieves the patent’s
`
`stated purpose of maintaining a keypad “having a well known key and character
`
`layout, thereby necessitating little or no familiarisation.” Ex. 1001, 3:37-41; 2:20-
`
`24; 4:3-8 (“the method is intuitive and requires little or no learning by the user due
`
`to the provision of a familiar default keypad display state”). While the return to a
`
`default state may reduce efficiency for experienced users seeking to quickly enter
`
`additional secondary characters, it consistently presents new users with a layout
`
`that is familiar and comfortable.
`
`This design provided an inventive alternative to the choices offered at the
`
`time of the invention, such as static and predictive keyboards.
`
`The instituted grounds rely on the very methods on which the RE’913 patent
`
`sought to improve. For example, Sakata II is similar to the dynamic predictive
`
`designs described in the background of the RE’913 patent, where the displayed
`
`keypad layout changes based on the last character entered. Sakata II focuses on
`
`increasing speed and efficiency of text input for individual users, by automatically
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`11 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`customizing the keypad layout based on user selections. While this design may
`
`suit experienced users who otherwise would need to search for characters not
`
`displayed in a particular layout, it sacrifices keyboard familiarity to achieve this
`
`efficiency.
`
` Buxton, on the other hand, discloses a standard QWERTY keyboard for text
`
`entry. Buxton moves modifier keys (e.g., shift, control), not characters, into a
`
`separate menu, to avoid the need for selecting two or more keys at once to enter a
`
`modified character or operation. The only characters displayed for selection in
`
`Buxton appear on the QWERTY keyboard, which does not change. This is
`
`because Buxton uses a well-known layout to promote its separate concept of
`
`avoiding concurrent key selection when applying modifiers. Indeed, there is no
`
`“returning” to any “default” keyboard in Buxton, because it presents only one
`
`keyboard for character entry.
`
`Petitioner relies on hindsight to assert that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”) would have modified Sakata II’s purposeful design in an opposite
`
`manner to make it always returns to the same “default” keyboard layout following
`
`character entry. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a POSA would have
`
`modified Sakata II in a way that undermines its intended operation and eliminates
`
`the efficiencies that it was designed to promote. In essence, Petitioner proposes
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`12 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`modifying a design intended to overcome limitations of a familiar design using
`
`adaptive technology, by forcing it to return to a static layout it sought to avoid.
`
`For these and other reasons discussed below, Petitioner has failed to
`
`demonstrate the unpatentability of any claim.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. THE RE’913 PATENT
`
`Early text input devices, such as the first typewriters, typically included
`
`cumbersome and inefficient means for character entry, such as large levers. Ex.
`
`2005, ¶ 41; Ex. 2007. As technology advanced, these devices were replaced with
`
`keyboards having separate keys for each character. While different keyboard
`
`layouts existed, the “QWERTY” layout became the most popular.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2005, ¶ 42; Ex. 2009 at 4-5; Ex. 2008 at 393-94, 401-02. Such keyboards
`
`typically include keys for characters having alphanumeric values (e.g., “a,” “1” and
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`13 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`the like) and symbolic values (e.g., punctuation, brackets and the like). Later
`
`QWERTY keyboards included modifier keys, such as a “shift” key to allow for
`
`entry of capitalized versions of the letters.
`
`
`
`As smaller text entry devices became introduced in the late 20th century, the
`
`QWERTY keyboard remained popular. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 43-44; Ex. 2010 at 2-6.
`
`However, many designers sought to improve efficiency by redesigning keyboards
`
`for smaller devices. Touch-screen devices provided further tools for optimizing
`
`text entry. Ex. 2005, ¶ 45.
`
`As mobile devices continued to shrink, there was an increased need to
`
`minimize keyboard size while maintaining full functionality. Id.; Ex. 2002, 1:14-
`
`45. Early on, ideas for addressing the screen size problem diverged significantly,
`
`in ways that are not readily appreciated with the hindsight afforded by today’s
`
`diverse options.
