THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Cameron R. Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CAPACITIVE
`TOUCH-CONTROLLED
`MOBILE DEVICES, COMPUTER
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1193
`
`COMPLAINANT NEODRON LTD.’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0001
`
`

`

`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 5
`I.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES .................................................... 6
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................. 7
`IV. PATENTS WITH AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS AND NO
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ................................................................... 8
`A.
`The ’425 Patent .................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Background of the ’425 Patent .................................................. 8
`2.
`Stipulated Constructions for the ’425 Patent ........................... 10
`The ’092 Patent .................................................................................. 11
`1.
`Background of the ’092 Patent ................................................ 11
`2.
`Stipulated Constructions for the ’092 Patent ........................... 13
`PATENTS WITH DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ................................... 13
`A.
`The ’251 Patent .................................................................................. 13
`1.
`Background of the ’251 Patent ................................................ 13
`2.
`“deactivation of measurement of changes in
`capacitance” ............................................................................. 15
`a)
`This Term Needs No Further Construction, As a
`Layperson, Let Alone a POSITA, Would Not Need to
`Redefine “Deactivation” ................................................ 16
`Respondents’ Redefining Construction Is Not
`Required By the Term’s Plain Meaning or the
`Intrinsic Record; Indeed, It Imports Words Not Found
`Anywhere in the Record ................................................. 18
`Respondents’ Construction Also Creates Tension With
`The Intrinsic Record or, At the Very Least, It Creates
`More Questions Than it Resolves .................................. 19
`The ’472 Patent .................................................................................. 22
`1.
`Background of the ’472 Patent ................................................ 22
`2.
`“the controller [configured/operable] to: …” .......................... 25
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
` 2
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0002
`
`

`

`a)
`
`Even Method Claims “Are Not Ordinarily Construed
`to Require” Any Unrecited Order—and There is No
`Authority to Require Such Order in System Claims,
`Which Are the Only Claims in Dispute On This Term
`Here ............................................................................... 26
`b) Where the Patentee Wanted to Recite An Order to The
`Functions Recited in the Claims, He Did—Which
`Only Further Exposes The Error In Respondents’
`Construction ................................................................... 28
`Respondents’ Construction Also Excludes a Preferred
`Embodiment ................................................................... 29
`“after adjusting the stored threshold value…” ......................... 30
`
`c)
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0003
`
`

`

`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Certain Touch-Controlled Mobile Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv.
` No. 337-TA- 1162, Order No. 15 at 8 (Nov. 25, 2019 ...................................................... 8
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co.
`257 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 30
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................... 6, 16
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserv, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 27
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............... 5, 7, 21
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................... 6, 16, 32
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................. passim
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 5, 20
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................... 6, 28
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................................................. passim
`
` 4
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0004
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Neodron and Respondents offer not just competing claim-construction
`
`proposals, but very different approaches to claim construction. The Federal Circuit
`
`has set forth straightforward rules to guide claim construction. For example, where
`
`claim terms have a plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`technical art, there is a heavy presumption that meaning applies. In each case,
`
`Neodron’s claim term proposals stay faithful to that plain meaning and narrow from
`
`that plain meaning on when necessary under controlling Federal Circuit law or when
`
`helpful to narrow the disputes for this ALJ.
`
`Respondents’ proposals, on the other hand, ask this ALJ to recharacterize and
`
`burden clear terms with artificial and extraneous baggage, but cannot point to any
`
`clear or unmistakable disclaimer or lexicography to do so. This invites reversible
`
`error. E.g., JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). Indeed, many of their proposals are inconsistent with—and even exclude—
`
`embodiments taught in the specification. Such constructions are “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285-86 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). For other proposals, Defendants’ proposed constructions are inconsistent
`
`with the claim language itself. These are also improper under controlling law—and
`
`do nothing to help any fact-finder, but rather only make that job more difficult.
`
`Respondents’ legally flawed and results-oriented proposals should be rejected.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0005
`
`

