‘UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TOUCH-CONTROLLED
`MOBILE DEVICES, COMPUTERS, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337—TA-1162
`‘
`
`ORDER NO.- 15:
`
`CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`_ (November 25, 2019)
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 1
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`‘ IN GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`RELEVANT LAW ......................................................7.......................................................... 2
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ..........................I................................................................ 7
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ........................................................................................... 8
`
`IA.
`
`,
`
`The ‘173 Patent ....................................»................................................................... _...8
`
`B.
`
`c.
`
`D.
`
`The ‘910 Patent ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`The ‘790 Patent......................... ........................................... '. ................................... 13
`
`The ‘580 Patent ..........................
`
`............. 14
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................ 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Construction of the Agreed-Upon Claim Terms ...................................................... 18
`
`Construction of the Disputed Claim Terms ............'. ................................................ 19
`
`1.
`
`~
`
`‘ 173 Patent — “A sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`comprises a length” ...................................................................................... 19
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`‘ 173 Patent — “sensing path” ............. ........................................................'..20
`
`‘ 173 Patent — “the range of parameter values being associated with the
`length of the sensing path” ........................................................................... 22
`
`‘173 Paten — “the sensing path comprises a closed loop” ........................... 24
`
`‘910 Patent — “the particular one of the sensing areas selected based on a
`predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes the two or more sensing areas
`based on the positions of the two or more sensing areas with the sensing
`' region” .......................................................................................................... 25
`
`‘790 Patent — “respective [first/second] [sensor/signal] values of [the/a]
`plurality [of] keys” ....................................................................................... 27
`
`‘790 Patent — “[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” ......................... 28
`
`8.
`
`.‘580 Patent - “signals” ................................................................................. 30
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 2
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 2
`
`

`

`9.
`
`10.
`
`‘580 Patent - “measured values corresponding to the [second/fourth] set of
`signals”....' ..................................................................................................... 32
`
`‘580 Patent - “adjusting the second set of measured values corresponding to
`the second set of signals with the fourth set of measured values
`corresponding to the fourth set of signals” ...............................................p...34
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 3
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 3
`
`

`

`.I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Investigation was instituted by the Commission on June 24,2019 to determine whether
`
`there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States,
`
`the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of touch-controlled
`
`mobile devices, including smartphone and tablet devices, computers, including notebook and laptop
`
`computers, and associated components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims
`\
`
`1-19 of US. Patent No. 8,432,173 ("the ‘173 patent"); claims 1-37 of US. Patent No. 8,791,910
`
`("the ‘910 patent"); claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-24 of US. Patent No. 9,024,790 ("the ‘790 patent");
`
`and claims 1-12 ofUS. Patent No. 9,372,380 ("the ‘580 patent"). See 84, Fed. Reg. 29545 (June 24,
`
`2019). The Complainant is Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”). The Respondents are Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`(“Amazon”), Dell TechnOlogies, Inc. (“Dell”), Lenovo Group Ltd. (“Lenovo”), Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC (“Motorola”), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), HP Inc. (“HP”), and Samsung Electronics,
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) (together, “the Respondents”).
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 6, a Markman hearing was held October 22, 2019. Prior to the
`
`hearing, the Parties filed joint proposed claim construction charts setting forth a limited set of terms
`
`to be construed, and after the hearing, the Parties filed an updated joint claim construction chart.
`
`The Parties also filed initial and reply claim construction briefs, wherein each party offered its
`
`construction for the claim terms in dispute, along with support for its proposed interpretation. 1
`
`_
`
`1 For convenience, the briefs and amended chart submitted by the Parties are referred to hereafter
`as:
`
`Complainant’s Initial Markman Brief
`Comlainant’s Rel Markman Brief
`
`Respondents’ Initial Markman Brief
`Respondents’ Reply Markman Brief
`U dated Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`
`
`Markman hearing transcrit
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 4
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 4
`
`

`

`II.
`
`IN GENERAL
`
`The claim terms are construed for the purposes of this section 337 Investigation. Those
`terms not in dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int ’l Trade
`
`Comm ’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the administrative law judge need only
`
`construe disputed claim terms).
`
`III.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
`
`scope. of the patent claims asserted to_ be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
`
`construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted),.afi“d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Id. at 970-71. “The construction
`
`of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand
`
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp, 216
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consiSts of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d.
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006); see also Markman, 52
`
`F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these
`
`components to determine the “ordinary and customary meaning of a-claim term” as understood by
`
`a person of ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic
`
`evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.”
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)(qu0ting Vitronic Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`/
`
`PetitionerpExhibit 1008, Page 5
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 5
`
`