`
`One method involved the “multitap” method. Ex. 2005, ¶ 46. This required
`
`pressing “a key on a keypad several times to cycle through characters associated
`
`with the key, until the character required is selected.” Id.; Ex. 1001, 1:45-67. The
`
`RE’913 patent describes an example of this method, in which “the number ‘2’ key
`
`is associated with the characters ‘abc’,” such as in the manner illustrated below.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`14 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`To select the character “a” the “2” key is pressed once, to select the character “b”
`
`the “2” key is press twice, and so on. Id., 1:51-54. While maintaining a familiar
`
`layout, this method was slow and prone to error. Id., 1:62-67.
`
`
`
`An approach that went in the opposite direction used a “dynamic predictive
`
`keyboard.” Ex. 1001, 2:1-19 (citing Ex. 2002); Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 47-48. In this
`
`method, each key includes its own devoted screen space on which different
`
`characters or words can be displayed. Ex. 2002, 4:4-26; Fig. 1. This allows for
`
`different keyboard layouts, where each layout presents different characters or
`
`words associated with each key. Two such layouts are illustrated below.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`15 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`See id., 4:54-5:37; Figs. 3(A)-3(L). Upon selection of a particular key by a user, a
`
`CPU analyzes the input and uses that information to “predict” a next keyboard
`
`layout based on “the set of characters which would most likely be used by the user
`
`to type another character.” Id., 5:5-17; 5:38-6:12. Thus, by disassociating input
`
`keys from any permanent character assignment, this method is able to reduce the
`
`number of keys required for the device. However, as the RE’913 patent explains,
`
`this method presented an unfamiliar interface, requiring practice for efficient use.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:11-19. And, having a continually changing keypad could prove
`
`frustrating to an inexperienced user.
`
`
`
`Yet another design allowed the user to draw a character using a stylus,
`
`which the device then analyzed to determine the desired character. Ex. 2011, 3:20-
`
`4:21; Fig. 2; Ex. 1006, 1:42-2:11. But, character recognition methods were
`
`cumbersome and reduced input speed. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 49, 152. Another design was
`
`that described in Sakata II, in which a portion of the keyboard display changed
`
`during use, while another portion remained static. Ex. 1004, [0021]-[0025],
`
`[0051]; see also Ex. 2012, 2:26-5:3; Figs. 1-3. For the changing portion in such
`
`designs, the last character selected by the user appeared in the new layout, in
`
`anticipation of such character being used often. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 50, 68.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`16 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`As designers implemented new methods for increasing text input speed for
`
`experienced users, the designs often abandoned the typical keyboard layouts that
`
`newer users found comfortable. Id.
`
`The RE’913 patent addressed the drawbacks of known text input methods by
`
`providing a character input method that both minimizes the necessary number of
`
`input keys (alleviating size constraints) and requires little additional learning. Ex.
`
`2005, ¶¶ 51-58. Specifically, the RE’913 patent discloses a keypad where primary
`
`characters are displayed in a first “default” state, and secondary characters
`
`associated with the primary characters are displayed in a “second state.” By
`
`sensing the duration of a key selection, the keypad will select either a primary
`
`character (if pressed for a short duration) or enter the second state (if pressed for a
`
`long duration) to allow for selection of a secondary character. Ex. 1001, 3:25-62;
`
`5:37- 6:6; claims 1, 3, 4; Figs. 1-2. This allows for a small, efficient keyboard that
`
`still provides full access to the features of a traditional keyboard.
`
`Importantly, following the selection of a secondary character from the
`
`second state, the keypad returns to the familiar default state, thereby facilitating
`
`ease of use and eliminating the confusion associated with new keyboard layouts.
`
`This concept is reflected in claim 1, for example, which states that “in a default
`
`state” the keypad displays “the primary character associated with … at least one
`
`key in the associated display area,” where, following selection of any secondary
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`17 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`character, the keypad “return[s] … to the default state.” Ex. 1001, claims 1, 3, 4.
`
`The specification describes “build[ing] up a default keypad display state
`
`corresponding to FIG. 1 and Table 1,” where, following the selection of any
`
`character from any state, the keypad is designed to “[l]oop back to display the
`
`default keypad.” Id., 4:10-67.