`

`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`The “claim construction inquiry ... begins and ends in all cases with the actual
`
`words of the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Indeed, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
`
`meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Thus, when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not
`
`(and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s
`
`asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). That is because claim construction is “not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.” United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the
`
`court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entertainment Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e do not
`
`redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`To the contrary, there is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their
`
`“full ordinary and customary meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the
`
`patentee expressly relinquished claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321,
`
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because that plain meaning “is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time of the invention,” construing
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0006
`
`

`

`claims often “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their “full
`
`ordinary and customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`
`Without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or lexicography by the patentee, courts
`
`“do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing
`
`only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very
`
`specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment.”
`
`See. JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Similarly, statements during patent prosecution do not limit the claims unless the
`
`statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.” Omega
`
`Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`All parties have agreed that the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in this investigation. They agree it should be the same as ALJ Elliot’s definition
`
`set forth in Order No. 15 in Inv. No. 337-TA-1162, which is:
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design,
`development, and/or testing of touch sensors, human- machine interaction
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0007
`
`

`

`and interfaces, and/or graphical user interfaces, and related firmware and
`software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for
`experience and vice versa.
`Certain Touch-Controlled Mobile Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA- 1162, Order No. 15 at 8 (Nov. 25, 2019).
`
`IV. PATENTS WITH AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS AND NO DISPUTED
`
`CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A. The ’425 Patent
`1.
`Background of the ’425 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425 (“the ’425 Patent”) is titled “Capacitive keyboard
`
`with non-locking reduced keying ambiguity.” It describes techniques for processing
`
`information from touch-sensitive keyboards in order to identify which key a user
`
`intended to select.
`
`Historically, keyboards have been constructed of mechanical switches that a
`
`user depresses to select a key. A proficient typist using such a keyboard will naturally
`
`depress only one key at a time, which will cause the switch associated with that key
`
`to close, unambiguously signaling which key was selected. But the advent of touch-
`
`sensitive keyboards, and especially touchscreen keyboards, introduced problems of
`
`ambiguous key detection. For example, touch sensing technology allowed product
`
`designers to build small keyboards, with small keys that can be difficult to select
`
`accurately. For example, a user’s finger may touch multiple keys at once, creating
`
`an ambiguity among two or more keys as to which is the intended key. See JX-1
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0008
`
`

`

`(’425 Patent) at 1:38-42 (“In a small keyboard, for example, a user’s finger is likely
`
`to overlap from a desired key to onto adjacent ones. This is especially problematic
`
`if the user has large fingers or if [] she presses on the keyboard surface hard enough
`
`to deform his or her finger.”).
`
`The ’425 patent illustrates an example of keying ambiguity resulting from
`
`inaccurate or overlapping touches. For example, Figures 1B and 1C depict two
`
`situations where a user’s touch overlaps multiple keys:
`
`
`In Figure 1B, the user’s touch is at position A, which is close to key 1. In
`
`Figure 1C, the user’s touch is at position B, which is still near key 1 but is closer to
`
`key 2. The patent teaches that each of these situations may be interpreted as a certain
`
`pattern of signal strengths for the various keys, depicted at the bottom of Figures 1B
`
`and 1C. In Figure 1B, the signal strength for key 1 is much higher than key 2; in
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0009
`
`

`

`Figure 1C, the signal strength for key 2 is higher than key 1, but to a much smaller
`
`degree. JX-1 (’425 Patent) at 5:4-41.
`
`The inventor recognized that “[i]f the key selection method operates solely by
`
`picking a maximum signal strength, the keyboard may be subject to an undesirable
`
`rapid switching back and forth between two keys having nearly-identical signal
`
`strengths (e.g., fingerprint areas). JX-1 (’425 Patent) at 5:42-49. This sort of ‘chatter’
`
`is preferably prevented by biasing or skewing the key selection method as a function
`
`of an already selected key. JX-1 (’425 Patent) at 5:34-50; 6:40-60. An embodiment
`
`of the “biasing” method taught by the patent might determine that key 1 is the
`
`selected key, and subsequently bias the selection method as a function of key 1. Id;
`
`6:61-8:50. Moreover, the kind of “biasing” is a “non-locking” kind, which provides
`
`another advantage, it “permits the smooth rollover of key selection as a finger slides
`
`from one key to the next, while still reducing key ambiguity. E.g., id., at 3:1-11
`
`2.
`Claim Term
`“key”
`
`Stipulated Constructions for the ’425 Patent
`
`Stipulated Construction
`AGREED: “touchable portion of a mechanical to
`electrical transducing device that is non-bistable 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’,
`or a sensing zone not intended for normal human
`data entry such as an object or body part sensor.”
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0010
`
`

