UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1162
`
`CERTAIN TOUCH-CONTROLLED MOBILE
`DEVICES, COMPUTERS, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`RESPONDENTS’ DISCLOSURE OF INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 1 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`GENERAL RESERVATIONS ............................................................................................1
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,432,173 .............................................................................................5
`A.
`Relevant Prior Art ....................................................................................................5
`1.
`Patents and Printed Publications ..................................................................5
`2.
`Prior Art Systems .........................................................................................8
`Anticipation and Obviousness .................................................................................8
`Other Invalidity Grounds .......................................................................................19
`Enablement and/or Written Description Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`1.
`112(a) .........................................................................................................19
`Indefiniteness Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ..............................................20
`2.
`Unpatentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. ..........................21
`3.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,791,910 ...........................................................................................21
`A.
`Relevant Prior Art ..................................................................................................21
`1.
`Patents and Printed Publications ................................................................21
`Anticipation and Obviousness ...............................................................................24
`Other Invalidity Grounds .......................................................................................34
`Enablement and/or Written Description Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`1.
`112(a) .........................................................................................................35
`Indefiniteness Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ..............................................35
`2.
`Unpatentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. ..........................36
`3.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,024,790 ...........................................................................................37
`A.
`Relevant Prior Art ..................................................................................................37
`1.
`Patents and Printed Publications ................................................................37
`Anticipation and Obviousness ...............................................................................40
`Other Invalidity Grounds .......................................................................................52
`Enablement and/or Written Description Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`1.
`112(a) .........................................................................................................53
`Indefiniteness Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ..............................................53
`2.
`Unpatentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. ..........................54
`3.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,372,580 ...........................................................................................54
`
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 2 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Relevant Prior Art ..................................................................................................54
`1.
`Patents and Printed Publications ................................................................55
`2.
`Prior Art Systems .......................................................................................58
`Anticipation and Obviousness ...............................................................................58
`Other Invalidity Grounds .......................................................................................68
`Enablement and/or Written Description Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`1.
`112(a) .........................................................................................................68
`Indefiniteness Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ..............................................69
`Unpatentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. ..........................70
`
`2.
`3.
`
`ii
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 3 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule set in Order No. 6, Respondents Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`(“Amazon”), Dell Technologies, Inc. (“Dell”), HP Inc. (“HPI”), Lenovo Group Ltd. and Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc. (collectively “Lenovo”), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) (collectively “Respondents”) hereby provide their initial
`
`invalidity contentions. Complainant Neodron has asserted the following patents and claims in
`
`this Investigation: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 (“the ’173 patent”), claims 1-19; (2) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,791,910 (“the ’910 patent”), claims 1-37; (3) U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 (“the ’790
`
`patent”), claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, 16-24; and (4) U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580 (“the ’580 patent”),
`
`claims 1-12 (collectively “the asserted patents”).
`II. GENERAL RESERVATIONS
`These invalidity contentions are provisional. Respondents reserve the right to revise or
`
`supplement these contentions in light of party and third-party discovery (such as expected device
`
`art expected from third-parties), Neodron’s infringement contentions, any claim construction
`
`order issued by the ALJ, review and analysis by expert witnesses, and further investigation and
`
`discovery regarding the defenses asserted by Respondents. For example, Respondents expressly
`
`reserve the right to amend these contentions after review of Neodron’s infringement contentions,
`
`after issuance of the claim construction order, should Neodron provide any information that it
`
`failed to provide in its disclosures, or if Neodron amends its disclosures in any way. Further,
`
`because discovery is ongoing, Respondents reserve the right to revise, amend, and/or supplement
`
`the information provided herein, including identifying, charting, and relying on additional
`
`references upon written notice for good cause shown. Further, Respondents reserve their rights
`
`
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 4 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`to revise, amend, or supplement when Neodron provides additional discovery. Further,
`
`Respondents reserve the right to revise their ultimate contentions concerning the invalidity of the
`
`asserted claims, which may change depending upon further and ongoing investigation, the
`
`construction of the asserted claims and/or positions that Neodron or expert witnesses may take
`
`concerning claim construction, infringement, and/or invalidity issues.