`
`This “default state” “presents to the user a keypad having a well known key
`
`and character layout, thereby necessitating little or no familiarization.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:37-41; 2:20-24; 4:6-8. This is in contrast to dynamic predictive keypads, where
`
`the “constant changing of the keyboard layout” results in an “unfamiliar interface”
`
`that “necessitates much practice and learning.” Id., 2:1-19. Thus, the use of a
`
`“default state” fundamentally differs from Sakata II, which sets a new keypad
`
`layout based on a most recent character choice rather than returning to a default
`
`state.
`
`As established below, the RE’913’s approach overcame shortcomings of
`
`Sakata II. Ex. 1001, 3:37-41; 4:3-8; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 52-58.
`
`B.
`
`THE RE’913 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`The RE’913 patent contains 16 claims, with claims 1, 3 and 4 being
`
`independent. Claim 1 reads:
`
`1. A method for inputting a character to a device, the device
`
`including a keypad, the keypad including a plurality of keys, at least
`
`one of the keys has a primary character, a plurality of secondary
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`18 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`characters and an associated display area, the keypad in a default state
`
`displaying the primary character associated with the at least one key
`
`in the associated display area, the method comprising acts of:
`
`in the default state,
`
`returning the primary character as an input character in
`
`response to selection of the at least one key for a period
`
`shorter than a predetermined time period;
`
`switching to a second state after detecting a first key selection
`
`of the at least one key for a period longer than the
`
`predetermined time period;
`
`in the second state
`
`displaying each of the secondary characters associated with the
`
`first selected key in a respective display area;
`
`detecting a second key selection;
`
`selecting for the input character the secondary character
`
`associated with the second key selection; and
`
`returning the keypad to the default state.
`
`Thus, claim 1 requires returning a primary character in the default state
`
`following a key selection of a short duration and switching to a second state
`
`following a key selection of a long duration. Following selection of any secondary
`
`character in the second state, the keypad returns to the default state.
`
`Every independent claim requires “returning the keypad to the default state”
`
`following the selection of a “secondary character.”
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`19 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Sakata II (Ex. 1004)
`
`Sakata II discloses a graphical keyboard that displays a plurality of
`
`characters and symbols. The layout is divided into two sections (21 and 22), with
`
`one containing typical characters and the other displaying special characters.
`
`Selection of a key displaying a “special” character (or symbol) returns a “list” (i.e.,
`
`drag menu) of additional characters that are “similar” to the displayed character,
`
`and thus form a character or symbol “group.” Ex. 1004, [0010]-[0013]. This
`
`configuration allows the user to select a character (or symbol) from the group. Ex.
`
`2005, ¶¶ 61-64.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates one such keyboard layout, with “similar” characters and
`
`symbols that are associated with “special” characters:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`20 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`In Figure 1 above, the keys labeled “21” display “hiragana sounds.” Ex.
`
`1004, [0021]. Selecting any of the keys labeled 21 will cause entry of the hiragana
`
`displayed on the selected key. Id., [0034]. There are no additional or alternative
`
`characters or symbols associated with keys 21, other than those shown. Ex. 2005,
`
`¶ 62.
`
`Figure 1 also displays two columns of characters identified as “special
`
`character and symbol” keys (22). Id., [0021]; Fig. 1. When a user selects a special
`
`character key using a touch pen (4), a “drag menu” (23) is displayed that presents
`
`all characters or symbols that are part of the “similar group unit” associated with
`
`the selected key. Ex. 1004, [0024]-[0030]; Figs. 5-7. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 64-66.
`
`Sakata II does not suggest that its special character layout, or other layouts,
`
`is intended to be familiar to users. Ex. 2005, ¶ 61; Ex. 2006, 157:5-11; 157:19-
`
`158:17.
`
`Operation of the special character section is illustrated in Figure 8. If a user
`
`selects the “mm” key by touching it for a certain period of time, a drag menu
`
`appears. Ex. 1004, [0052]; Fig. 8; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 67-68. If the user selects the “mg”
`
`character from the displayed drag menu, the “mg” character is entered and the
`
`keypad converted to a state (see Fig. 8(D)) where “mg” is displayed on the selected
`
`key instead of “mm.”
