UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before 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
`
`RESPONDENTS’ INITIAL MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 3
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................. 4
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,251...................................................................................... 4
`“deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance” (Claims
`1.
`2 and 17) .................................................................................................... 6
`U.S. Patent No. 9,411,472.................................................................................... 11
`1.
`“[a/the] controller communicatively coupled to [a/the] plurality of
`sense electrodes, the controller [configured/operable] to: receive a
`plurality of signals…access a stored threshold value…determine a
`grounding status of the touch sensor…adjust the stored threshold
`value…” (Claims 1 and 13) ..................................................................... 13
`“after adjusting the stored threshold value based on the determined
`grounding status of the touch sensor: determine that the external
`object has not touched the touch sensor within a predetermined
`amount of time; and change the stored threshold value back to an
`original value…” (Claims 1 and 13) ........................................................ 19
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Comp., Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 8
`Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 3, 19
`Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 7
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 7, 15, 21
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 11
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 3
`Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 8
`mFormation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 3, 16
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 9
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 3
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 3
`Regents of University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 15, 21
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 10-982-LPS, 2012 WL 3238252 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2012) ................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0003
`
`

`

`
`
`Respondents Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer
`
`International, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Sony
`
`Corporation, and Sony Mobile Communications Inc. hereby submit their Initial Markman
`
`Brief.1,2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Like the 1162 Investigation before, Complainant Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”) asserts four
`
`patents in this Investigation directed to a variety of systems and functions relating to capacitive
`
`touch sensing, each with specific requirements. The parties have agreed to several constructions
`
`across all four patents (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) leaving just three terms across two of the
`
`patents—U.S. Patent No. 8,749,251 (“the ’251 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,411,472 (“the ’472
`
`Patent”). Respondents submit their constructions are the appropriate ones.
`
`Starting with the ’251 Patent, there is one disputed element appearing in dependent
`
`claims 2 and 17: “deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance.” Respondents’
`
`proposed construction—“stopping all current and scheduled measurements of changes in
`
`capacitance”—is consistent with the claim term’s ordinary meaning and the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Neodron proposes that the element be given its plain and ordinary meaning without defining that
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. But Neodron made clear during the meet and confer process that it
`
`contends “deactivation of measurement” encompasses merely slowing down the scheduled rate
`
`of measurement. Thus, the substantive dispute between the private parties regarding the scope of
`
`this claim phrase is clear and should be resolved.
`
`
`1 Not all patents are asserted against each respondent. Each respondent joins those portions of
`this brief relevant to the patents asserted against it.
`2 Throughout this brief, all emphasis and color annotations are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0004
`
`