`
`Prior art not included in this disclosure, whether known or not known to Respondents,
`
`may become relevant. In particular, Respondents are currently unaware of the extent, if any, to
`
`which Neodron will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not disclosed in the prior
`
`art identified by Respondents. To the extent that such an issue arises, Respondents reserve the
`
`right to identify other references that would anticipate and/or render obvious the allegedly
`
`missing limitations of the claims. Respondents reserve the right to rely on any reference found
`
`in the prosecution histories of the applications leading to the asserted patents or otherwise
`
`identified in connection with this action, including in Respondents’ Notice of Prior Art.
`
`To the extent that the following contentions reflect constructions of claim limitations
`
`consistent with or implicit in Neodron’s infringement allegations or proposed claim
`
`constructions, no inference is intended nor should any be drawn that Respondents agree with
`
`Neodron’s infringement allegations or claim constructions, and Respondents expressly reserve
`
`the right to contest such allegations and claim constructions. Respondents offer such contentions
`
`in response to Neodron’s infringement allegations and proposed claim constructions and without
`
`prejudice to any position that Respondents may ultimately take as to any claim construction
`
`issues. Specifically, Respondents base these invalidity contentions at least in part upon the claim
`
`scope and certain claim constructions that are implicitly or explicitly asserted by Neodron, and
`
`2
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 5 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`nothing herein should be construed or represented as evidencing any express or implied
`
`agreement with any of Neodron’s claim construction or infringement positions.
`
`Respondents intend to rely on admissions concerning the scope of the prior art relevant to
`
`the asserted patents found in, inter alia: the asserted patents and related patents and/or patent
`
`applications; the patent prosecution histories for the asserted patents and related patents and/or
`
`patent applications (including all prior art cited therein); any deposition testimony of the named
`
`inventors on the asserted patents and related patents and/or patent applications in this matter or
`
`any other matter; evidence and testimony relating to the level of skill in the art; and the papers
`
`filed and any evidence submitted by Neodron in connection with this matter.
`
`Respondents’ claim charts cite to particular teachings and disclosures of the prior art as
`
`applied to features of the asserted claims. However, persons having ordinary skill in the art
`
`generally may view an item of prior art in the context of other publications, literature, products,
`
`and understanding. As such, the cited portions are only examples, and Respondents reserve the
`
`right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications, expert
`
`testimony, and other evidence as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`
`providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim
`
`limitation or any of the asserted claims as a whole. Respondents further reserve the right to rely
`
`on uncited portions of the prior art references, other publications, and testimony, including expert
`
`testimony, to establish bases for combinations of certain cited references that render the asserted
`
`claims obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the asserted
`
`claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show the state of the art in
`
`the relevant timeframe. The suggested obviousness combinations are provided in addition to
`
`3
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 6 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`and/or in the alternative to Respondents’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to
`
`suggest that any reference included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`The following discussion and exhibits provide exemplary prior art citations and
`
`obviousness positions. The citations and discussion in the charts are organized by claim (and
`
`claim limitation) for convenience, but each limitation or claim section applies to the larger
`
`context of each claim, to any related dependent or independent claims, as well as all claims
`
`containing similar limitations or elements. For example, citations as to any recited limitation,
`
`step, or component in the claims apply wherever each such limitation, step, or component is
`
`repeated elsewhere in the claim or patent. Where Respondents cite to a particular drawing or
`
`figure in the attached claim charts, the citation encompasses the description of the drawing or
`
`figure, as well as any text associated with the drawing or figure. Similarly, where Respondents
`
`cite to particular text concerning a drawing or figure, the citation encompasses that drawing or
`
`figure as well. Relatedly, certain portions of patent or other prior art disclosures build upon other
`
`disclosures, even if they are referred to as a separate or alternative embodiment. Thus,
`
`Respondents’ citations to structures or functions incorporate by references all disclosures to
`
`related structures or functions, including any additional detail provided as to the operation or
`
`design of those structures or functions.
