UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00515 (Patent 9,024,790)
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DELL INC.; DELL PRODUCTS LP;
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.; and
`HP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00731 (Patent 9,024,790)
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD A. FLASCK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`Ex-1007
`
`Ex-1008
`Ex-2001
`Ex-2002
`Ex-2003
`
`Ex-2004
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 (“’790 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,525,980 (“Jahier”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,760,715 (“Senk”)
`Quantum Technologies Research Group QT60161 datasheet
`(“QT60161”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,831,597 (“West”)
`Expert Declaration of Richard A. Flasck
`Curriculum Vitae of Richard A. Flasck
`Transcript of the Deposition of Benjamin Bederson (Sept. 17,
`2020)
`IPR2020-00259, Paper 8, Decision Denying Institution of IPR
`
`
`2
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this case by Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”). I
`
`have been asked to consider and opine on issues of validity regarding U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,024,790 (“’790 Patent”). More specifically, my opinions focus
`
`on the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) on the ’790 Patent, along
`
`with the expert declaration of Dr. Benjamin Bederson and all other materials
`
`referenced or cited in the IPR or Dr. Bederson’s declaration.
`
`2.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed, considered, and had access to the
`
`patent specifications and claims, their prosecution histories, the parties’
`
`proposed claim constructions, and the extrinsic evidence cited by the parties
`
`in connection with those proposed constructions. I have also relied on my
`
`professional and academic experience in the fields of thin film devices, flat
`
`panel displays, active matrix, LED, OLED, touchscreens, and touch panels. I
`
`reserve the right to consider additional materials as I become aware of them
`
`and to revise my opinions accordingly.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3. My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this Declaration are
`
`summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae, which
`
`is attached as Exhibit 2002.
`
`3
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the University of
`
`Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1970. I thereafter received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Physics from Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, in 1976.
`
`I am the founder and CEO of RAF Electronics Corp., where I developed and
`
`patented Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) microdisplay projection
`
`technology using active matrix transistor arrays as well as developed
`
`proprietary LED-based Solid State Lighting (SSL) products.
`
`5.
`
`After receiving my bachelor’s degree, I was employed as a scientist and a
`
`manager by Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., from 1970 through 1982. My
`
`work at Energy Conversion Devices concerned the development of
`
`electroluminescent displays, thin film photovoltaics, ablative imaging films,
`
`non-volatile memory, multi-chip modules, and superconducting materials.
`
`After leaving Energy Conversion Devices, I founded and served as CEO of
`
`Alphasil, Inc., where I developed amorphous silicon thin film transistor
`
`(TFT) active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs). My work at Alphasil
`
`included thin film transistor array substrate process and circuit design, data
`
`driver and gate driver design, scalers, video circuits, gamma correction
`
`circuits, backlighting, and inverter design. At Alphasil I also designed and
`
`incorporated touch panel screens into active matrix display devices. The
`
`touch panel technologies included surface acoustic wave and capacitive
`
`4
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`sensing. My touch panel work also included the development of software
`
`algorithms to properly interpret the accurate position of where touches
`
`occurred on a touch panel. As CEO of Alphasil, I worked with one of the
`
`pioneers in commercializing touch panels, Elo Touch Solutions, Inc. in using
`
`their touch panels in conjunction with the Alphasil TFT active matrix
`
`displays. I worked at Alphasil from 1982 through 1989.
`
`6.
`
`After leaving Alphasil, I founded RAF Electronics Corp., described above. I
`
`have served as CEO of RAF Electronics since that time. At RAF I developed
`
`HDTV projection technology including transistor array substrates for LCOS
`
`devices and the associated optical systems. My activities at RAF have
`
`included developments in lighting systems using both traditional LED and
`
`OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technologies. In 2016 I was granted
`
`US Patent 9,328,898 which includes OLED and LED technology and
`
`lighting systems. In 2019 RAF received a CalSEED grant from the
`
`California Energy Commission to develop ultra-efficient lighting products
`
`and explore establishing a Central Valley manufacturing facility.
`
`7.
`
`In 1997, I took the position of President and COO at Alien Technology
`
`Corporation, where I was responsible for completing a Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency (DARPA) contract, and for implementing MEM
`
`fluidic self-assembly (FSA) technology. I left that position in 1999.
`
`5
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`8.