`

`Claim Term
`“sensor values”
`“bias a determination of
`[a selected/an active] key
`as a function of a
`[previously selected
`key/current active] key”
`
`Stipulated Construction
`AGREED: “sensor signal values”
`AGREED: “bias or skew a determination of [a
`selected/an active] key as a function of, but not
`locked to, a [previously selected key/current active
`key]”
`
`B.
`
`The ’092 Patent
`1.
`Background of the ’092 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,092 (“the ’092 patent”) also relates to capacitive
`
`
`
`touchsensors. The patent tackles additional problems at the time of the invention
`
`pertaining to electronic devices registering unintended touch outputs. To help solve
`
`this problem, the inventor introduced advanced techniques for processing and
`
`prioritizing multiple touch input signals to achieve the intended touch operation and
`
`“to assist in preventing accidental false inputs.” JX-2 (’092 Patent) at 1:22-27.
`
`Using a capacitive keyboard as an exemplary embodiment, the ’092 patent
`
`explains that “[b]y taking into account the positions of sensing areas within the
`
`sensing region as well as their associated output signals, the controller is able to
`
`more reliably determine which of a plurality of sensing areas (keys) in a sensing
`
`region (keypad/keyboard) in simultaneous detection is intended by a user for
`
`selection.” JX-2 (’092 Patent) at 3:15-20. The examples in Figures 8 and 9 illustrate
`
`this:
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0011
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at Figs. 8 and 9. In Figure 8, a user is attempting to select the sensing area
`
`corresponding to key 12, annotated in blue above, but keys 14, 16, and 18, annotated
`
`in red, are also activated. See id. at 10:6-28. Figure 9 illustrates an exemplary
`
`predefined priority ranking scheme that gives a higher priority to keys in the higher
`
`row, taking into account that a user will often activate keys below the intended top
`
`row key due to the shape of a human finger and the angle by which it typically
`
`contacts the sensing region. See id. at 10:64-11:7; see also id. at 10:13-21. Using
`
`the ranking scheme, key 12 is assigned the greatest signal, even though its original
`
`signal is not the highest of the four keys. The claims of the ’092 patent are directed
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0012
`
`

`

`to methods, storage media, and apparatuses for prioritizing touch input signals based
`
`on such predefined ranking schemes.
`
`Stipulated Constructions for the ’092 Patent
`
`2.
`Claim Term
`“touch”
`
`“activation output signal
`level”
`
`Stipulated Construction
`AGREED: “human or mechanical contact or
`proximity to a key”
`AGREED: “output signal level associated with the
`sensing area above which that sensing area can be
`selected”
`
`
`V.
`
`PATENTS WITH DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A. The ’251 Patent
`1.
`Background of the ’251 Patent
`U.S. Patent 8,749,251 (“the ’251 patent”) generally relates to managing power
`
`consumption and other related functions of capacitive sensors that detect a user’s
`
`touch or close proximity based on changes in capacitance generated by a finger or
`
`other objects (e.g., a stylus). ’251 Patent 1:37-41, 4:7-8, 4:24-34.
`
`As the inventors recognized, “[m]any capacitive touch controls …provide
`
`audio or visual feedback to a user indicating whether a finger or other pointing object
`
`is present or approaches such touch controls. A capacitive sensing microprocessor
`
`may typically be comprised in touch-controlled devices which are arranged to
`
`provide an “on” output signal when a finger is adjacent to a sensor and an “off”
`
`output signal when a finger is not adjacent to a sensor. Id. at 1:29-32. The signals
`
`are sent to a device controller to implement a required function dependent on
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0013
`
`

