UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,425
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’425 PATENT ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION ............................................................. 1
`B.
`PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................................................................... 3
`C.
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................... 4
`D.
`NO ENTITLEMENT TO EARLIER PRIORITY ................................................................. 5
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104................................................................................................................................. 7
`A.
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ........................................ 7
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................. 8
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ........................................ 9
`C.
`IV. CLAIMS 1-40 OF THE ’425 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 11
`A.
`GROUND 1: JAHIER IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF A PHOSITA RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 5-10, 14-19, 24-25, 29-37, AND 39-40 ............................... 11
`GROUND 2: JAHIER IN VIEW OF QT60161 RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 5, 14,
`23, 26, 27-28, 30, 36 ............................................................................................. 43
`GROUND 3: JAHIER IN VIEW OF HOUSTON RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 4, 12,
`13 21, AND 22 ....................................................................................................... 52
`GROUND 4: JAHIER IN VIEW OF SENK RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 4, 12, 13,
`21, AND 22 ............................................................................................................ 58
`GROUND 5: JAHIER IN VIEW OF WEST RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3, 11, 20,
`AND 38 .................................................................................................................. 64
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 67
`V.
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ...................................... 68
`A.
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST .................................................................................... 68
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS .............................................................................................. 68
`C.
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ............................................................................. 68
`VII. FEE AUTHORIZATION .............................................................................................. 69
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) request an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-40
`
`(the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425 (“the ’425 Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’425 PATENT
`A. Description of the alleged invention
`The ’425 Patent relates to methods and devices for reducing keying ambiguity
`
`when a user’s finger slides from one key to the next, potentially overlapping multiple
`
`keys. ’425 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract; see also id. at 3:1-11; Fig. 1A (illustrating
`
`movement from A to B, overlapping keys 1 and 2):
`
`
`The ’425 Patent proposes “‘non-locking’ key ambiguity reduction” by which
`
`the system selects a user-intended key based on comparative signal strengths. Id.;
`
`1:16-20. Specifically, the system iteratively measures signal strengths associated
`
`with each key, compares them to find a maximum, and determines the key with the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`maximum signal strength is the user-intended key until either this key’s signal
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`strength drops below a threshold level or a second key’s signal strength exceeds the
`
`first key’s signal strength. Id. at 2:3-15; see also id. at 3:1-11 (referred to as “non-
`
`locking” because the user-intended key can switch from a first to a second key).
`
`This is illustrated in Figures 1B and 1C below:
`
`
`As a user’s finger slides from point A to point B, key 2’s signal strength exceeds
`
`previously active key 1 and becomes the newly active key. Id. at 5:11-33.
`
`The ’425 Patent notes that if this non-locking process is based solely on signal
`
`strength, there may be “dithering” (i.e., “undesirable rapid switching”) between
`
`competing keys “having more or less the same signal strengths.” Id. at 2:56-67. To
`
`avoid such instability, the ’425 Patent biases (or favors) the “winning key” in
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`subsequent iterations by, for example, requiring a second key to exceed the signal
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`strength of a first key by a small amount. Id. at 5:42-48.
`
`Further embodiments employ “counter logic” (e.g., a “detection integrator
`
`counter”) associated with each key to help remove ambiguities when comparing
`
`signal strengths from various keys, such as to suppress signal detections generated
`
`by noise. Id. at 7:13-18. This counter logic acts as a timer, incrementing when a
`
`key’s signal strength measures above a threshold and decrementing when it falls
`
`below. Id. at 2:16-41; see also id. at 7:13-48. A key is selected as the active key
`
`when the count associated with that key equals a terminal count value (“TC”)—a
`
`value determined to represent an active key. Id. at 7:49-67; see also id. at Figs. 5A
`
`and 5B.
`
`B.
`Prosecution history
`The Application resulting in the ’425 Patent was filed on April 12, 2006 as
`
`U.S. App. No. 11/279,402. ’425 Patent (Ex. 1001). The ’425 Patent application is
`
`a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/160,885, filed on July 14, 2005, now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,256,714, which claims priority to Provisional App. No. 60/597,851,
`
`filed on December 21, 2005. That application is a continuation of application No.
