UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. & MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Neodron, Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TONY GIVARGIS
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. & MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Neodron, Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TONY GIVARGIS
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`I, Tony Givargis, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Tony Givargis, have been retained by counsel for Petitioners as a
`
`technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regard to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,903,092 (the “’092 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims
`
`1-14. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I
`
`am being compensated at an hourly rate of $500 for my analysis and testimony in
`
`this case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Exhibit 1001 - U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092 (“the ’092 Patent”)
`• Exhibit 1002 - The ’092 Patent File History
`• Exhibit 1004 - JP 2,666,900 to Yasuhiro, et al. (“Yasuhiro”)
`• Exhibit 1005 - U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to Houston (“Houston”)
`• Exhibit 1006 - U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0008129 to Philipp
`(“Philipp”)
`• Exhibit 1007 - PCT/AU86/00043 published as WO 87/04851
`(“PCT/AU86/00043”)
`• Exhibit 1008 - Updated Joint Proposed Claim Construction Brief
`• Exhibit 1009 - U.S. Patent No. 7,545,366 to Sugimoto, et al.
`(“Sugimoto”)
`• Exhibit 1010 - U.S. Patent No. 6,256,021 to Singh (“Singh”)
`• Exhibit 1011 - U.S. Patent No. 6,543,684 to White, et al. (“White”)
`
` 2
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am a Professor in the department of Computer Science at the
`
`University of California, Irvine (UCI) since July of 2001. I served as the Associate
`
`Dean in the School of Information and Computer Sciences at UCI from 2011 to
`
`2016. I am currently, serving as the Vice Chair of the department of Computer
`
`Science at UCI. I graduated Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science in Computer
`
`Science in 1997 and PhD in Computer Science in 2001 from the University of
`
`California, Riverside. My PhD thesis was entitled “System-Level Exploration for
`
`Pareto-Optimal Configurations in Parameterized System-on-a-Chip.” It received
`
`the School’s Best Thesis Award that year.
`
`5. My research interests are generally directed at various aspects of the
`
`design of Embedded Systems. Embedded Systems are computing devices that
`
`operate within a larger system and include things such as consumer electronics,
`
`handheld devices, office equipment, industrial equipment, medical devices,
`
`autonomous and self-driving vehicles, and many other types of systems. Embedded
`
`systems are characterized as having rich sensing capabilities (e.g., keypads and touch
`
`sensitive input devices, heat/pressure sensors, etc.), actuation capabilities (e.g.,
`
`displays, robotic arms, etc.) and heavy control logic (e.g., programmable embedded
`
`processors, dedicated processing elements and extensive software logic). More
`
`specifically, my research focuses on software for Embedded Systems, real-time
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`systems, Internet of Things devices, mobile and handheld devices, ML/AI control
`
`algorithms for Cyber Physical Systems, compilers for embedded software and code
`
`transformations techniques for efficient software to hardware migration.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to research, I exclusively teach the embedded systems
`
`courses at UCI both at the undergraduate as well as the graduate courses. My upper
`
`division Embedded Systems courses (CS 145 and CS 145L) are immensely popular
`
`with yearly enrollments exceeding 350 students. In these courses, students build a
`
`number of Embedded Systems from ground up out of components, including
`
`keypads and touch sensitive input devices. Additionally, they program the compute
`
`elements of their systems with various algorithms and application logic in order to
`
`solve a problem. I also teach the graduate embedded software course (CS245) that
`
`covers more advanced topics related to Embedded Systems design, including
`
`modeling, design and validation of complex devices.
`
`7.
`
`I have co-authored two textbooks on Embedded Systems design that are
`
`widely used in academia. In 2011, I received the prestigious ASEE's Frederick
`
`Emmons Terman Award for having authored these textbooks and advanced higher
`
`education in the areas of Embedded Systems. I have published over 100 peer-
`
`reviewed and archived conference and journal papers. I have 13 issued US Patents
`
`to my name. I have advised and graduated eight accomplished PhD students that are
`
`currently professors, research scientists, software engineers and technical leaders in
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`their respective fields. Over the years, as a consultant, I have designed a number of
`
`embedded system products and served as technical expert and consultant for
`
`numerous corporations in the technology sector. I am currently serving on a number
`
`of Technical Program Committees of conferences related to Embedded Systems. I
`
`am an Associate Editor of the Computer Science & Engineering section of
`
`Electronics Journal. For additional relevant background, I direct your attention to
`
`my Curriculum Vitae attached as Appendix A.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`8.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`now applies the claim construction standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the
`
`Phillips standard) regardless of whether a patent has expired. I have been informed
`
`that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are to be given the meaning they would
`
`have to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into consideration the patent, its file history, and, secondarily, any applicable
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions). I have reviewed the construction of
`
`“touch” proposed in the Petition and have applied it below where applicable. For all
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`other claim language, I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the language,
`
`considering the intrinsic record.