`

`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”’ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure
`
`Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys, Inc. , 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “Quite apart
`
`from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial
`
`guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.”
`Id at 1314; see also Interactive Gift
`Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc, 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In construing claims, the
`analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language ofthe claims themselves, for it is
`
`that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point [ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the
`
`subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention”). The context in which a term is used
`
`in an asserted claim can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other
`
`claims in the same patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide guidance as to the meaning of a
`
`claim term.
`
`Id. “Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the
`
`patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon SA, 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The specification “is alwayshighly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1315
`
`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`“[T]he
`
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`“In other cases,
`
`the
`
`specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.“
`
`Id, As a general rule, however,
`
`the particular examples or embodiments discussed in the
`
`specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations.
`
`Id. at 1323.
`
`In the end, “[t]he
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturallyxaligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be
`
`the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC
`
`v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F .3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`3
`
`.
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 6
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 6
`
`

`

`\
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
`
`if in evidence.
`
`Id. at 1317 (citing Graham v. John Deere Ca, 383 U.S. 1, 86 (1966)); see Liebel—
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can
`
`“often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
`
`invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the
`
`claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see Chimie v. PPG
`
`Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution
`
`history in construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during
`
`prosecution”).
`
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i. e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including dictionaries,
`
`inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317. Extrinsic evidence generally is viewed as less reliable than the patent itself and its '
`
`prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. “The c6urt may receive extrinsic
`
`evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant'technology, but the court may not use
`
`extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction
`
`mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999)(cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1066 (2000)).
`
`If, after a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim term remains ambiguous,
`
`the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Claims,
`
`however, cannot be judicially rewritten in order to fulfill the axiom of preserving their validity.
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, “if the only Claim construction
`
`that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description renders the claim invalid,
`
`then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid.” Id.
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 7
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 7
`
`

`

`The construction of a claim term is generally guided by its ordinary meaning. However,
`
`courts may deviate from the ordinary meaning when: (l) “the intrinsic evidence shows that the
`
`patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly
`disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention;” or i
`
`(2) “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed I
`
`claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
`
`Inc, 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc, 750
`
`F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and |disavowal”); Omega)Eng ’g, Inc. v.
`
`Raytek Corp, 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed'. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the patentee has unequivocally
`
`disavowed a. certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches
`
`and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.”); Rheox,
`
`Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(quoting Southwall Techs., v. Cardinal 1G
`
`Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim,
`
`terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution”). Nevertheless,
`
`there is a “heavy presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp, 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The
`
`standard for deviating from the plain and ordinary meaning is “exacting” and requires “a clear and
`
`unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner v Sony Computer Entm ’1‘ Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); see Epistar Corp. v. Int ’1 Trade Comm ’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(requiring “expressions ofmanifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal ofclaim
`scope” to deviate from the ordinary meaning) (citation omitted). As the Federal Circuit-has
`
`explained, “[w]e do not read limitations from-the specification into claims; we do not redefine
`
`words. Only the patentee can do that.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 8
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 8
`
`

`

`\.
`
`A claim must also be definite. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: “The
`
`specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1] 2. In
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 US. 898 (2014), the Supreme Court held that § 112,
`
`fl 2 requires “that a patent’s claims, Viewed in light of the speCification arid prosecution history
`
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Id at
`
`910. A claim is required to “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art,” and a claim
`
`term is indefinite if it “might mean several different things and no informed and confident choice is
`
`among the contending definitions.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc, 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014)(cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 59 (2015)). A patent claim that is indefinite is invalid. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b)(3)(A).
`
`7 Courts are not required to construe every claim limitation of an asserted patent. See 02
`
`Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(citations omitted). Rather, “claim construction is a matter ofresolution ofdisputed meanings and
`
`technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims,
`
`for use in the determination of infringement.” Id. at 1362 (quoting U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
`
`Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also Embrex, 216 F.3d at 1347 (“The construction
`
`of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language [] in order to understand
`
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims”) (citation omitted).
`
`In addition, “[a]
`
`determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may
`be inadequate when a term has more ihan one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term's
`
`‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” 02 Micro, 521 F .3d at 1361. Claim
`
`construction, however, is not an “obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp, 103 F.3d
`
`at 1568.
`
`“[M]erely rephrasing or paraphrasing the plain language of a claim by substituting
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 9
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 9
`
`