`

`whether a user's finger is in proximity with or touching an associated touch control.”
`
`Id. at 1:33-36.
`
`But this had undesirable shortcomings. “Some touch-controlled devices
`
`remain “on” or “active” despite the user having moved away from the device or a
`
`particular function no longer being required. This results in the device consuming a
`
`large amount of power which is not efficient.” Id. at 1:37-41.
`
`The inventors thus conceived inventions and a prototype that included a
`
`control circuit can implement power saving procedures “where an apparatus has
`
`inadvertently been left on or with the erroneous perception that a user is still
`
`present.” Id. at 4:55-58. Figure 1 illustrates one exemplary teaching of a “sense
`
`electrode” connected to a programmable controller:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0014
`
`

`

`Id. at Fig. 1. In the exemplary embodiment of Figure 1, the sense electrode, annotated
`
`in blue here, is connected to a controller, annotated in red. The presence of a nearby
`
`object, such as a user’s finger, causes a change in the measured capacitance of the
`
`sense electrode. Id. at 4:29-34. The controller is configured to provide an output
`
`signal responsive to that change of capacitance. Id. at 4:34-39. In this exemplary
`
`embodiment, the controller uses a sense capacitor Cs in order to measure the change
`
`of capacitance. Id. at 6:6-11, 6:42-49. This exemplary controller also implements an
`
`“auto-off delay” function with “delays ranging from minutes to hours,” where
`
`elapsed time after a touch activates the device’s low-power function, enabling an
`
`improvement in power saving. Id. at 12:33-35; see also id. at 11:36-31. The claims
`
`of the ’251 patent are directed to methods, storage media, and apparatuses for
`
`initiating a particular function after an amount of time has elapsed since the touch
`
`sensor last determined a change of capacitance associated with a touch.
`
`2.
`
`“deactivation of measurement of changes in
`capacitance”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“deactivation of
`measurement of changes
`in capacitance”
`
`(dependent system
`claims 2 and 17_)
`
`Neodron and Staff’s
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning: “deactivation
`of measurement of
`changes in capacitance”
`
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`“stopping all current
`and scheduled
`measurements of
`changes in capacitance”
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0015
`
`

`

`a)
`
`This Term Needs No Further Construction, As
`a Layperson, Let Alone a POSITA, Would Not
`Need to Redefine “Deactivation”
`Hornbook Federal Circuit law makes clear that, when conducting a claim
`
`construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and should not be) required to construe
`
`every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Instead, there is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary and customary meaning” to
`
`a POSITA “unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly
`
`relinquished claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). And because that plain meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to
`
`a [POSITA] in question at the time of the invention,” construing claims often
`
`“involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`
`There is no legally sufficient reason to import Respondents’ distortion. To the
`
`contrary, in these situations, the Federal Circuit has made clear that courts should
`
`“not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.” See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-
`
`67 (emphasis added).
`
`Here, the key term that appears to be in dispute is the word “deactivation” as
`
`used in “deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance.” The meaning of
`
`this word and its usage in the claims should be straightforward even for lay persons,
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0016
`
`

`

`let alone for a POSITA. The parties agree a POSITA in this case would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering …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.” That person would not need the term to be redefined.
`
`Although it likely goes without saying, but with the prefix “de,” the term
`
`“deactivate” logically means to remove from being active. This logically means to
`
`render not active or “inactive.” E.g. Ex. A.
`
`The patent describes several embodiments in precisely this manner, consistent
`
`with this plain meaning. And each describes temporarily rendering inactive the
`
`measurement of changes in capacitance. For example, in describing the various
`
`power-saving functionality of the “QT102 preferred embodiment,” the patent makes
`
`clear that “[i]n the following text, ‘on’ in when the output is in its active state.” JX-
`
`3 (’251 Patent) at 9:33-10:3. In the illustrative embodiments, the output signal is the
`
`signal that initiates particular functions and modes. E.g., id. at 1:45-3:7. After
`
`describing a “fast mode,” it then refers to “low power mode,” which is described as
`
`a power-saving procedure in which that output is “off” or, inactive. Id. In this mode,
`
`the measurement of changes in capacitance is forced to “sleep,” for periods of 85ms
`
`in one illustrative embodiment. During this sleep function in the lower-power mode,
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0017
`
`