`
`In 2002, I co-founded and served as COO of Diablo Optics, Inc., where I
`
`developed, produced, and commercialized key optical components for
`
`HDTV projectors, such as polarization optics, condenser lenses, projection
`
`lenses, and ultra-high performance optical interference filters using thin film
`
`stacks in conjunction with LED and thin film transistor arrays and devices. I
`
`left Diablo in 2007.
`
`9.
`
`I am listed as an inventor on twenty-six patents issued in the United States
`
`and foreign countries, including one United States design patent. My
`
`inventions concern technologies including LED devices, semiconductor
`
`materials, glass materials, non-volatile memory cells, thin film transistors,
`
`flat panel backplanes and displays, and wafer based active matrices, and
`
`various transistor array substrates.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored
`
`twenty-five articles or conference
`
`presentations, including numerous papers and presentations concerning
`
`lighting and display technologies. My curriculum vitae (Exhibit 2002) lists
`
`these articles, conference presentations, and patents.
`
`11.
`
`I am also a member of several professional organizations, including the
`
`OSA, SPIE, AES, SID, and the IEEE.
`
`6
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`12.
`
`In summary, I have almost 50 years of experience in the field of high tech
`
`product development
`
`including flat panel displays,
`
`transistor array
`
`substrates, touchscreens and touch panels, and OLED and LED devices.
`
`13.
`
`In the past twelve years, I have served as an expert witness for patent
`
`infringement litigation (or arbitrations) or PTAB proceedings in a number of
`
`cases. The list of cases is provided as Exhibit A.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ’790 PATENT
`
`14. The ‘790 patent, entitled “capacitive keyboard with non-locking reduced
`
`keying ambiguity,” was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on May 5, 2015. Ex. 1001. Atmel Corporation, the original assignee
`
`of the ’790 patent, was a pioneer in the development of practical and high-
`
`performing touch sensor devices.
`
`15. The ‘790 patent recognized that capacitive keyboards can suffer from keying
`
`ambiguity problem. Ex. 1001 (‘790 patent) at Abstract. The ‘790 patent
`
`explains that: “In a small keyboard, for example, a user's finger is likely to
`
`overlap from a desired key to onto adjacent ones. An iterative method of
`
`removing keying ambiguity from a keyboard comprising an array of
`
`capacitive keys involves measuring a signal strength associated with each
`
`key in the array, comparing the measured signal strengths to find a
`
`maximum, determining that the key having the maximum signal strength is
`
`7
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`the unique user-selected key, and maintaining that selection until either the
`
`initially selected key's signal strength drops below some threshold level or a
`
`second key's signal strength exceeds the first key's signal strength.” Id.
`
`16. Figures 1B and 1C shows an exemplary keys and associated signal values,
`
`where there is a threshold and signal values corresponding keys 1 and 2:
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs 1B, 1C.
`
`17. The ‘790 patent addresses problems associated with “chatter.” As the ‘790
`
`patent explains: “If the key selection method operates solely by picking a
`
`maximum signal strength, the keyboard may be subject to an undesirable
`
`rapid switching back and forth between two keys having nearly-identical
`
`signal strengths (e.g., fingerprint areas). This sort of ‘chatter’ is preferably
`
`8
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`prevented by biasing or skewing the key selection method to favor an
`
`already selected key. That is, the switchover process is made slightly more
`
`difficult than would occur with straight equivalence. This bias may be
`
`provided in many ways in subsequent key selection decisions.” Id. at 5:42-
`
`51.
`
`18. The ‘790 patent also reduces ambiguity and addresses the “chatter” problem
`
`without “locking” a key to the first selected key, allowing “smooth rollover
`
`of key selection as a finger slides from one key to the next, while still
`
`reducing key ambiguity.” Id. at 3:6-16. The difference between “locking”
`
`and “non-locking” key ambiguity reduction is that in the “locking” type
`
`functionality, “the first key to win remains selected even if the maximal
`
`signal strength has shifted to a new key, provided that the first key has
`
`enough signal strength left to retain its state, i.e., by having its signal
`
`strength in excess of its associated threshold value.” Id.
`
`19.