`
`10/617,602, filed on July 11, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,607, which claims
`
`priority to Provisional App. No. 60/395,368, filed on July 12, 2002. As discussed
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`below, because the ’425 Patent is not entitled to the July 12, 2002 priority date,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner applies December 21, 2005 as the priority date for the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Examiner issued a First Action Notice of Allowance on June 17, 2009,
`
`rendering all then-pending claims 1-24 allowable as originally drafted without
`
`substantive rejection. ’425 Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 66-72. Applicant filed
`
`a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”), citing additional prior art references.
`
`Id. at 84-86. A subsequent Notice of Allowance issued on October 23, 2009. Id. at
`
`229-234. Applicant filed another RCE on January 19, 2010, adding new claims
`
`25¬46 and citing the Notice of Allowance as support for these additional claims. Id.
`
`at 238-40 (noting allowable subject matter included a “...controller biases the
`
`determination based on the previously selected or determined key”).
`
`On April 13, 2010, Examiner issued a restriction requirement, explaining that
`
`claims 1-40 are drawn to “a device and method for key selection wherein the current
`
`selection is biased based on the prior selection” and that claims 41-46 are drawn to
`
`separate and distinct subject matter. Id. at 273-276. Applicant elected claims 1-40
`
`and the Examiner issued a final Notice of Allowance on July 7, 2010. Id. at 273-
`
`276, 291-296.
`
`C. Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time of the ’425
`
`Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶31-33.
`
`D. No entitlement to earlier priority
`The ’425 Patent is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) of a broken chain of patents
`
`claiming priority to Provisional Application No. 60/395,368, filed July 12, 2002.
`
`Ex. 1004. However, the ’425 Patent is not entitled to this 2002 priority date and
`
`should be accorded, at the earliest, the filing date of Provisional Patent No.
`
`60/597,851, filed December 21, 2005. Ex. 1005. That 2005 provisional filing
`
`includes the earliest disclosure of the claimed “non-locking” system that “biases”
`
`key selection in favor of a first active key—subject matter required by every claim
`
`of the ‘425 Patent.
`
`The break in the priority chain is illustrated below:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The ’425 Patent CIP application added new subject matter not found in the
`
`previous patents (’607 and ’714 Patents) in the chain. For example, the ’425 Patent
`
`explains the concept of “biasing” allows a second key to overtake a first key,
`
`distinguishing the earlier disclosed “locking” method that prevented such switching:
`
`An advantage of this method over those disclosed in my U.S. Pat.
`No. 6,993,607 is that the method disclosed herein permits the
`smooth rollover of key selection as a finger slides from one key
`to the next, while still reducing key ambiguity. In the
`aforementioned patent, the first key to win remains selected even
`if the maximal signal strength has shifted to a new key, provided
`that the first key has enough signal strength left to retain its state,
`i.e., by having its signal strength in excess of its associated
`threshold value. Therefore the instant invention may be referred
`to as ‘non-locking’ key ambiguity reduction.
`’425 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 3:1-11. The “smooth rollover of key selection” that
`
`characterizes the “non-locking” invention is achieved by biasing a currently active
`
`key such that a second key “wins” only if it beats the system’s preference for the
`
`current key. Id. at 5:36-41, 5:46-48. In contrast, the pre-2005 applications teach a
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`“locking” scheme in which the currently active key remains selected so long as its
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`signal remains above a threshold regardless the signal strength of any other key.
`
`Every independent claim of the ’425 Patent recites this non-locking scheme,
`
`where the active key determination is “biased” in favor of the first key. Id. at claims
`
`1, 7, 16, 25, 33. Indeed, in an ITC investigation involving related patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,024,790 (“the ’790 Patent”), which is a continuation of a continuation of the
`
`‘425 Patent, Patent Owner confirmed its biasing concept is a “non-locking” scheme.
`
`Updated Joint Proposed Claim Constructions (Ex. 1006), 11 (emphasis added)
`
`(proposing biasing means “biased or skewed in favor of, but not locked to”).