`

`the measurement circuit is prevented from measuring changes in capacitance. Id.
`
`Later, “[o]n detecting a possible touch,” it can change to “fast mode.” Id.
`
`In another embodiment, the measurement circuit as a whole can become
`
`temporarily deactivate or inactive, for a longer period of time in one illustrative
`
`embodiment. JX-3 (’251 Patent) at 4:55-5:20. In other descriptions, beyond mere
`
`“deactivation of measurement of changes,” the patent also teaches “turn[ing] off”
`
`or ”power[ing] down” the entire measurement circuit or the entire end-user
`
`apparatus as a whole. Id.
`
`Accordingly, this is a textbook example in which no further construction is
`
`necessary, because the exercise of interpreting the claim term “involves little more
`
`than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
`
`words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14. And in any event, as we demonstrate below,
`
`the term certainly should not be re-construed as Respondents seek to.
`
`b) Respondents’ Redefining Construction Is Not
`Required By the Term’s Plain Meaning or the
`Intrinsic Record; Indeed, It Imports Words Not
`Found Anywhere in the Record
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their
`
`“full ordinary and customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition
`
`and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope
`
`of a claim term[.]” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0018
`
`

`

`Respondents cannot meet either exception. They would like this Court to
`
`construe the straightforward word “deactivate” with six words of their choosing:
`
`“stopping all current and scheduled.” But they cannot provide sufficient support
`
`in the intrinsic record to do so. And without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or
`
`lexicography by the patentee in the intrinsic record, courts “do not import limitations
`
`into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written
`
`description.” JVW Enters., 424 F.3d at 1335. This is true “even when a specification
`
`describes very specific embodiments [] or even describes only a single
`
`embodiment.” Id.
`
`Notably, Respondents’ proposal strays even further from the law than just
`
`improperly importing words from an embodiments in the specification. Far from
`
`having support in the intrinsic record, Respondents’ proposed phrase is not found in
`
`the intrinsic record at all. Indeed. A POSITA also would not even find the words
`
`“stop” or “stopping” or “current measurement” or “scheduled” or “scheduled
`
`measurement.” Their construction should be rejected.
`
`c)
`
`Respondents’ Construction Also Creates
`Tension With The Intrinsic Record or, At the
`Very Least, It Creates More Questions Than it
`Resolves
`During a meet and confer regarding this dispute, when asked to explain what
`
`the meaning of their importation is, Respondents made clear that their importation
`
`would exclude the embodiments described in Figures 4 and 5. Specifically, they
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0019
`
`

`

`stated that “deactivate” must exclude the entire lower-power mode described in
`
`Figures 4 and 5 below:
`
`
`
`Respondents’ constructions runs afoul of controlling law here as well.
`
`Excluding embodiments is not a goal of claim construction—and according to the
`
`Federal Circuit, constructions that exclude embodiments are “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285-86 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). In this case, there can be no reasonable debate that when the “sleep” function
`
`is triggered, the capacitance measurement circuit is prevented from measuring
`
`capacitance. Indeed, in the example illustrated in Figure 5, the sleep function’s
`
`deactivation period is nearly 33 times longer than the time in which the
`
`measurements happen to not occur where there is no sleep function or other function
`
`that is similarly preventing such measurements from taking place. JX-3 (’251 Patent)
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0020
`
`