`
`Independent claims 13 is an exemplary claim. Claim 13 state:
`
`13. Logic embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the
`
`logic configured when executed to perform operations comprising:
`
`13[a] analyzing, to determine a first active key, respective first sensor values
`
`of a plurality of keys;
`
`9
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`13[b] assigning, based at least on the respective sensor values of the plurality
`
`keys, a first key as the first active key; and
`
`13[c] analyzing, to determine a second active key, respective second signal
`
`values of the plurality of keys, the first key being biased during the
`
`analysis, the analysis, to determine the second active key, of the
`
`respective second signal values of the plurality of keys being biased in
`
`favor of the first key.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`20.
`
`In the pending ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1162, the ALJ found that
`
`person of ordinary skill “would have had a bachelor's degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and
`
`at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or
`
`testing of touch sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or
`
`graphical user interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the
`
`equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice
`
`versa.” See Pet. at 10. I understand that the Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`agree on this. I also agree this is a correct standard for a POSITA’s level of
`
`education and experience and, therefore, I have applied this standard in my
`
`opinions below.
`
`10
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`21. Like Dr. Bederson, I applied the claim constructions that were either agreed
`
`on or else the result of an order by the ALJ in ITC Investigation No. 337-
`
`TA-1162. Following are those constructions:
`
`‘790 Term
`
`“key”
`
`“control logic operatively
`coupled to the plurality of
`keys and configured to:
`analyze, to determine a first
`active key, respective first
`signal values of the plurality
`of keys; assign, based at
`least on the respective first
`sensor values of the plurality
`keys, a first key as the first
`active key; and analyze, to
`determine a second active
`key, respective second
`signal values of the plurality
`of keys, the analysis, to
`determine the second active
`key, of the respective second
`signal values of the plurality
`of keys being biased in favor
`of the first key.”
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`Construction
`“a touchable portion of a mechanical to electrical
`transducing device that is nonbistable in nature. This term
`specifically excludes conventional mechanical switches in
`which two or more electrical conductors are moved into or
`away from contact with each other to make or break an
`electrical connection. A key can also be a dimensional
`sensing surface such as an XY touch screen or a
`‘trackpad.”
`The parties agree that this term should be construed
`according to 35 U.S.C. 112(6).
`
`Function:
`analyze, to determine a first active key, respective first
`signal values of the plurality of keys; assign, based at least
`on the respective first sensor values of the plurality of
`keys, a first key as the first active key; and analyze, to
`determine a second active key, respective second signal
`values of the plurality of keys, the analysis, to determine
`the second active key, of the respective second signal
`values of the plurality of keys being biased in favor of the
`first key.
`
`Structure:
`microprocessor or microcontroller 18, programmed to
`execute the logical operations of: (i) Fig. 5a, as described
`at 7:24-8:24 and 8:37-49, and equivalents thereof; or (ii)
`Figs. 5a and 5b, as described at 7:24-8:49, and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`11
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`Construction
`“respective sensor signal values of [the/a] plurality [of]
`keys”
`
`“[analyze/analyzing], to determine a second active key,
`respective second signal values of the plurality of keys, the
`analysis, to determine the second active key, of the
`respective second signal values of the plurality of keys
`being biased or skewed in favor of, but not locked to the
`previously determined first active key”
`
`‘790 Term
`“respective [first/second]
`[sensor/signal] values of
`[the/a] plurality [of] keys”
`
`(Claims 1, 7, 13)
`“[analyze/analyzing], to
`determine a second active
`key, respective second
`signal values of the plurality
`of keys, the analysis, to
`determine the second active
`key, of the respective second
`signal values of the plurality
`of keys being biased in favor
`of the first key”
`
`(Claims 1, 7, 13)
`
`
`22.
`
` For all other terms, I applied the term’s plain meaning to a POSITA in light
`
`of the ’790 patent.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-2, 5-8, 12-14, AND 18-24 ARE NOT
`ANTICIPATED OR RENDERED OBVIOUS BY JAHIER
`
`23. After conducting a review of Jahier and Dr. Bederson’s opinions concerning
`
`it, it is my opinion that Jahier does not disclose or render obvious the
`
`independent clams and dependent claims.
`
`24.