`
`10.
`
`I have also been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art.
`
`I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`11.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`“analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2)
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it
`
`is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference
`
`to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have commended itself
`
`to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In determining whether a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the problem faced by the
`
`inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I believe
`
`that all of the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within
`
`the range of references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address
`
`the type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All
`
`of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`14.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior art considered
`
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard,
`
`common sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`15.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field at
`
`the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`
`A. Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) of the ’092 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which counsel has told me to assume is May 25, 2006. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’092 Patent, I considered several factors, including the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`worked at that time.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA at the time of the claimed invention of the
`
`’092 Patent would have had at least 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. Such a PHOSITA would have been
`
`capable of understanding the ’092 patent and the prior art references discussed
`
`herein.
`
`22. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the field
`
`of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met at
`
`least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the time of the claimed invention of the ’092 Patent.
`
`C. Claimed Invention in the ’092 Patent
`
`23. The ’092 Patent describes an apparatus and method for resolving keying
`
`ambiguity when a user simultaneously presses two keys (also referred to as “sensing
`
`areas”), where the intended key is selected based on a key’s position compared to
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`the position of the other simultaneously pressed keys in a sensing region. ’092 Patent
`
`at Abstract; see also id. at 1:7-14. More particularly, the ’092 Patent provides a
`
`touch-user interface comprising an array of capacitive keys for generating output
`
`signals in response to capacitive changes from a user’s finger. Id. In order to prevent
`
`accidental false inputs from keys adjacent to a user-intended key, the ’092 Patent
`
`describes embodiments using position-dependent priority rankings to select the key
`
`with a higher priority. Id. at 3:15-34.
`
`24. For example, the ’092 Patent explains that each key may be associated
`
`with a predefined priority ranking according to its position within a sensing region
`
`(e.g., keyboard). Id; see also id. at Fig. 3:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a sensing region comprising keys arranged in rows and columns,
`
`where each key may be associated with priority ranking by row and keys in the top
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`row—relative to a user’s finger approaching from the bottom—are assigned a higher
`
`priority than the rows below. Id. at 3:15-34. This ranking scheme preferentially
`
`selects keys in the higher rows when compared to the keys positioned in the rows
`
`below it. Id.; see also id. at Figs 4 and 5 (illustrating alternative ranking schemes
`
`based on the angle of approach of a user’s finger).
`
`25. The ’092 Patent further describes an additional ranking scheme that
`
`weights output signals generated from a user’s key-touch according to positions of
`
`the keys within the sensing region. Id. at 3:35-49. This weighting may optionally be
`
`applied by using scaling factors associated with corresponding keys based on their
`
`position. Id.; see also id. at 11:9-34 (describing that a scale factor may be associated
`
`with each priority rank, e.g., a priority rank of 1 receives a scale factor of 2, priority
`
`rank of 2 receives a scale factor of 1.5, etc.). Keys with higher scale factors may be
`
`selected over keys with lower scale factors. Id. (noting further that “the key having
`
`the highest weighted output signal is [] deemed to be the selected key”).
`
`D. Obviousness regarding Yasuhiro
`
`i. Overview of Yasuhiro
`
`26. Yasuhiro discloses a non-touch switch device comprising an array of
`
`planar capacitor sensors, referred to therein as “non-touch switches,” for detecting
`
`changes in capacitance resulting from the approach of a user’s finger. Yasuhiro at
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`2:¶1; see also id. at Fig. 8 (depicting a multiplicity of non-touch switches arranged
`
`adjacent to each other in matrix form):
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`
`
`Yasuhiro refers to PCT/AU86/00043, a patent owned by Intel Electronics Ltd., for a
`
`more detailed description of the operation of non-touch switches. Yasuhiro at 1:¶3.