`

`
`
`Turning to the ’472 Patent, there are two claim construction disputes of somewhat similar
`
`character, namely, the order of the claimed steps and the relationship between them. The first
`
`disputed term of the ’472 Patent is directed to a controller that is “configured” or “operable” to
`
`perform certain steps (“receive . . . access . . . determine . . . and adjust . . .” certain signals,
`
`threshold values, or grounding statuses). Respondents and Staff agree that the “receive,”
`
`“determine,” and “adjust” steps must occur in that order and that the “access” step can occur
`
`whenever so long as it occurs before the “adjust” step. That proposal is consistent with the claim
`
`language itself, the specification, and logic. Although Neodron also agrees that there are ordered
`
`relationships between some of the steps, Neodron’s construction—that the “receive” step need
`
`not be performed in any particular order or have any temporal relationship to the other steps—is
`
`untethered to the intrinsic evidence and falls short. Accordingly, Respondents and Staff’s
`
`proposed ordering is the proper one.
`
`The second disputed claim term of the ’472 Patent involves the relationship between two
`
`steps, which the parties agree must occur serially as written. Specifically, the disputed element
`
`requires determining a non-touch situation for a particular amount of time and then changing a
`
`threshold value back to an original value. Although the parties agree that there is an order, they
`
`disagree as to whether the second “changing” step is in response to the first “determining” step.
`
`Respondents submit that the change must occur in response to the determination. Conversely,
`
`Neodron and Staff’s constructions impose no causal relationship between the two steps, which
`
`would allow the second “changing” step to occur any time after the first “determining” step
`
`without any nexus between the two and would allow the steps to occur coincidentally even if
`
`hours, days, or months apart. That cannot be the proper construction; Respondents’ construction
`
`is the proper one.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0005
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`When construing a patent’s claims, each claim term should be given the “meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The patent (the
`
`claims and specification) and its prosecution history are the most reliable form of evidence in
`
`interpreting claims because this “intrinsic evidence” provides “evidence of how the Patent Office
`
`and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. at 1317. The Federal Circuit “has often emphasized
`
`that claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part, and has explained
`
`that the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI,
`
`Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted). Thus,
`
`constructions “in tension with . . . the objectives of the [patent] as expressed in the specification
`
`and the prosecution history” should be rejected. Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc., 402 F.3d 1188,
`
`1194 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`The specification may define terms explicitly or by implication. Irdeto Access, Inc. v.
`
`Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when guidance is not
`
`provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication
`
`such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”);
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. For example, a claim “requires an ordering of steps . . . when the
`
`specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps” or “when the claim language, as a
`
`matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written.”
`
`mFormation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“As
`
`a matter of logic, a mailbox must be established before the contents of said mailbox can be
`
`transmitted.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0006
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The private parties and Staff agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design,
`
`development, and/or testing of touch sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or
`
`graphical user interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional
`
`education substituting for experience and vice versa. This is the same definition of level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art used in U.S.I.T.C. Inv. No. 337-TA-1162. See Certain Touch-Controlled
`
`Mobile Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1162, Order No. 15 at
`
`7-8 (Nov. 25, 2019).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The parties dispute terms in only two of the four patents and those disputes are addressed
`
`below on a patent-by-patent basis. Respondents have attached as Exhibit 1 a chart identifying
`
`the claim constructions to which the parties have agreed for all four patents.
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,251
`
`The parties dispute one term in the ’251 Patent, “deactivation of measurement of changes
`
`in capacitance,” which appears in dependent claims 2 and 17. By way of the background, the
`
`’251 Patent describes a proximity sensor that automatically switches off a device after a period
`
`of nonuse. The patent explains that touch-controlled devices may “remain ‘on’ or ‘active’
`
`despite the user having moved away from the device or a particular function no longer being
`
`required,” thereby wasting power. JX-3, ’251 Patent at 1:36-38. To solve this power-wasting
`
`problem, the ’251 Patent describes a “switch-off” or “auto-off” function that can “deactivate,
`
`turn-off, or power down the capacitance measurement circuit” or “power down” the entire
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0007
`
`

`

`
`
`apparatus after the user has not touched a key for a predetermined time duration. See, e.g., id. at
`
`1:45-54, 2:39-40, 4:55-62, 5:5-7, 16:22-31.
`
`The ’251 Patent describes an integrated circuit chip that acquires measurements of
`
`changes in capacitance by employing “bursts of charge-transfer cycles” at regular intervals,
`
`which can be incorporated into a device “to provide and control a proximity sensor functionality
`
`for the device.” See id. at 2:41-42, 4:7-12, 5:57-65. The delay between each burst depends on
`
`the “acquisition mode” of the chip—when the chip is in “fast mode,” the “delay between bursts
`
`is approximately 2.6 ms,” as shown in Figure 4 below.
`
`
`
`Id. at 9:44-49; Fig. 4 (showing time between bursts as 2.6 ms in fast mode). When the chip is in
`
`“low power mode,” the chip “sleeps for approximately 85 ms at the end of each burst, saving
`
`power but slowing response.” Id. at 9:50-53. Upon detection of a possible key touch, the chip
`
`“temporarily switches to Fast mode” from its “normal [low power] mode” operation. Id. at 9:53-
`
`59; see also id. at 9:60-10:3. The transition from low power mode to sleep mode is shown in
`
`Figure 5:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0008
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at Fig. 5 (showing transition from low power mode to fast mode after detection of key touch).
`
`“If the touch is confirmed,” the chip “will switch to Fast mode.” Id. at 9:56-57. If a touch is not
`
`confirmed, the chip “will revert to normal LP mode operation automatically.” Id. at 9:57-59.
`
`
`
`The ’251 Patent also discloses an “auto-off” feature that is relevant to construction of the
`
`disputed term. Unlike the previously described fast and low power acquisition modes, the patent
`
`explains that the “auto-off” feature can “deactivate, turn-off, or power down the capacitance
`
`measurement circuit where an apparatus has inadvertently been left on or with the erroneous
`
`perception that a user is still present.” Id. at 4:47-62. The “auto-off” feature is triggered when,
`
`after a set period without a key touch, the chip “produce[s] an output signal automatically to
`
`prevent the capacitance measurement circuit from continually measuring changes in capacitance
`
`due to, for example, the perceived presence of an object in proximity with the sensor.” Id. at
`
`4:47-62.
`
`1.
`
`“deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance” (Claims 2
`and 17)
`
`Staff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Respondents’ Construction
`“stopping all current and
`scheduled measurements of
`changes in capacitance”
`
`
`
`The “deactivation” limitation appears in dependent claims 2 and 17, which recite “the
`
`particular function comprises deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance by the
`
`sensing element.” JX-3, ’251 Patent at 17:55-57; see also id. at 18:50-52. Respondents’
`
`proposed construction is the only one consistent with the intrinsic record. The plain contextual
`
`meaning of “deactivation” of measurement of changes in capacitance means stopping current and
`
`any scheduled measurements—not merely scheduling them to occur at a slower rate. Although
`
`Neodron asserts a “plain and ordinary meaning,” Neodron disclosed during the meet-and-confer
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0009
`
`