`
`Jahier (Ex. 1005) discloses a “capacitive tactile keyboard” with “capacitive
`
`tactile surface” and a “pressure measurement device.” Ex. 1005 (Jahier) at
`
`1:24-32. Jahier describes a process whereby a key can go through
`
`12
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`“preselection,” “selection,” and “validation.” See id. at Figs. 1, 3, 4. A valid
`
`selection of a key occurs in Jahier when the key has gone through
`
`preselection, selection, and validation. Id.; see also, e.g., id. at 4:15.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1.
`
`25. Notably, Jahier is not about keying ambiguity or addressing “chatter.”
`
`
`
`Indeed, Jahier does not even mention these issues. Rather, Jahier states that
`
`its “object” is to “meet the requirements of … environmental constraints”
`
`and “to provide for the adjustment of keyboard sensitivity and to compensate
`
`for drifts and interference.” Ex. 1005 at 1:30-32. Addressing “sensitivity,”
`
`“drifts and interference” is not about “chatter” or keying ambiguity, but
`
`about potential internal environmental issues unrelated to user interaction.
`
`Indeed, user may not even be aware of these environmental issues. Jahier is
`
`about validated selection regarding a single key (and drifts and interference
`13
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`associated with it) rather than keying ambiguity / “chatter.” Jahier discloses
`
`addressing such “drifts and interference” by comparing key values to “low
`
`threshold” and “high threshold” and using “pressure measuring device” to
`
`validate a key selection. E.g., id. at 5:11-6:23.
`
`26.
`
`Jahier fails to meet several limitations of the independent claims 1, 7, and
`
`13, including: (1) “active key” claim limitation; (2) “being biased in favor of
`
`the first key” claim limitation; and (3) “not locked to” claim limitation
`
`(applicable via claim construction of “[analyze/analyzing], to determine a
`
`second active key, respective second signal values …” claim limitation).
`
`27. First, Jahier does not meet the limitation “active key,” which is a limitation
`
`in all independent claims. The ‘790 patent describes an “active key” as the
`
`key that is “selected” or “on.” For instance, the ‘790 patent refers to
`
`“selection of the active key” (Ex. 1001, ‘790 patent at 3:26), “switching off
`
`the active state of key” (id. at 5:31-32), and “active or ‘on’” (id. at 7:41-42,
`
`7:66). The status of an “active key” as being “selected” or “on” is important
`
`in the ‘790 patent because the ‘790 patent is about addressing “chatter” or
`
`keying ambiguity, which is addressed when a user is touching a key, which
`
`could create such “chatter” or keying ambiguity. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (‘790
`
`patent) at 5:33-58.
`
`14
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`28. Petition and Dr. Bederson maps Jahier’s “preselected key” as being the
`
`claimed “active key.” See Ex. 1002 (Bederson Decl.) ¶ 88. Neither Petition
`
`nor Dr. Bederson rely on key that is “selected” or “validated” in Jahier. See
`
`id. at ¶ 87 (pointing to “Transition ‘a’” which results in a key being
`
`“preselected” and put in “Begin Selection State”), ¶ 88 (pointing to “Begin
`
`Selection State” where a key is “preselected”); Ex. 2003 (Bederson Dep.) at
`
`28:4-18 (“one particularly relevant part of Jahier is that the preselected key
`
`of Jahier is just like the active key of the ‘790 Patent.”), 32:1-19 (“For the
`
`assigned limitation of the ‘790 Patent, which is in all the independent claims,
`
`you’re pointing to the preselection in Jahier and not selection in Jahier;
`
`right? A. .. yes, in this case, I agree that this – the part of Jahier that I am
`
`talking about in the preselection – what Jahier calls the preselection state.”),
`
`34:16-35:4 (“I certainly agree, as I’ve already said, that my analysis for
`
`Claim 1 primarily focuses on the Jahier’s no selection state and begin
`
`selection state also referred to preselection.”). Petition and Dr. Bederson rely
`
`solely on express teachings of Jahier to meet the “active key” element and
`
`do not have obviousness argument for it. See id. The “preselected key” in
`
`Jahier is when the key is in the “Begin Selection State” indicated in Figure 3
`
`of Jahier and associated description of it. The “preselected key” in Jahier is
`
`far from being “selected” or “on,” which is what the ‘790 patent describes as
`
`15
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`being an “active key,” as explained above. Jahier’s “preselected key” must
`
`go through multiple different processes before that key can ultimately
`
`become “selected,” including going through “selection confirmed state,” as
`
`well as through “validation” process. See 1005 (Jahier) at Figs. 1, 3, 4, 4:15.