`

`at 9:33-10:3. Indeed, any layperson, let alone a POSITA, would understand that
`
`“sleep” functions would mean the system has deactivated measurement of changes
`
`in capacitance. Even dictionary definitions state so. (sleep mode functionality is “an
`
`energy-saving mode” in which certain components or programs are “rendered
`
`inactive after a period of disuse.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Respondents’ stated justification for going this far is that another part of the
`
`specification uses the term “deactivate” in the following sentence: “deactivate, turn
`
`off, or power down.” JX-3 (’251 Patent) at 4:55-5:20. Respondents apparently
`
`believe
`
`that a claim
`
`term’s meaning—even one as straightforward as
`
`“deactivation”—can only ever come from the precise sentence or passage in which
`
`that word is used. That fails.
`
`There is no legal support for Respondents’ position. In fact, the opposite is
`
`true. That is, unless there is clear and unmistakable disclaimer or lexicography, a
`
`claim term’s meaning cannot be limited to the embodiments describing it, even if
`
`were only one embodiment. See, e.g., JVW Enters, 424 F.3d at 1335 (holding that it
`
`is reversible error to “import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes
`
`very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single
`
`embodiment.”). Here, the single sentence describing an “auto-off” signal as also
`
`being capable of performing “deactivate, turn off, or power down” functions does
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0021
`
`

`

`not get close to express disclaimer or lexicography. And it certainly does not get
`
`close to Respondents’ importation of words that do not even seem to comport with
`
`limiting the claim to “auto-off” signals anyway.
`
`The truth is that, even if we were to ignore all these legal and factual errors,
`
`at best, Respondents’ constructions still would raise more questions than it answers.
`
`What do they mean by “stop”? Do they mean “deactivate”? If so, then why does the
`
`term need to be limited to “stopping all current measurements”? And why should it
`
`be further limited to stopping all scheduled measurements, too? And last but not
`
`least, does stopping all scheduled measurements mean that we permanently stop
`
`measurements or just temporarily stop them? Respondents’ construction fails, on
`
`several levels. It should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`The ’472 Patent
`1.
`Background of the ’472 Patent
`U.S. Patent. No. 9,411,472 (“the ’472 Patent”) generally relates to capacitive
`
`touch-sensing technologies “utilized by a device such as a tablet computer, []
`
`smartphone [or] other device to detect the presence and location of a touch or the
`
`proximity of an object (such as a user’s finger or a stylus) to the device.” ’472 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001), 1:6, 1:60-64. As shown in the illustrative figure below, when an object
`
`38 (e.g., the user’s finger) touches or comes in proximity to the sensor, a change in
`
`capacitance occurs, which “is sensed by sense electrodes 34 and measured by
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0022
`
`

`

`controller 12.” Id. at 5:49-53. The controller 12 determines the position of the touch
`
`“[b]y measuring changes in capacitance throughout an array of sense electrodes 34.”
`
`Id. at 5:53-57.
`
`
`As the inventors recognized, conventional “touch sensors are configured with
`
`
`
`a single touch detection threshold that is used to determine whether an object is
`
`touching the touch sensor.” Id. at 2:17-19. The threshold is “usually pre-programmed
`
`to a fixed value that is a balance between not being too high and therefore not
`
`detecting touches in the floating scenario, and not being too low and therefore
`
`detecting false touches by picking up noise in the grounded scenario,” but striking
`
`the right balance “can be very difficult and often results in touch sensors not
`
`accurately detecting touches in all grounding scenarios.” Id. at 2:19-27.
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1011, 0023
`
`

`

`The inventors recognized devices having such capacitive touch sensors may
`
`be utilized, for example, “in a ‘grounded’ environment (e.g., an environment where
`
`the device has a good path to ground)” or “in a ‘floating’ environment (e.g., an
`
`environment where the device is not grounded at all or only has a weak path to
`
`ground).” ’472 Patent, 1:64-2:12. As one example, if an unplugged “device 20 [is]
`
`lying on a surface such as a table while a user is interacting with touchscreen display
`
`22[,]” “device 20 may be