`

`
`
`process that it seeks to expand this term to include merely slowing down measurements of
`
`changes in capacitance, which the specification distinguishes from deactivating measurements.
`
`The ’251 Patent only uses “deactivation” to describe turning the capacitance
`
`measurement circuit off and preventing further measurement—the word appears in no other
`
`context. The specification explains that after a predetermined time without an object in the
`
`sensor’s proximity, “the control circuit can produce an output signal automatically to prevent the
`
`capacitance measurement circuit from continually measuring changes in capacitance due to, for
`
`example, the perceived presence of an object in proximity with the sensor.” Id. at 4:47-54. The
`
`patent characterizes this measurement prevention as the ability to “deactivate, turn-off, or power
`
`down the capacitance measurement circuit where an apparatus has inadvertently been left on or
`
`with the erroneous perception that a user is still present.” Id. at 4:55-59.
`
`The ’251 Patent connects “deactivation” with turning off or powering down the
`
`capacitance measurement circuit, stating that these may “be referred to as an ‘auto-off’ feature.”
`
`Id. at 4:55-59. The auto-off feature provides a “signal for preventing the capacitance
`
`measurement circuit from continually measuring changes in capacitance [that] may be referred to
`
`as an auto-off signal.” Id. at 4:60-65. The “auto-off signal” is repeatedly and consistently
`
`described as turning off or “effect[ing] powering down the capacitance measurement circuit due
`
`to no presence of the user.” Id. at 4:66-5:5; see, e.g., Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 F.3d
`
`1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Because the specification, including the figures, consistently and
`
`exclusively shows radiation sources located asymmetrically about the longitudinal axis, and
`
`because that is clearly what the inventors of the ’142 patent conceived of, claim 1 is properly
`
`construed as referencing radiation sources [consistent with this exclusive disclosure].”); ICU
`
`Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374-76 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (construing “spike” to
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0010
`
`

`

`
`
`require a “pointed tip for piercing” a seal, when the patent “repeatedly and uniformly describe[d]
`
`the spike as a pointed instrument.”). Thus, the ’251 Patent describes the claimed “deactivation”
`
`as stopping both current measurements by the capacitance measurement circuit and scheduled
`
`measurements—the system prevents the continued measurement of changes in capacitance. JX-
`
`3, ’251 Patent at 4:47-5:5.
`
`Respondents’ construction finds further support in the invention’s purpose. See Apple
`
`Comp., Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 25 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he claim must be
`
`interpreted in light of the teachings of the written description and purpose of the invention
`
`described therein.”); Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“A
`
`patent’s statement of the described invention’s purpose informs the proper construction of claim
`
`terms . . . .”). The stated aim of the ’251 Patent’s invention was to address the problem of
`
`“touch-controlled devices [that] remain ‘on’ or ‘active’ despite the user having moved away
`
`from the device or a particular function no longer being required.” JX-3, ’251 Patent at 1:37-39.
`
`The patent explains that leaving a device on or active “results in the device consuming a large
`
`amount of power which is not efficient,” id. at 1:49-41, and that turning off or deactivating the
`
`device when the user has moved away was a “beneficial[],” “green” solution to this problem.
`
`See id. at 5:11-20 (“The sensor of particular embodiments may be useful in various
`
`applications . . . . For example, a coffee machine . . . may be programmed to power-down after a
`
`time period of, say, 30 minutes, where the coffee machine has been left on inadvertently. This
`
`will beneficially conserve energy use and minimize the possibility of damage or
`
`accidents . . . .”), 10:45-46 (explaining that auto-off “can be used to save power in situations
`
`where the switched device could be left on inadvertently”), 16:24-26 (describing invention as
`
`“oriented towards power control of small appliances and battery-operated products”).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0011
`
`