`
`In Jahier, only a key that is selected and validated is returned as output. See
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1; see also, e.g., 1:53-63, 4:4-15, 5:63-6:49. Validation in
`
`Jahier includes pressure / validation controller that validates a key for
`
`output. Id. at 6:50-7:35, Figs 2, 4. Moreover, Jahier’s “preselection” is not
`
`something that a user may even be aware of or notice, as it is just an internal
`
`operation in Jahier. This further show that Jahier in general, and
`
`“preselection” process of Jahier in particular, is not about addressing
`
`“chatter” or keying ambiguity. Accordingly, a “preselected key” in Jahier is
`
`not an “active key” as claimed.
`
`29. Second, Jahier does not meet the “being biased in favor of the first key”
`
`claim limitation, which is a limitation in all independent claims. See element
`
`1[e], 7[c], and 13[c]. Petition and Dr. Bederson maps Jahier’s “Transition
`
`‘2’” for this claim limitation. See Ex. 1002 (Bederson Decl.) ¶ 89-90; Ex.
`
`2003 (Bederson Dep.) at 36:6-13 (“For the next limitation, which is about
`
`analyze to determine a second active key, you’re pointing to what’s called
`
`transition ‘2’ of – in Jahier; right? A. Again, my analysis speaks for itself,
`
`16
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`but I agree, it does refer to transition ‘2,’ which is a transition from the begin
`
`selection state to the begin selection state in Jahier on Figure 3. Q. And
`
`you’re not referring – you’re not relying on the what’s called Selection
`
`Confirm State in Figure 3 of Jahier and the relevant disclosure of Jahier for
`
`your opinion; right? [Objection] A. So in claim limitation 1[e], I do not think
`
`I referred to the selection confirm state.”), 37:5-13 (“looking now at claim
`
`limitation 1[e], I do not refer to Figure 4 for the validation state.”), 38:5-14
`
`(“I’m not referring to the Jahier selection confirm state in my analysis of the
`
`‘790 Patent’s required plurality of keys being biased in favor of the first
`
`key.”). Petition and Dr. Bederson rely solely on express teachings of Jahier
`
`to meet the “bias” element and do not have obviousness argument for it. See
`
`id. Again, Petition and Dr. Bederson points to “preselection” process, but
`
`even assuming “preselection” is “active” (for sake of argument here only,
`
`contrary to fact), there is no “bias[] in favor of” the previously “preselected
`
`key” in Jahier. This is because Jahier always “preselects” the second key
`
`(key i) if its value exceeds or equal High Threshold (“HT”), and never
`
`“preselects” the second key (key i) if its value is below HT. There is no bias.
`
`30. Below table illustrates all possible outcomes as described in Jahier in “Begin
`
`Selection State,” including “Transition ‘2’” relied upon in Petition and by
`
`Dr. Bederson. See Ex. 1005 (Jahier) at 4:48-6:49 and Fig. 3. “Transition ‘2’”
`
`17
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`is indicated by rows 3-6 of the below table. As can be seen in the table, there
`
`is no relationship between the first key (key I) and second key (key i) in
`
`determining what is ultimately “preselected.” See Ex. 2003 (Bederson Dep.)
`
`at 14:5-20 (“I think generally [biasing] would involve some relationship
`
`between the second key or the signal value of the second key and the signal
`
`values of the first key.”). Indeed, the “preselection” of a key (key i or key I)
`
`can be determined simply by looking at the value of one key—key i. That is,
`
`if key i exceeds HT, it is “preselected.” If not, key I is “preselected.” That is
`
`not “bias in favor of the first key,” as first key is not even a factor in
`
`determining the outcome.