`
`This PCT explains that “non-touch switches” are simply capacitive switches or keys
`
`for providing “accurate detection of a person’s finger through glass or plastic on a
`
`capacitive sensor.” PCT/AU86/00043 (Ex. 1007), 1:16-2:15. Based on Yasuhiro’s
`
`description and this PCT publication, I understand Yasuhiro’s “non-touch switches”
`
`to be capable of detecting capacitive changes from either a user physically touching
`
`the touch-interface, such as glass or plastic overlaying the capacitive switches, or a
`
`user’s finger coming in close proximity to the same interface.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`27. My understanding that Yasuhiro’s non-touch switches can detect both
`
`proximity and physical touch is further confirmed by Fig. 7, which depicts a more
`
`significant capacitive change where the user’s finger is closer to the interface than
`
`where the user’s finger is further from the interface. A PHOSITA would understand
`
`that this same principle applies when a user’s finger makes physical contact with the
`
`surface—the capacitive change continues to increase as the finger approaches and is
`
`registered as activating the switch whether in close proximity or physical contact.
`
`Turning to the figure itself, as a user’s finger approaches the surface of the non-touch
`
`switches, the user’s finger acts as a “third electrode,” reducing the charge
`
`distribution as illustrated in Figures 7(a)-(b) below:
`
`This reduction in charge consequently reduces the capacitance signal of the non-
`
`touch switch when compared to its “normal state.” Id. at 2:¶1; see also id. at Figs.
`
`6(a)-(b) (depicting the reduction of capacitance signal from a normal state (Fig. 6a)
`
`
`
`to a touched stated (Fig. 6b):
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In response, a measurement circuit including transistor Q1 detects this
`
`reduction in capacitance (referred to as an “output pulse”) and sends this output
`
`detection pulse signal through various signal transformation circuits (DC component
`
`removing circuit 11, amplifier circuit 12, and peak-hold circuit 13) to comparator
`
`14, to compare the output detection pulse signal’s peak value with the peak value of
`
`a “reference value” retained within the computation and control circuit 10, where
`
`this reference value was produced right as the non-touch switch device was powered
`
`on. Id. at 2:¶¶2; 7; see also id. at Fig. 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`
`
`29. The output of comparator 14 is then input into the computation and
`
`control circuit, where if the measured output pulse detection signal is below the
`
`reference value (i.e., a “threshold level”) an “ON” determination is made. Id. at 2:¶2.
`
`However, Yasuhiro notes that since there are a “multiplicity of non-touch switches
`
`1 [] disposed next to each other…the output pulses of the non-touch switches 1
`
`therearound will change.” Id. at 2:¶3 (noting that “when the switch surfaces of the
`
`non-touch switches are installed in the vertical direction, the non-touch switch below
`
`the non-touch switch intended by the person is undesirably detected first.
`
`Furthermore, when the switch surfaces of the non-touch switches are installed in the
`
`horizontal direction, there is a problem that the non-touch switch in front of the non-
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`touch switch intended by the person is undesirably detected first”). Therefore, in
`
`order to “prevent erroneous input,” Yasuhiro establishes “priority rankings for
`
`simultaneous input.” Id. at 2:¶4.
`
`30. To resolve this simultaneous input keying ambiguity dilemma,
`
`Yasuhiro’s priority ranking scheme assigns priority numbers to individual non-touch
`
`switches “in a predetermined direction” to enable the computation and control circuit
`
`to select (i.e., assign validity to) the non-touch switch with the higher priority
`
`ranking (i.e., the user-intended switch). Id. at 2:¶¶2, 5, 9-10; 3:¶¶ 1-2. Yasuhiro
`
`discloses four such “absolute”1 priority ranking schemes (see Figs 1(b)-1(c), 2(b)-
`
`2(c)):
`
`
`1 These ranking are “absolute” in that the highest ranked switch is deemed to be the
`selected switch when comparing signals from two or more activated switches.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`
`
`(1) “top to bottom, [when] the non-touch switches are arrayed in the vertical
`
`direction;” (2) “distal to proximal, [when] the non-touch switches are arrayed in the
`
`horizontal direction;” (3) “top to bottom … and [then from] the leftmost column
`
`toward the rightward columns” when the switches “are arranged in a matrix;” and
`
`similarly (4) “distal to proximal” and then “from the upper row to the lower row” in
`
`a matrix. See id. at claim 1; 2:¶¶4-6, 9-10; 3:¶¶1-2. As illustrated in the following
`
`figure, Yasuhiro’s rankings are based on the assumed approach direction of a user’s
`
`finger such that priority increases in the direction of approach:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 1(a), 2(a).