`

`
`
`Accordingly, the “auto-off” feature “power[s] down” the capacitance measurement circuit (see
`
`id. 4:47-5:2), “switch[es] off” functions of the apparatus (id. at 2:39-40, 2:62-63, 5:48-50), or
`
`“turn[s] off power after a specified time delay ranging from minutes to hours” (id. at 16:29-34;
`
`see also id. at 5:5-7 (“[T]he control circuit may be programmed by a user so that it may power
`
`down an apparatus based on a user-selected time duration.”), 11:59-60 (“In normal operation the
`
`QT102 output is turned off automatically after the auto-off delay.”), 16:35 (describing “time to
`
`shutoff”)). In other words, “off” means off, not less frequently. No portion of the ’251 Patent’s
`
`specification or prosecution history suggests a contrary conclusion.
`
`Extrinsic evidence further supports Respondents’ construction. Dictionaries define
`
`“deactivate” consistent with its use in the specification. One explains “deactivate” means “to
`
`make inactive or ineffective.” Ex. 2. Another defines deactivate as to “make equipment . . .
`
`inactive by disconnecting or destroying it.” Ex. 3. This further confirms that a POSITA would
`
`have understood the term “deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance” to mean
`
`stopping all current and scheduled measurements of changes in capacitance, as Respondents
`
`propose. Neither the intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence indicates that a POSITA would have
`
`understood “deactivation” to mean less frequently as Neodron apparently contends.
`
`Despite the intrinsic (and extrinsic) evidence, Neodron asserted during the meet-and-
`
`confer process that “deactivation” encompasses the 85 ms pauses between bursts in low power or
`
`sleep mode as illustrated in Figure 5, crystalizing the dispute that requires resolution. O2 Micro
`
`Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A
`
`determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’
`
`may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a
`
`term's ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Despite Respondents’
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0012
`
`

`

`
`
`repeated requests, Neodron has failed to disclose whether it also contends that “deactivation”
`
`encompasses the 2.6 ms pauses between bursts in fast mode as illustrated in Figure 4 above.
`
`Regardless, the acquisition modes are distinct concepts described separately in the specification
`
`from deactivation or “auto off.” Compare JX-3, ’251 Patent at 9:33-10:3 (“3.1 Acquisition
`
`Modes”), with id. at 10:41-54 (“3.5 Auto Off Delay”). The specification describes the low
`
`power mode as the “normal” mode of operation when the system is intermittently at regular
`
`intervals measuring for changes in capacitance. See, e.g., id. at 9:57-59. Indeed, the
`
`specification refers to “known technologies for measuring capacitance” as including U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,466,036 (id. at 4:40-46), which describes the same acquisition modes. See Ex. 4, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,466,036 at 11:23-29, Fig. 16. Deactivation, in contrast, is described as preventing
`
`continued measurement of changes in capacitance (JX-3, ’251 Patent at 4:47-62), not simply
`
`measuring at a different rate (id. at 9:50-10:3).
`
`The claims in the ’251 Patent’s parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,952,366, which shares
`
`the same specification as the ’251 Patent as to the portions relevant here, also make clear that
`
`“low power” and “fast” modes are distinct from deactivating the measurement of capacitance.
`
`Like the independent claims of the ’251 Patent, the independent claims of the ’366 Patent also
`
`require performing a “function of an apparatus” when no touch has been detected for a
`
`predetermined time duration. Compare JX-3 at 17:49-54 (claim 1 of the ’251 Patent) with Ex. 5
`
`(’366 Patent) at 17:31-37 (’366 Patent claim 1). Dependent claim 2 of the ’366 Patent requires
`
`that the “capacitance measurement circuit” of claim 1 be “configured to operate in one of more
`
`than one acquisition modes,” and claims 3 and 4 specify that those acquisition modes are low-
`
`power mode (claim 3) and fast mode (claim 4). Ex. 5 (’366 Patent) at 17:48-54 (claims 2-4 of
`
`the ’366 Patent). Low power and fast modes are acquisition modes of the capacitance
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0013
`
`