`
`Transition from BEGIN SELECTION if
`Key i
`Key I
`
`Key I is preselected
`b; return to NO SELECTION
`ECC < LT
`ECC < LT
`1
`LT <= ECC < HT b; return to NO SELECTION
`ECC < LT
`2
`ECC >= HT
`2; key i preselected
`3 ECC < LT
`ECC < LT
`2; key I remains preselected
`4
`LT <= ECC < HT
`LT <= ECC < HT 2; key I remains preselected
`5
`LT <= ECC < HT
`6 LT <= ECC < HT ECC >= HT
`2; key i preselected
`7
`ECC >= HT
`ECC < LT
`c; key I selected
`8
`ECC >= HT
`LT <= ECC < HT c; key I selected
`9
`ECC >= HT
`ECC >= HT
`Unspecified. Either b (return to NO
`SELECTION) or c (key 1 selected)
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Indeed, as explained above, Jahier is not about keying ambiguity or
`
`addressing “chatter.” Jahier does not even mention these issues. Rather,
`
`Jahier states that its “object” is to “meet the requirements of …
`
`18
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`environmental constraints” and “to provide for the adjustment of keyboard
`
`sensitivity and to compensate for drifts and interference.” Ex. 1005 at 1:30-
`
`32. Addressing “sensitivity,” “drifts and interference” is not about “chatter”
`
`or keying ambiguity, but about potential internal environmental issues
`
`unrelated to user interaction. Indeed, user may not even be aware of these
`
`environmental issues. Jahier is about validated selection regarding a single
`
`key (and drifts and interference associated with it) rather than keying
`
`ambiguity / “chatter.” This further contradicts the argument that Jahier
`
`“biase[s] or skewe[s] in favor of … the previously determined first active
`
`key” (which is a part of the construction of “[analyze/analyzing], to
`
`determine a second active key, respective second signal values …” claim
`
`limitation of elements 1[e], 7[c], 13[c]).
`
`32. The Board’s decision denying institution of IPR of a related patent (U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 8,102,286) in IPR2020-00259 is also instructive and contradicts Petition
`
`and Dr. Bederson’s argument regarding the “bias” limitation. See Ex. 2004
`
`at 11-12. That petition also relied on Jahier, and included identical made-up
`
`figure shown on page 53 of Dr. Bederson’s declaration. Compare Ex. 1002
`
`(Bederson Decl.) at p. 53 with Ex. 2004 (Order Denying Institution); see
`
`also Ex. 2003 (Bederson Dep.) at 18:6-12 (“this is a figure that I created.”).
`
`In the Board’s decision in IPR2020-00259, the board excerpted that same
`
`19
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`figure and held that “[w]e do not agree with Petitioner’s contentions and
`
`characterization of Jahier,” and further held that “[t]here is no teaching or
`
`suggestion in Jahier, as Patent Owner points out, of a delta in sensor values
`
`between the preselected key I and the new key i.” Ex. 2004 at 11. The
`
`Board’s decision denying institution directly contradicts Dr. Bederson’s
`
`opinion. See Ex. 2003 (Bederson Dep.) at 17:10-12 (“Jahier discloses that
`
`the inactive key exceeds the active key by at least this amount delta.”). The
`
`Board further held, “Jahier only discloses a comparison of each signal
`
`against the high threshold. The new key i will ‘win’ and become the
`
`preselected key regardless of the difference between ECCs of the two
`
`signals, so long as the stated High Threshold comparisons are met.” Id. at
`
`11-12. Board’s decision there further supports that Jahier does not meet the
`
`“bias” limitation, but rather merely “preselects” key i if it is equal to or
`
`greater than Hight Threshold.
`
`33. Third, Jahier does not meet the “not locked to” claim limitation, which is
`
`applicable via claim construction of “[analyze/analyzing], to determine a
`
`second active key, respective second signal values …” claim limitation
`
`(elements 1[e], 7[c], 13[c]). Petition and Dr. Bederson rely solely on express
`
`teachings of Jahier to meet the “not locked to” limitation and do not have
`
`obviousness argument for it. See Ex. 1002 (Bederson Decl.) at ¶ 89-90. In
`
`20
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`Jahier, “selected” key can be considered an “active” key, but when a key is
`
`“selected” in Jahier, that selection is locked in and cannot be un-selected
`
`until the key’s ECC value is below the Low Threshold. Ex. 1005 (Jahier) at
`
`Fig. 3, 6:30-38; Ex. 2003 (Bederson Dep.) at 48:24-29:20 (“Jahier also
`
`describes some other things, such as having a selected key, which can enter a
`
`no selection state by being – by having a value below the low threshold.”).
`
`This is precisely the type of locking that is the opposite of non-locking key
`
`ambiguity taught and claimed (via claim construction) in the ‘790 patent.