`
`Because the biased key selection, “non-locking” functionality, first appears in
`
`the December 21, 2005 application, this is the earliest priority date to which the
`
`claims of the ’425 Patent could be entitled.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’425 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped. Specifically, (1) Petitioner is not an owner of
`
`the ’425 Patent, (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the ’425 Patent, and (3) this Petition is filed less than one year after the
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’425 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-40 of the ’425 Patent
`
`are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1). Further, based
`
`on the prior art references identified below, IPR of claims 1-40 should be granted.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: U.S. Patent No. 5,525,980 to Jahier et al.
`
`Exhibits
`
`(“Jahier”) in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`renders obvious claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-19, 24-25, 29-37, and
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1003
`
`39-40
`
`Ground 2: Jahier in view of Quantum Research Group
`
`QT60161 16 Key QMatrix Keypanel Sensor IC Datasheet
`
`(“QT60161”) renders obvious claims 5, 14, 23, 26-28, 30,
`
`36
`
`Ground 3: Jahier in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to
`
`Houston (“Houston”) renders obvious claims 4; 12-13, and
`
`21-22.
`
`Ground 4: Jahier in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,760,715 to
`
`Senk (“Senk”) renders obvious claims 4; 12-13, and 21-22.
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1010
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground 5: Jahier in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,831,597 to
`
`West et al. (“West”) renders obvious claims 3, 11, 20, and
`
`38.
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1011
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`
`prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence
`
`relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5). Ex. 1001–Ex. 1019 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also 83
`
`Fed. Reg. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their plain
`
`meaning, which is the meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`view of the patent and file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13. Dictionaries
`
`or other extrinsic sources may assist in determining the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`but cannot override a meaning that is unambiguous from the intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`Petitioner does not believe express construction is required to resolve the
`
`proposed grounds. However, Patent Owner has previously agreed to constructions
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`for identical (or similar) claim language in related patents. To account for the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`possibility that Patent Owner may argue similar constructions apply here, Petitioner
`
`maps the prior art to these narrowing constructions below. In the event the terms’
`
`plain and ordinary meaning is instead applied, the proposed grounds also satisfy such
`
`a broader interpretation of the claim language.
`
`1.
`“Key”
`In a prior ITC investigation involving the ‘790 Patent, the parties agreed to
`
`adopt the following express definition from the specification for “key”: “a touchable
`
`portion of a mechanical to electrical transducing device that is nonbistable in nature.
`
`This term specifically excludes conventional mechanical switches in which two or
`
`more electrical conductors are moved into or away from contact with each other to
`
`make or break an electrical connection. A key can also be a dimensional sensing
`
`surface such as an XY touch screen or a ‘trackpad’.” ’425 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:33-
`
`43; Updated Joint Proposed Claim Constructions (Ex. 1006), 9.
`
`Each of the proposed grounds below relies upon Jahier for its teaching of a
`
`plurality of “keys.” Like the ‘425 Patent, Jahier’s “keys” are sensors within a
`
`capacitive tactile keyboard that converts mechanical touch to electrical signals.
`
`Compare Jahier (Ex. 1007), 1:10-20 with ’425 Patent (Ex. 1001), Abstract.
`
`Accordingly, Jahier’s capacitive sensors are “keys” pursuant to the construction
`
`Patent Owner agreed to in the prior ITC investigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`“Controller” Limitations
`In the prior ITC investigation, the parties also agreed that “control logic
`
`operatively coupled to the plurality of keys and configured to . . . “ perform certain
`
`functions “should be construed according to 35 U.S.C. 112(6)” (“112(6)”) with the
`
`recited functions accorded their plain and ordinary meaning and with a
`
`corresponding structure of a microprocessor or microcontroller programmed to
`
`execute the operations from the specification illustrated in Fig. 5a and its
`
`corresponding description or the operations illustrated in Figs. 5a and 5b and their
`
`corresponding descriptions. Updated Joint Proposed Claim Constructions (Ex.
`
`1006), 10. Similar limitations appear in ’425 Patent Claims 1, 25, and 33. Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003), ¶¶37-38 (chart comparing claim language).
`
`If Patent Owner argues the “controller” limitations of Claims 1, 25, and 33
`
`should be construed pursuant to 112(6), the construction noted above should apply.