`
`31. Yasuhiro is analogous art to the ’092 Patent at least because it is in the
`
`same field of endeavor and seeks to solve similar problems as the ’092 Patent. As
`
`described above, the ’092 Patent relates to a touch-user interface comprising an array
`
`of capacitive keys for generating output signals in response to capacitive changes
`
`from a user’s finger. ’092 Patent at Abstract; 1:7-10 (“The invention 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.”). Yasuhiro, similar to the ’092 Patent, describes a
`
`touch-sensitive interface containing an array of switches or keys for determining
`
`user input. Yasuhiro at 1:¶1 (“[Claim 1] A non-touch switch device in which a
`
`multiplicity of non-touch switches, which detect a change in the capacitance of a
`
`planar capacitor consisting of a pair of electrode plates arranged in the same plane,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`are adjacently provided” which includes a “computation and control circuit” for
`
`determining “which non-touch switch has been turned ON when comparison results
`
`have been simultaneously input”). Moreover, as further described above, the ’092
`
`Patent is directed at resolving keying ambiguity and false inputs using position-
`
`dependent priority ranking schemes. ’092 Patent at 3:15-34; 1:10-14 (“Thus the
`
`invention relates to a method and apparatus for controlling touch sensitive user
`
`interfaces, e.g. to assist in preventing accidental false inputs from keys adjacent to a
`
`selected key in a capacitive keyboard”). Yasuhiro describes and works toward the
`
`same issue. Yasuhiro at 2:¶4 (“The present invention is provided in view of the
`
`foregoing matters, and provides a non-touch switch device intended to prevent
`
`erroneous input by establishing priority rankings for simultaneous input”).
`
`Therefore, a PHOSITA would understand that the two are analogous.
`
`ii. Opinions regarding Claim 1
`
`a) touch-sensitive user interface
`
`
`
`32. Yasuhiro discloses a non-touch switch device having an array of planar
`
`capacitor sensors (“non-touch switches”) which detect capacitance changes from the
`
`electrical signals of a user’s fingertip. Yasuhiro at 2:¶1. As a user’s finger approaches
`
`the switch surfaces of the non-touch switches, the finger acts as a third electrode,
`
`forming capacitors between the outer electrode plate 2 and the fingertip, dividing the
`
`charge between electrode plates 2 and 4. Id.; see also id. at Fig. 2(a):
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 23
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 23
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
` As the user’s finger approaches and comes into contact with the surface of the
`
`desired non-touch switch, other non-touch switches in the path of this approach may
`
`
`
`additionally detect the user’s touch. Id. at Fig. 7(b):
`
`
`
`See also id. at 2:¶¶3; 4 (describing position-based priority ranking to prevent
`
`
`
`erroneous detection from adjacent switches).
`
`33. As noted above, Yasuhiro cites to PCT/AU86/00043, an Australian
`
`patent owned by Intel Electronics Ltd., for a broad discussion of the configuration
`
`and operation of “non-touch switches.” Id. at 1:¶3 (citing to PCT/AU86/00043).
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 24
`
`IPR2020-00779
`Apple EX1003 Page 24
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00779
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092
`
`PCT/AU86/00043 explains that “non-touch switches” are “capacitive sensing
`
`devices such as switches or keys,” as used in capacitive keyboards, which provide
`
`“accurate detection of a person’s finger through glass or plastic on a capacitive
`
`sensor.” PCT/AU86/00043 at []. Based on Yasuhiro and this PCT publication, a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that Yasuhiro’s “non-touch switches” refer to
`
`capacitive keys which read capacitance changes proximity or physical contact of the
`
`user’s finger on the surface (optionally glass or plastic) of the non-touch switches.
`
`Because the proximity of a finger to the switch impacts the amount of capacitance
`
`change, physical contact will generally regis
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