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`21 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 8(B)-(D); [0053]-[0055]; see also Figs. 7, 10.
`
`Figure 2 provides an example of similar character and symbol groups that
`
`may be used when implementing Sakata II’s method:
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`22 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, [0024]; Fig. 2. Sakata II states that special characters and symbols are
`
`“stored in ROM,” but it does not describe how those characters are stored (i.e.,
`
`there is no described data structure). Id., [0019], [0023]; Ex. 2006, 322:10-16;
`
`2005, ¶ 65.
`
`Following character selection from a drag menu, the keypad in Sakata II
`
`does not return to a default state. That is because, by purposeful design, Sakata
`
`II’s keypad does not have a default state. 2005, ¶¶ 68, 81-87. Instead of assigning
`
`each “primary” character to be selectable in a default state, Sakata II is explicitly
`
`directed to an adaptive keyboard, in which, following the selection of a special
`
`character from a group associated with a particular key, the selected character is
`
`displayed on that key after the drag menu disappears, regardless of what was
`
`previously displayed on the key. This key character replacement takes place in
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`23 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`“Step S107” in Sakata II. Ex. 1004, [0041]; Fig. 5; Ex. 2006, 148:23-149:2; 177:6-
`
`15; 304:25-305:13; 334:8-14; 2005, ¶ 66. Thus, by design, Sakata II’s keypad
`
`changes its appearance following character entry. Ex. 1004, [0050] (there is “no
`
`hassle of searching the JIS code for the special character”); [0051] (“when the
`
`same special character or symbol is selected again, selective input can be carried
`
`out quickly without having to perform dragging operation”).
`
`Thus, the keyboard layout adapts to user preferences, providing a variation
`
`of the dynamic, adaptive concept.
`
`B.
`
`Buxton (Ex. 1006)
`
`Buxton discloses a system for implementing a graphical keyboard. Buxton
`
`sought to address issues with known “pen-based computing” methods and
`
`graphical keyboards, where users had to “hunt and peck” for certain keys and
`
`could not “tap multiple keys simultaneously.” Ex. 1006, 1:58-2:51. Specifically,
`
`in a system in which a stylus selects keys from a touchscreen, the stylus contacts
`
`only one key at a time. However, on a physical keyboard on which such a
`
`graphical display is based, it is often necessary to press two keys at once—the
`
`“shift key” must be depressed with the letter key for which the upper case is
`
`desired. Buxton is directed to this issue of achieving functionality typically
`
`accessed by the use of two keys together. Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 69-72.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`24 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`Buxton’s solution is a graphical keyboard that “responds differently to
`
`different kinds of pen strokes,” and provides “marks” or “[p]op-up menus” that can
`
`provide assistance and access to additional functionality. Ex. 1006, 2:29-3:23; 9:1-
`
`55; Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 73-77. In particular, Buxton’s method provides a full “standard
`
`QWERTY keyboard,” where each character is assigned to a specific key (i.e., all of
`
`the characters are displayed at once).
`
`Ex. 1006, 3:29; 14:45-50; Fig. 1; Ex. 2005, ¶ 69; Ex. 2006, 45:9-47:15; 311:16-
`
`
`
`312:2.
`
`If a user wants to select a lowercase letter, the user need only “tap” on the
`
`desired key. Ex. 1006, 4:53-58. If the user wants to enter an uppercase letter, then
`
`instead of tapping, the user “makes an upward stroke, initiated on the desired key.”
`
`Id., 4:59-63.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`25 of 77
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figs. 3, 8-10; Ex. 2005, ¶ 74. The user can also access “modifier[s] … such as
`
`control, alternate, option, or command, in a similar manner.” Ex. 1006, 4:64-5:6.
`
`While the character input may change, the keyboard remains the same in these
`
`exemplary functions.
`
`
`
`Buxton also discloses an alternative embodiment, relied on