`

`synonyms does not represent genuine claim construction.” CR. Bard, Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp,
`
`388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004).,
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`In its opening brief, Neodron’s expert stated that for all asserted patents:
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the patented technology at the
`time of the invention of the asserted patents would have a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`the
`equivalent and 1-2 years of field, lab or other w0rk experience in
`research, design, development, and/or testing of electronic sensors,
`controllers, human-machine interfaces, and related firmware and
`software, or the equivalent.
`'
`
`CIMB Expert Declaration of Dr. Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D. at 5, 1i 17.
`
`In their opening brief, the Respondents contended:
`
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’910, ’790,
`and ’173 Patents would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Physics,
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science or the equivalent plus at
`least two years of experience in the field of touch sensors, signal
`processing, human-computer interaction, graphical user interfaces, or
`a related field.
`.
`.
`.. Respondents contend that a person of ordinary
`skill in the\art with respect to the ’580 Patent would have had a
`Bachelor’s Degree in Physics, Electrical Engineering or Computer
`Science or the equivalent plus at least two years of experience in the
`field of touch sensors, signal processing, or a related field..... For
`all patents, additional education could substitute for work experience
`and vice versa.
`
`RIMB at 3.
`
`These proposed levels of skill are very similar. A degree in physics, however, would not be
`
`as helpful as one in electrical engineering or computer science, which are more directly related to
`
`the art, and a degree in Computer engineering, which is largely a hybrid of electrical engineering
`
`and computer science, would likely be very helpful. As for experience, electronic sensors,
`
`controllers, and signal processing are too broad to, be directly qualifying, although they may be
`
`considered “related fields.” And the ’580 patent is not so far afield from the other three patents that
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 10
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 10
`
`

`

`it should be considered separately from them. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art 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, iwith additional education substituting for
`
`experience and vice versa.
`
`V.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`The ‘173 Patent
`
`The ‘ 173 patent, entitled “Capacitive Position Sensor,” issued on April 30, 2013 to Harald
`
`.Philipp. . The ‘ 173 patent is assigned on its face to Atmel Corporation. Neodron owns by assignment
`
`all rights, title, and interest in the ’173 Patent. Amended Complaint at ii 47. The ‘173 patent
`
`generally provides “an improved capacitive position sensor for an electrical appliance in which a
`
`desired parameter value can be more efficiently and accurately selected.” ‘ 173 patent at 2:62-65.
`
`In particular:
`
`In one embodiment, a method includes receiving one or more first signals indicating
`one or more first capacitive couplings of an object with a sensing element that
`comprises a sensing path that comprises a length. The first capacitive couplings
`correspond to the object coming into proximity with the sensing element at a first
`position along the sensing path of the sensing element. The method includes
`determining based on one or more of the first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path and setting a parameter to an initial value based on the first
`position of the object along the sensing path. The initial value includes a particular
`parameter value and is associated with a range of parameter values. The range of
`parameter values is associated with the length of the sensing path.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`The ‘ 173 patent has 19 claims. As of the date of this order, all claims are asserted in various
`
`combinations against the various respondents. The claims in which there are disputed terms read as
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 11
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 11
`
`

`

`follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms in italics and the'first instance of the
`
`disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`1.
`
`_A method comprising:
`
`receiving one or more first signals indicating one or more first capacitive couplings
`of an object with a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`comprises a length, the first capacitive couplings corresponding to the object
`coming into proximity with the sensing element at a first position along the
`sensing path of thesensing element
`
`determining based on one or more of the first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`/
`
`setting a parameter to an initial value based on the first position of the object along
`the sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`
`receiving one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`'
`couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from the first position; and
`
`_
`_
`\1
`determining based on one or more of the second signals the displacement of the
`object along the sensing path; and
`
`adjusting the parameter within the range of parameter values based on the
`displacement of the object along the sensing path.
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the sensing path comprises a closed loop.
`
`10.
`
`One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that is
`' operable when executed to:
`
`.
`
`receive one or more first signals indicating one or more first capacitive couplings of
`an object with a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`comprises a length, the first capacitive couplings corresponding to the object
`coming into proximity with the sensing element at a first position along the
`sensing path of the sensing element
`
`determine based on one or more of the first signals. the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`set a parameter to an initial value based on the first position of the object along the
`sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 12
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 12
`
`