`
`Discovery of inventors is ongoing. Respondents reserve the right to assert that the
`
`asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event Respondents obtain additional
`
`evidence that the inventors of the asserted patents did not invent the subject matter claimed
`
`therein. Should Respondents obtain such evidence, they will provide the name of the person(s)
`
`from whom and the circumstances under which the alleged invention or any part of it was
`
`derived.
`
`4
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 7 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`Respondents also reserve their rights to challenge any of the claim terms herein under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 beyond the grounds outlined in their responses to interrogatories related to
`
`invalidity, including by arguing that they are indefinite, not supported by the written description,
`
`or not enabled. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a waiver of any argument available
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,432,173
`A.
`Relevant Prior Art
`
`Respondents contend that the prior art references identified in Respondents’ contentions
`
`anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims. Based on the information reasonably available
`
`to Respondents, the earliest effective filing date for the ’173 patent is October 8, 2007, the filing
`
`date of the ’566 application to which the ’173 patent claims priority. The earliest effective filing
`
`date for some claims is later, for example claims 4 and 13 to the extent they are valid, have an
`
`earliest effective filing date of May 27, 2011. Despite having the burden of proof, Complainant
`
`has offered no evidence of any priority date earlier than the first effective filing date set forth
`
`above. Below, Respondents list some of the prior art cited in these contentions:
`
`1.
`
`Patents and Printed Publications
`
`
`Bates Numbers
`Prior Art Reference
`European Patent Application EP 14203333 to Tamain RESP_0000198 - RESP_0000207
`JP 11-212725 to Yoshitaka
`RESP_0000261 - RESP_0000320
`Published U.S. App. 2003/0132922 to Philipp
`RESP_0000483 - RESP_0000494
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0207605 to Mackey
`RESP_0000602 - RESP_0000619
`Published U.S. App. 2005/0052429 to Philipp
`RESP_0000630 - RESP_0000651
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0001650 to Robbins
`RESP_0000695 - RESP_0000733
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0010400 to Dehlin
`RESP_0000734 - RESP_0000763
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0026521 to Hotelling
`RESP_0000785 - RESP_0000840
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0161870 to Hotelling
`RESP_0000910 - RESP_0000951
`Published U.S. App. 2007/0222764 to Wang
`RESP_0001012 - RESP_0001023
`Published U.S. App. 2007/0236475 to Wherry
`RESP_0001024 - RESP_0001051
`Published U.S. App. 2008/0288895 to Hollemans
`RESP_0001052 - RESP_0001057
`
`5
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 8 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Unpatentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101.
`
`All of the ’173 Asserted Claims are invalid as directed to the abstract idea of making a
`
`selection and then updating the selection based on displacement. None of the limitations recited in
`
`the independent or in the asserted dependent claims includes an inventive concept sufficient to
`
`make this abstract idea patentable.
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,791,910
`A.
`Relevant Prior Art
`
`Respondents contend that the prior art references identified in Respondents’ contentions
`
`anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims. Based on the information reasonably available
`
`to Respondents, the earliest effective filing date for the ’910 patent is May 18, 2007, the filing
`
`date of the ’430 application to which the ’910 patent claims priority. Despite having the burden
`
`of proof, Complainant has offered no evidence of any priority date earlier than the first effective
`
`filing date set forth above. Below, Respondents list the prior art cited in these contentions:
`
`1.