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1-40 OF THE ’425 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Jahier in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA renders
`obvious claims 1-2, 5-10, 14-19, 24-25, 29-37, and 39-40
`Overview of Jahier
`
`Jahier issued on June 11, 1996 and is prior art to the ’425 Patent under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Jahier is directed to “a method and [apparatus] for operating a capacitive
`
`tactile keyboard.” Jahier (Ex. 1007), 1:8-10. Jahier’s keyboard includes a
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`“capacitance measuring device” for measuring the capacitance of multiple keys and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`a “pressure measuring device” for measuring the pressure from the touch of a user’s
`
`finger. Id. at 1:53-63. These devices operate conjunctively to sort “from among
`
`several keys that are likely to be preselected” and to “manage conflicts” when several
`
`keys are selected simultaneously. Id. at 1:19-22; 1:43-46.2:52-55, 4:51-54.
`
`Two controllers operate in a master/slave relationship in connection with
`
`decoding logic, where controller one (selection controller) controls the capacitive
`
`measuring device to determine a key’s “selection state” and controller two
`
`(validation controller) controls the pressure measuring device to determine the key’s
`
`“validation state.” Id. at 1:53-63; see also id. at Fig. 1:
`
`
`This key-selection process involves an initialization stage and a functional
`
`operation stage. Id. at 4:17-25. During the initialization stage when the keyboard is
`
`not in use, reference capacitance values for each key (VCR(i)) are measured along
`
`with a reference pressure value (VER). Id. at 4:26-37. The functional operation
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`stage initiates when an interruption is initiated by a clock (e.g., every 20
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`milliseconds), prompting commencement of a measurement cycle which acquires
`
`capacitance values (VCC(i)) for each key and the respective pressure values (VEC).
`
`Id. The change in capacitance (ECC(i)) is calculated, ECC(i),n=VCR(i),n-VCC(i),n,
`
`and is compared to a low threshold and a high threshold to determine which state the
`
`key is in. Id. at 2:39-46 (noting states include “no selection,” “begin selection,”
`
`“selection confirmed,” and “end selection”).
`
`The system begins in the “no selection” state and remains in this state
`
`(transition “1” loop) when all keys have ECC(i) below the low threshold:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Id. at Fig 3, 4:60-62. During measurement cycle n, if any key has a capacitive
`
`difference above the Low Threshold and there are not two keys both greater than the
`
`High Threshold, the system follows transition “a” to the “begin selection” state, and
`
`the “key displaying the greatest difference is then preselected as the selected key I.”
`
`Id. at 5:11-20. In this state, if the preselected key drops below the Low Threshold
`
`and no other key is above the High Threshold, the system follows transition “b” back
`
`to the “no selection” state. Id. at 5:39-58. Otherwise, key I remains the preselected
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`key and the system follows the transition “2” loop to remain in the “begin selection”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`state. Id. at 6:5-12.
`
`However, if the preselected key I remains below the High Threshold and a
`
`second key’s signal grows larger than the High Threshold, the second key becomes
`
`the new preselected key and the system remains in the “begin selection” state. Id. at
`
`6:13-28. In other words, the system prefers the preselected key, requiring a second
`
`key’s signal exceed both the first preselected key’s signal and the High Threshold to
`
`become the new preselected key. Therefore, the “preselected” key of Jahier is just
`
`like the “active” key of the ’425 Patent in that the system biases or implements a
`
`non-locking preference for it over all other keys. Indeed, Jahier’s preselection
`
`process accomplishes the same goals as the ’425 Patent’s biasing scheme in that a
`
`first preselected key can be displaced by another key with a higher signal value
`
`before either is output as the selected/intended key. This ensures that the user-
`
`intended key is the only key output by the system even if the user initially touches
`
`an unintended key before sliding to the intended key. See, e.g., ’425 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 5:11-12 (explaining that when a user’s finger slides from one key to the
`
`next “the desire is to select the one and only one key which is intended by the user”
`
`as the unique user-selected key); Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶44.
`
`The system then may follow transition “c” to the “selection confirmed” state.
`
`Jahier (Ex. 1007), 5:64-6:4. Moreover, the selection may be validated by the
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`validation controller to reach a validation confirmed state. See, e.g., Fig. 4; see also
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`id. at 6:52-7:35 (noting pressure above a threshold must persist for “p” cycles before
`
`transitioning to a “validation confirmed” state).