`
`See 1001 (‘790 patent) at 3:6-16.
`
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 4, 10, 11, 16, AND 17ARE NOT
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE COMBINATION OF JAHIER AND
`SENK
`
`34. Ground 2 covers only dependent claims 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17. In my opinion,
`
`Ground 2 must also fail for at least the same reasons the independent claims do.
`
`See supra regarding Ground 1.
`
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 5, 12, AND 18 ARE NOT RENDERED
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF JAHIER AND QT60161
`IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF ONE OR ORDINARY SKILL
`IN THE ART
`
`35. Ground 3 covers only dependent claims 5, 12, and 18. In my opinion,
`
`Ground 3 must also fail for at least the same reasons the independent claims do.
`
`See supra regarding Ground 1.
`
`21
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS3, 9, AND 15 ARE NOT RENDERED
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF JAHIER AND WEST
`
`36. Ground 4 covers only dependent claims 3, 9, and 15. In my opinion, Ground
`
`4 must also fail for at least the same reasons the independent claims do. See supra
`
`regarding Ground 1.
`
`Date: October 7, 2020
`
`Richard A. Flasck
`
`22
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPRIN7N-NNS15
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Nichia Corporation v. Seoul Semiconductor, 3:06-cv-0162 (NDCA),
`on behalf of Seoul Semiconductor Company, Inc.
`Hewlett Packard v. Acer Incorporated et al., U.S. ITC Investigation
`No. 337-TA-606, on behalf of Acer Incorporated et al.
`Samsung v. Sharp, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-631, on behalf
`of Samsung.
`Sharp v. Samsung, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-634, on behalf
`of Samsung.
`O2Micro v. Monolithic Power Systems et al., U. S. ITC Investigation
`No. 337-TA-666, on behalf of O2Micro.
`IPR No. IPR2014-0168 of U.S. 7,612,843, on behalf of Petitioner
`Sony, Corp.
`Ushijima v. Samsung, 1:12-cv-00318-LY (WDTX), on behalf of
`Ushijima.
`Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies
`LLC v. Sony Corp. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02111-UNA DDEL, on
`behalf of Sony Corp.
`Funai v. Gold Charm Limited, Case No. IPR2015-01468, on behalf of
`Petitioner Funai.
`Phoenix, LLC v. Exar et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-00436-JRG-KNM., on
`behalf of Exar et al.
`MiiC v. Funai, Case No. 14-804-RGA, on behalf of Funai.
`Delaware Display Group LLC v. Vizio, Case No. 13-cv-02112-RGA,
`on behalf of Vizio.
`ARRIS v. Sony, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1060, on behalf of
`Sony.
`BlueHouse Global, LTD. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co.
`LTD., IPRs on behalf of BlueHouse Global, LTD.
`Phoenix, LLC v. Wistron Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-00711-RWS, on
`behalf of Wistron Corp.
`Ultravision v. Absen et al., ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1114, on
`behalf of Absen et al.
`Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Materion Corp., PGR2019-00017, on behalf of
`Viavi Solutions, Inc.
`NEC v. Ultravision, IPR2019-01123 and IPR2019-01117, on behalf of
`NEC.
`
`23
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:19-
`cv-00152-JRG, on behalf of Solas.
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-
`00236-ADA, on behalf of Solas.
`Neodron v. Lenovo / Motorola, Case No. 3:19-cv-05644-SI, on behalf
`of Neodron.
`Neodron v. Dell, Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA, on behalf of
`Neodron.
`Neodron v. HP, Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA, on behalf of Neodron.
`Neodron v. Microsoft, Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA, on behalf of
`Neodron.
`Neodron v. Amazon, Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA, on behalf of
`Neodron.
`Neodron v. Samsung, Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA, on behalf of
`Neodron.
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Dell, Case No. 6:19-cv-00514-ADA, on behalf of
`Solas.
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Google, Case No. 6:19-cv-00515-ADA, on
`behalf of Solas.
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple, Case No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA, on behalf
`of Solas.
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. HP, Case No. 6:19-cv-00631-ADA, on behalf of
`Solas.
`LGD v. Solas OLED Ltd., Case No. IPR2020-00177, on behalf of
`Solas.
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Neodron Ltd., Case No.
`IPR2020-00192, on behalf of Neodron.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2020-00515
`
`