`
`Patents and Printed Publications
`
`Prior Art Reference
`European Patent Application EP 1 830 245 to Martin
`European Patent Application EP 1 482 397 to
`Toshihiko
`European Patent Application EP 1 830 245 to Marin
`
`Published U.S. App. 2003/0063073 to Geaghan
`Published U.S. App. 2003/0067451 to Tagg
`Published U.S. App. 2003/0080946 to Chuang
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0001048 to Kraus
`
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0021644 to Enomoto
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0056849 to Lohbihler
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0090431 to Kong
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0140913 to Engelmann
`Published U.S. App. 2005/0017957 to Yi
`Published U.S. App. 2005/0083313 to Hardie-Bick
`Published U.S. App. 2005/0140913 to Yokota
`
`Bates Numbers
`RESP_0000175 - RESP_0000197
`RESP_0000208 - RESP_0000214
`
`RESP_0000215 - RESP_0000237;
`RESP_0000238 - RESP_0000260
`RESP_0000405 - RESP_0000432
`RESP_0000433 - RESP_0000460
`RESP_0000461 - RESP_0000482
`RESP_0000495 - RESP_0000520;
`RESP_0003758 - RESP_0003783
`RESP_0000531 - RESP_0000552
`RESP_0000553 - RESP_0000564
`RESP_0000565 - RESP_0000580
`RESP_0000595 - RESP_0000601
`RESP_0000620 - RESP_0000629
`RESP_0000652 - RESP_0000684
`RESP_0000685 - RESP_0000694
`
`21
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 9 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0012580 to Perski
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0085757 to Andre
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0119582 to Ng
`Published U.S. App. 2007/0109279 to Sigona
`Published U.S. App. 2007/0109280 to Sigona
`Published U.S. App. 2007/0165005 to Lii
`U.S. Patent No. 5,424,730 to Sasaki
`U.S. Patent No. 5,844,506 to Binstead
`U.S. Patent No. 6,229,529 to Yano
`U.S. Patent No. 6,230,222 to Rush
`U.S. Patent No. 6,323,846 to Westerman
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,424 to Resman
`U.S. Patent No. 6,856,259 to Shart
`U.S. Patent No. 7,057,607 to Mayoraz
`U.S. Patent No. 7,254,775 to Geaghan
`U.S. Patent No. 7,289,043 to Takahashi
`U.S. Patent No. 7,508,324 to Suraqui
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,146 to Hotelling
`U.S. Patent No. 7,634,403 to Roth
`U.S. Patent No. 7,737,999 to Ardhanari
`U.S. Patent No. 7,902,840 to Zachut
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,485 to Tysowski
`U.S. Patent No. 8,570,292 to Longe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,164,618 to Perski
`U.S. Patent No. 9,766,738 to Verge
`WO 2007/084078 to Yu
`
`Ota; How do touch-screen monitors know where
`you're touching?; HowStuffWorks, June 2003
`RackMountMart, Touch Screen Technology; March
`2006
`FingerWorks Installation and Operation Guide for the
`TouchStream ST & TouchStream LP, FingerWorks
`Inc. (2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,365,461 to Stein
`U.S. Patent No. 6,831,631 to Chuang
`U.S. Patent No. 7,053,887 to Kraus
`Finger Works 2005 - TouchStream Products
`Jeanine; Advancements propel touchscreens to HMI
`forefrong; Control Engineering, July 2004