`
`Because Jahier, like the ‘425 Patent, discloses methods for controlling
`
`capacitive input devices, such as capacitive keyboards, Jahier is in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ‘425 Patent. Compare id. at 1:8-23; 1:33-49 with ’425 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001), 1:16-20, 2:3-15. Jahier is further directed at solving the same problem as the
`
`‘425 Patent—removing ambiguity for which key a user intended to select. Compare
`
`Jahier (Ex. 1007), 2:52-55, 4:51-54 with ’425 Patent (Ex. 1001), 3:1-11, 5:11-24.
`
`Jahier is therefore analogous art to the ’425 Patent. Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶39-48.
`
`Claim 1
`
`i.
`1[P] An apparatus for supplying a unique key output from an operating key board
`comprising a plurality of keys when a user is proximate two or more keys thereof,
`the apparatus comprising:
`Jahier discloses a “device for operating a capacitive tactile keyboard wherein
`
`the position of the operator’s finger on the keyboard and the pressure exerted by that
`
`finger are determined cyclically by capacitance measurements.” Jahier (Ex. 1007),
`
`1:33-37. Jahier explains that its capacitive tactile keyboard contains a plurality of
`
`keys, where a “capacitance value of each key on the keyboard is measured” to
`
`determine the position of a user’s finger on the tactile surface. Id. at 1:14-23; 1:39-
`
`42. Jahier recognizes a user’s finger may contact multiple keys at once and discloses
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`means to “manage conflicts (several keys selected simultaneously),” including “a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`process wherein the position of the operator’s finger on the keyboard and the
`
`pressure exerted by that finger are determined cyclically by measuring capacitance
`
`and pressure.” Id. at 1:8-13; see also id. at 2:39-3:3, 5:10-6:23, 7:6-24, Figs. 1, 3, 4.
`
`1[a] a respective sensor uniquely associated with each of the two or more keys,
`each of the sensors connected to supply a respective output signal representative
`of the user’s coupling thereto to a controller;
`Jahier discloses that its tactile keyboard is composed of a “capacitive tactile
`
`surface positioned in front of a display,” such that the position of a user’s finger on
`
`the tactile surface is determined by capacitance measurements associated with each
`
`key on a capacitive keyboard. Id. at 1:14-23; 1:39-40. Jahier’s capacitive tactile
`
`keyboard includes a “capacitance measuring device” for measuring the capacitance
`
`of multiple keys. Id. at 1:53-58. A PHOSITA would have understood that Jahier’s
`
`capacitance measuring device employs sensors uniquely associated with each key to
`
`measure the respective capacitance values of each keys. Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶49-51
`
`(explaining that capacitive touch sensors were well-known in the art).
`
`Jahier further discloses that each key’s respective sensor values measured by
`
`the capacitance measuring device are output to a first selection controller:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Jahier (Ex. 1007) at Fig. 1 (annotated). Selection controller receives the output
`
`capacitance signal, VCC(i),n, which represents the capacitance detected at each key
`
`“i” on the capacitive keyboard during each cycle “n.” Id. at 1:53-58; see also id. at
`
`3:65-67 (“At each cycle n, the selection controller 2 receives a[s] its input the values
`
`VCC(i), n, that is, the capacitance of keys i measured during the cycle n”).
`
`1[b] the controller operable to iteratively compare all of the two or more output
`signals supplied thereto to respective threshold values and to each other,
`Jahier’s key selection process involves an initialization stage and a functional
`
`operation stage. Id. at 4:17-25; see also id. at Fig. 2. During the initialization stage,
`
`reference capacitance values for each key VCR(i) are measured when the keyboard
`
`is not in use. Id. at 4:26-58. During the functional operation stage, capacitance
`
`values are iteratively measured during each cycle, n, (e.g., every 20 milliseconds)
`
`and are subtracted from the reference values to arrive at a capacitive difference value
`
`ECC(i),n for each key. Id. This value is compared to a low threshold and a high
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`threshold to determine if any key is preselected (id. at 2:39-46) and the “key
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`displaying the greatest difference is then preselected.” Id. at 5:11-20.