`

`11.
`
`19.
`
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`
`receive one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from the first position; and
`
`determine based on one or more of the second signals the displacement of the object
`along the sensing path; and
`
`adjust the parameter within range of parameter values based on the displacement of
`the object along the sensing path.
`
`The media of claim 10, wherein the sensing path comprises a closed loop.
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that comprises a length; and
`
`one or more computer--readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that
`is operable when executed to:
`,
`
`receive one or more first signals indicating one or more first capacitive couplings of
`an object with the sensing element,
`the first capacitive couplings
`corresponding to the object coming into proximity with the sensing element
`at a first position along the sensing path of the sensing element
`
`determine based on one or more of the first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`set a parameter to an initial value based on the first position of the object along the
`sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`'
`
`'receive one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`' couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from the first position; and
`
`determine based on one or more of the second signals the displacement of the object
`along the sensing path; and adjust the parameter within range of parameter
`values based on the displacement of the object along the sensing path.
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 13
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 13
`
`

`

`B.
`
`. The‘910 Patent
`
`The ‘910 patent, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard With Position-Dependent Reduced Keying
`
`Ambiguity,” issued on July 29, 2014 to Harald Philipp.‘ The ‘910 patent is assigned on its face to
`
`Atmel Corporation. Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in the ’910 Patent.
`
`Amended Complaint at 1] 53 The ‘910 patent generally relates to “touch sensitive user interfaces
`
`having an array of sensing elements and methods for determining which of a plurality of sensing
`
`elements in simultaneous detection is intended by a user for selection.” ‘910 Patent at 1:20-23. In
`particular:
`0
`
`In one embodiment, a method includes receiving two or more output
`signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings. Each of the
`capacitive couplings has occurred between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, and each of the
`sensing areas has a position within the sensing region. The method
`includes, if‘ two or more of the output signals each have an output-
`signal level that exceeds a predefined activation level, then selecting
`a particular one of the sensing areas with out-put-signal
`levels
`exceeding the predefined activation level as an intended one of the
`sensing areas based on a predefined ranking scheme that takes into
`account the positions of the sensing areas within the sensing region.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`The ‘910 patent has 37 claims. As of the date of this order, all claims are asserted in various
`
`combinations against the various respondents (with the exception of Amazon). The claims in which
`
`there are disputed terms read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms in italics
`
`and the first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`1.
`
`A method comprising,-by one or more computing devices:
`
`receiving two or more output signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`each of the capacitive couplings occurring between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, each of the sensing
`areas having a position within the sensing region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefined activation level, then selecting a particular one of the sensing areas
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 14
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 14
`
`

`

`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes the two
`or more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing
`areas within the sensing region.
`
`13.
`
`One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that
`is operable when executed to:
`‘
`
`receive two or more output signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`each of the capacitive couplings occurring between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, each of the sensing
`areas having a position within the sensing region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefined activation level, then select a particular one of the sensing areas
`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes the two or
`more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing areas
`within the sensing region.
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`a touch-sensitive user interface; and
`
`one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the touch-
`sensitive user interface that embody logic operable when executed to:
`
`receive two or more output signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`, each of the capacitive couplings occurring between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region of the touch-sensitive
`user interface, each of the sensing areas having a position within the sensing
`region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefined activation level, then select a particular one of the sensing areas
`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes the two
`or more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing
`areas within the sensing region.
`‘
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 15
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1008, Page 15
`
`

`

`C.‘
`
`The ‘790 Patent
`
`The ‘790 patent, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity,”
`
`issued on May 5, 2015 to Harald Philipp. The ‘790 patent is assigned on its face to Atmel
`
`Corporation. Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in the ’790 Patent. Amended
`
`Complaint at 11 59. The ‘790 patent generally relates to “method and apparatus for controlling an
`
`array of non-bistable keys, such as capacitive position sensors, and, more specifically for preventing
`
`accidental false inputs from keys adjacent to a selected key in'a capacitive keyboar .” ‘790 Patent
`
`at 1:21-25. In particular:
`
`Keyboards, keypads and other data entry devices can suffer from a keying ambiguity
`problem. 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 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. at Abstract.
`
`The ‘790 patent has 24 claims. As of the date of this order, all claims are asserted against
`
`all the respondents (with the exception of Amazon and Motorola). The claims in which there are
`
`disputed terms read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms in italics and the
`
`first instance of the disputed terms highlight