`JP 2666900
`JPH04-163612 to Tsujikawa with translation
`Lee; A Multi-Touch Three Dimensional Touch-
`Sensitive Tablet; CHI April 1985; pages 21-25
`Leganchuk; Manual and Cognitive Benefits of Two
`
`22
`
`RESP_0000764 - RESP_0000784
`RESP_0000841 - RESP_0000858
`RESP_0000859 - RESP_0000882
`RESP_0000974 - RESP_0000983
`RESP_0000984 - RESP_0000992
`RESP_0000993 - RESP_0001011
`RESP_0001252 - RESP_0001265
`RESP_0001380 - RESP_0001394
`RESP_0001427 - RESP_0001450
`RESP_0001451 - RESP_0001460
`RESP_0001475 - RESP_0001560
`RESP_0001561 - RESP_0001570
`RESP_0001618 - RESP_0001630
`RESP_0001643 - RESP_0001657
`RESP_0001683 - RESP_0001711
`RESP_0001755 - RESP_0001760
`RESP_0001946 - RESP_0001973
`RESP_0001974 - RESP_0001992
`RESP_0002001 - RESP_0002140
`RESP_0002174 - RESP_0002197
`RESP_0002229 - RESP_0002262
`RESP_0002423 - RESP_0002438
`RESP_0002658 - RESP_0002712
`RESP_0003057 - RESP_0003085
`RESP_0003305 - RESP_0003327
`RESP_0003328 - RESP_0003379;
`RESP_0003570 - RESP_0003621
`RESP_0003635 - RESP_0003640
`
`RESP_0003723 - RESP_0003725
`
`RESP_0003726 - RESP_0003739
`
`RESP_0003962 - RESP_0003970
`RESP_0004027 - RESP_0004040
`RESP_0004041 - RESP_0004063
`RESP_0005465 - RESP_0005467
`RESP_0005468 - RESP_0005471
`
`RESP_0005675 - RESP_0005680
`RESP_0005719 - RESP_0005750
`RESP_0005803 - RESP_0005807
`
`RESP_0005808 - RESP_0005841
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 10 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`Handed Input: An Experimental Study; ACM CHI
`1998; pages 326-359
`McDonald; Adapting Menu Layout to tasks;
`ManMachineStudies 1988; pages 417-435
`Quantum Research Group; QT160 – 2002; 6 Key
`Charge-Transfer QTouch Sensor IC
`Rhodes; Chord Keyboard IBM Technical Disclosure
`Bulletin; 1982; pages 3300-3302
`Merritt; Spin-off to pitch touchscreens for handhelds;
`EET 2002; page 35
`Published U.S. App. 2002/0025837 to Levy
`U.S. Patent No. 5,956,020 to D’Amico
`U.S. Patent No. 7,800,592 to Kerr
`Westerman; Hand tracking; Finger Identification, and
`Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-touch surface; 1999
`Zhai, Performance Optimization of Virtual
`Keyboards; Human-Computer Interaction, 2002;
`pages 89-129
`Dietz; DiamondTouch: A Multi-User Touch
`Technology; UIST 2001; pages 219-226
`Franks; Advanced warfighter machine interface;
`Proceeding of SPIE 5801; May 2005.
`Greeley, F22 cockpit avionics: a systems integration
`success story; Proceeding of SPIE 4022; August 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to Houston
`Kristensson; SHARK 2: A large Vocabulary
`Shorthand Writing System for Pen-based Computers;
`pages 43-52
`Mankoff; Interaction techniques for ambiguity
`resolution in recognition-based interfaces – UIST
`2000; pages 11-20
`Perlin; Quikwriting: Continuous- Stylus-based Text
`Entry; pages 215-216
`Quantum Research Group; QProx QT160 – 6 Key
`Charge-Transfer QTouch Sensor IC; July 2002
`Quantum Research Group; QProx QT60161 – 6 Key
`QMatrix Keypanel Sensor IC; QT60161 - February
`2002
`Tierney; Scalable interfaces for mounted and
`dismounted unmanned systems control; Proceeding of
`SPIE May 2006.