`
`1[c] to initially select as the key for supplying the unique key output that one of
`the two or more keys having a maximum value of all the signal outputs that exceed
`their respective thresholds,
`Jahier’s selection controller compares the capacitive difference value
`
`ECC(i),n for each key to a low threshold and a high threshold and preselects the “key
`
`displaying the greatest difference.” Id. at 5:11-20. This initial key selection is
`
`illustrated in the state diagram in Figure 3 below:
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3. The system begins in the “no selection” state and if all keys have
`
`ECC(i) below the low threshold, the system follows the transition “1” loop and
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`
`remains in the “no selection” state (all keys are idle). Id. at 4:60-62. During
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`measurement cycle n, if there are keys with a capacitive difference above at least the
`
`low threshold and there are not two keys both greater than the High Threshold, the
`
`system follows transition “a” to the “begin selection” state, and the “key displaying
`
`the greatest difference is then preselected as the selected key I.” Id. at 5:11-20.
`
`1[d] and, on subsequent iterations, to bias the iterated comparison in favor of the
`previously selected key.
`During subsequent iterative cycle measurements, a second key may displace
`
`preselected key I only if its capacitance difference value ECC(i) exceeds both
`
`preselected key I’s ECC(i) and the High Threshold. Id. at 6:13-28. The amount by
`
`which the High Threshold exceeds preselected key I’s ECC(i) is thus a bias.
`
`For example in the “begin selection” state, if the preselected key drops below
`
`the Low Threshold and no other key is above the High Threshold, the system follows
`
`transition “b” back to the “no selection” state, and the preselected key returns to the
`
`idle state. Id. at 5:39-58. Otherwise, key I remains the preselected key and the
`
`system follows the transition “2” loop to remain in the “begin selection” state. Id.
`
`at 6:5-12; see also id. at Fig. 3. If during transition 2 a conflict occurs (e.g., a finger
`
`is detected on a key other than the preselected key), the second key can displace
`
`preselected key I only if the second key’s signal exceeds both the preselected key’s
`
`signal and the High Threshold:
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶52-55; see also Jahier (Ex. 1007) at 6:13-28. As illustrated
`
`above, preselected key I has a ECC(i) signal above the Low Threshold (green) but
`
`below the High Threshold (red). Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶¶54-55. If a second key’s
`
`ECC(i) signal exceeds the preselected key I by what is labeled a “bias amount” (blue)
`
`and the High Threshold, the second key then becomes the new preselected key. Id.
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood that because the capacitance signal for the
`
`second key must exceed both the preselected key and the High Threshold level, the
`
`comparison is biased in favor of the preselected key. Id.
`
`“Controller” 112(6) construction
`
`As discussed above in Section III.C.2, if Patent Owner argues the “controller”
`
`limitation of Claim 1 should be construed pursuant to 112(6), the recited function
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`
`should be ascribed its plain and ordinary meaning and the following corresponding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`structure should apply: “microprocessor or microcontroller 18 programmed to
`
`execute the logical operations of: (i) Figure 5A as described at [’425 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001), 7:19-8:17 and 8:32-8:44], or (ii) Figures 5A and 5B, as described at [Id. at
`
`7:19-8:44], and equivalents thereof.” Even under this 112(6) interpretation, Jahier
`
`satisfies the “controller” limitation.
`
`With respect to the microprocessor/microcontroller, a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that the operation of Jahier discussed above with respect to limitations
`
`[1(b)-1(d)] are performed by the “computer” illustrated in Fig. 1, which includes “a
`
`selection controller 2 associated with the tactile surface, a validation controller 3
`
`associated with the pressure measuring device, and a logic decoding unit 4.” Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003), ¶¶49-51; 62-63; see also Claim 6, infra. A PHOSITA would further
`
`have considered these controller components microcontrollers consistent with the
`
`corresponding structure of this limitation. Id.
`
`Turning to the programming aspects, Jahier’s functionality discussed above
`
`with respect to limitations [1(b)-1(d)] is also equivalent to Figure 5A as described at
`
`7:19-8:17 and 8:32-8:44 of the ’425 Patent. Namely, Fig. 5A and the associated
`
`description teach a process by which a first key (K1) is measured (step 24), is above
`
`a threshold (step 26), and is determined to have the highest output signal of all
`
`measured keys (step 29). At step 30, the algorithm determines whether the output
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`

`
`of the first key (K1) is higher than the pre