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0109252 to Kolmykov-
`Zotov
`U.S. Patent No. 4,291,303 to Cutler
`JP11-305941MT to Kiyoshi with translation
`JP2002-091671 to Yusaku with translation
`
`23
`
`RESP_0005949 - RESP_0005967
`
`RESP_0006883 - RESP_0006894
`
`RESP_0006927 - RESP_0006928
`
`RESP_0007336 - RESP_0007336
`
`RESP_0007337 - RESP_0007371
`RESP_0007553 - RESP_0007566
`RESP_0007683 - RESP_0007708
`RESP_0008104 - RESP_0008466
`
`RESP_0008519 - RESP_0008559
`
`RESP_0008585 - RESP_0008592
`
`RESP_0008605 - RESP_0008617
`
`RESP_0008618 - RESP_0008629
`
`RESP_0008630 - RESP_0008638
`RESP_0008670 - RESP_0008679
`
`RESP_0008680 - RESP_0008689
`
`RESP_0008693 - RESP_0008694
`
`RESP_0008741 - RESP_0008753
`
`RESP_0008754 - RESP_0008790
`
`RESP_0008825 - RESP_0008836
`
`RESP_0008925 - RESP_0008941
`
`RESP_0008942 - RESP_0008955
`RESP_0009616 - RESP_0009650
`RESP_0009651 - RESP_0009684
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 11 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`RESP_0009685 - RESP_0009697
`RESP_0009698 - RESP_0009736
`RESP_0009737 - RESP_0009768
`RESP_0009769 - RESP_0009776
`RESP_0009777 - RESP_0009805
`RESP_0011008 - RESP_0011044
`
`JP4-123737MT to Yashiro with translation
`JP4-163612MT to Norio with translation
`JP7-287631MT to Masataka with translation
`JP7-306752MT to Takao with translation
`JP9-146705MT to Yoichi with translation
`JP11-305941MT to Nagaharu with certified
`translation.
`JP2002-091671 to Todokoro with certified translation. RESP_0011045 - RESP_0011059
`JP 2666900 to Yanagi with certified translation.
`RESP_0011060 - RESP_0011072
`JP 2674898 to Yashuro with certified translation.
`RESP_0011073 - RESP_0011089
`JPH04-163612 to Tsujikawa with certified translation. RESP_0011090 - RESP_0011122
`JP7-306752MT to Murakami with certified
`RESP_0011123 - RESP_0011136
`translation.
`JP9-146705MT to Kawacuchi with certified
`translation.
`KR 2005 0094991 to Lee with certified translation.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to Houston
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0008129 to Philipp
`
`
`RESP_0011137 - RESP_0011171
`
`RESP_0011172 - RESP_0011216
`RESP_0009104 - RESP_0009112
`RESP_0000521 - RESP_0003758
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness
`
`Respondents attach Exhibits B-1 to B-13, which provide exemplary disclosures showing
`
`how the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the asserted claims of the ’910 patent. These
`
`charts identify primary references, and where applicable, exemplary obviousness contentions in
`
`view of specified secondary references and/or the knowledge of one ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Respondents identify all presently known secondary references and obviousness contentions in
`
`Exhibit B-1 to B-13, as well as Exhibit B-14. Respondents may rely on any of the primary
`
`references identified in Exhibits B-1 to B-13 in combination with any secondary reference
`
`identified in those exhibits or in Exhibit B-14.
`
`Respondents’ anticipation contentions are presented in the following exhibits, each of
`
`which describes anticipation of one or more claims of the ’910 patent by a primary reference:
`
`Exhibit
`B-1
`
`Primary Reference
`Published U.S. App. 2004/0140913 to Engelmann (“Engelmann”)
`
`24
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 12 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`B-2
`B-3
`B-4
`B-5
`B-6
`B-7
`B-8
`B-9
`B-10
`B-11
`B-12
`B-13
`
`
`
`Published U.S. App. 2003/0063073 to Geaghan (“Geaghan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to Houston (“Houston”)
`Published U.S. App. 2006/0109252 to Kolmykov-Zotov (“Kolmykov-Zotov”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,053,887 to Kraus (“Kraus”)
`JP7-306752MT to Murakami with certified translation (“Murakami”)
`JP11-305941MT to Nagaharu with certified translation (“Nagaharu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,424 to Resman (“Resman”)
`European Patent Application EP 1 482 397 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”)
`JP2002-091671 to Todokoro with certified translation (“Todokoro”)
`JPH04-163612 to Tsujikawa with certified translation (“Tsujikawa”)
`JP 2666900 to Yasuhiro with certified translation (“Yasuhiro ’900”)
`Published U.S. App. 2005/0017957 to Yi (“Yi”)
`
`Respondents’ obviousness contentions are also contained in Exhibits B-1 to B-13 and
`
`Exhibit B-14.
`
`The U.S. Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)
`
`emphasized that inventions arising from ordinary innovation, ordinary skill, or common sense
`
`should not be patentable. Id. at 1732, 1738, 1742-1743, 1746. A patent claim may be obvious if
`
`the combination of elements was obvious to try or if there existed at the time of the invention a
`
`known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.
`
`When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill
`
`can implement a predictable variation, Section 103 likely bars its patentability. Id. at 1740. The
`
`Court stated that courts should “look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
`
`25
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 13 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`
`the patent at issue.” Id. at 1740-41. KSR does not mandate evidence of a motivation or
`
`suggestion to combine prior art references. See TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 561,
`
`580-81 (E.D. Tex. 2007). “[A] court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” to resolve the question of obviousness. KSR,
`
`127 S. Ct. at 1741.
`
`Based on all of these considerations, and as further detailed in Exhibits B-1 to B-14,
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the prior art references
`
`discussed and charted in those Exhibits. The combinations of these references would have
`
`rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the asserted claims of the
`
`’910 patent. The references identified in Exhibits B-1 to B-14 are analogous prior art to the
`
`subject matter of the asserted claims and, for at least the reasons set forth below, are properly
`
`combinable. Because these prior art references exist within a single field of art, particularly one
`
`in which individuals in the field often shared and/or collaborated on their work, it would have
`
`been obvious for a person of skill in the art to look from one piece of prior art to another in order
`
`to find any missing functionality they desired to implement. Therefore, these references provide
`
`interrelated teachings and one of ordinary skill would look to the concepts in any of these
`
`references when seeking to solve the problems purportedly addressed by the ’910 patent.
`
`Numerous prior art references, including those identified in the attached exhibits, reflect
`
`common knowledge and the state of the prior art before the earliest claimed effective filing date
`
`of the ’910 patent. As it would be unduly burdensome to create detailed claim charts for all of
`
`the invalidating combinations, for at least the reasons described throughout these invalidity
`
`contentions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine any of a
`
`26
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 14 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`number of prior art references, including any combination of those identified in the attached
`
`exhibits to meet the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’910 patent. Respondents’ inclusion
`
`of exemplary combinations, in view of the factors and motivations identified here, does not
`
`preclude Respondents from identifying other invalidating combinations and/or motivations as
`
`appropriate.
`
`Further, several references reflect common knowledge and the state of the prior art before
`
`the earliest claimed effective filing date of the ’910 patent with regard to several features of the
`
`’910 patent’s alleged invention. For example, all of the primary and secondary references explain
`
`common knowledge and the state of the prior art with respect to touch-sensitive interfaces,
`
`including capacitive touch screens. See, e.g., Resman; Cutler; Rush. As another example,
`
`several references explain the common knowledge and state of the prior art with respect to
`
`distinguishing between intended and unintended touches and rejected unintended touches on a
`
`touch sensitive interface. See, e.g., Engelmann; Hotelling; Philipp. Several other references
`
`explain the common knowledge and state of the prior art regarding ranking and weighting
`
`schemes for assessing and distinguishing touch inputs and output signals. See, e.g., Suraqui;
`
`Yasuhiro ’900; Yasuhiro ’898; Cutler; Houston.
`
`No showing of a specific motivation to combine prior art is required to combine the
`
`references disclosed above and in the attached charts, because each combination of art would
`
`have no unexpected results, and at most would simply represent a known alternative to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40 (rejecting the Federal Circuit’s “rigid”
`
`application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine test, instead espousing an
`
`“expansive and flexible” approach). Indeed, the Supreme Court held that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person
`
`27
`
`Neodron Ltd.
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2020-00779
`Page 15 of 32
`
`

`

`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
`
`of a puzzle.” Id. at 1742. Nevertheless, in addition to the information contained herein,
`
`Respondents hereby identify additional motivations and reasons to combine the cited art.
`
`One or more combinations of the prior art references identified herein would have been
`
`obvious because these references would have been combined using: known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; known techniques in the same way; a simple substitution of one known,
`
`equivalent element for another to obtain