`

`
`
`measurement circuit; they are not the deactivation or auto-off “function” performed by the
`
`apparatus when no touch is detected for a predetermined amount of time. Neodron thus should
`
`not be permitted to argue “deactivation” means the time between intermittent bursts in a low-
`
`power or fast mode under the guise of “plain and ordinary” meaning. See In re Katz Interactive
`
`Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (interpreting “customer
`
`number” as distinct from “credit card number” in part because claims of parent patent “treat[e]d
`
`the two elements as distinct”). Accordingly, Respondents respectfully request that the Court
`
`construe “deactivation of measurement of changes in capacitance” as “stopping all current and
`
`scheduled measurements of changes in capacitance.”
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,411,472
`
`According to the ’472 Patent, touch sensors “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.” JX-4, ’472
`
`Patent at 1:60-64. Touch sensors are typically “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. However, “different grounding scenarios” may occur each time a user “interact[s] with the
`
`touch screen.” Id. at 1:64-2:12. For example, “a device with a touch sensor may be utilized in a
`
`‘floating’ environment (e.g., an environment where the device is not grounded at all or only has a
`
`weak path to ground) such as when a user is interacting with the touch screen of the device as it
`
`is sitting on a table or is mounted on a wall.” Id. The device may also be used in a “grounded”
`
`environment, such as “when a user is holding the device with one hand and touching the screen
`
`of the device with the other hand, or when the device is plugged into another system while the
`
`user is touching the screen.” Id. The patent explains that changes in grounding status impact the
`
`signals measured by the touch sensor “by up to 30% or more” and that as a result, devices with a
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0014
`
`

`

`
`
`single touch detection threshold may not “accurately detect[] touches in all grounding scenarios.”
`
`Id. at 1:64-2:16.
`
`To address this problem, the ’472 Patent’s alleged invention purports to “automatically
`
`adapt” or “dynamically adjust touch threshold 52 to account for various grounding scenarios
`
`device 20 may encounter” each time the user interacts with the device so it does not “falsely
`
`identify noise as a touch” or “result in an undetected touch.” Id. at 2:28-33, 6:56-61, 7:15-28.
`
`Figure 7 of the ’472 Patent sets forth the method proposed by the patent to dynamically change
`
`the touch threshold:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 7. First, the touch sensor receives a plurality of signals from the sense electrodes
`
`indicating an external object has come close to or has touched the touch sensor. Id. at 10:58-
`
`11:2. Next, the touch sensor accesses a “stored threshold value,” which refers to a “touch
`
`detection threshold” used to determine whether to process the interaction from the external
`
`object as a touch. Id. at 11:3-10. After the stored threshold value is accessed, the touch sensor
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0015
`
`

`

`
`
`determines the grounding status of the device and then adjusts the stored threshold value based
`
`on the determined grounding status. Id. at 11:11-57.
`
`1.
`
`“[a/the] controller communicatively coupled to [a/the] plurality of
`sense electrodes, the controller [configured/operable] to: receive a
`plurality of signals from the plurality of sense electrodes associated
`with an interaction with the touch sensor by an external object, the
`plurality of signals indicative of an amount of capacitance between the
`[touch sensor/touch sensitive device] and the external object; access a
`stored threshold value, the threshold value indicating a threshold
`magnitude of capacitance; determine a grounding status of the touch
`sensor based on a strength of a charge return path between the [touch
`sensor/touch sensitive device] and a ground; adjust the stored
`threshold value based on the determined grounding status of the
`touch sensor” (Claims 1 and 13)
`
`Staff’s Construction
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`Order of steps:
`The step “receive a plurality
`of signals” must be
`performed before the step
`“determine a grounding
`status,” which must be
`performed before the step
`“adjust the stored threshold
`value.”
`
`
`The step “access a stored
`threshold value” can occur at
`any time before the step
`“adjust the stored threshold
`value.”
`
`Order of steps:
`The step “receive a plurality
`of signals” must be
`performed before the step
`“determine a grounding
`status,” which must be
`performed before the step
`“adjust the stored threshold
`value.”
`
`The step “access a stored
`threshold value” can occur at
`any time before the step
`“adjust the stored threshold
`value.”
`
`The controller is
`[configured/operable] to
`perform:
`•
`the “access a stored
`threshold value…”
`function before the
`“adjust the stored
`threshold value...”
`function;
`the “determine a
`grounding status…”
`function before the
`“adjust the stored
`threshold value”
`function.
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`The dispute here centers on the order in which the claimed steps must be performed. The
`
`disputed claim element requires a controller configured to perform the following four steps:
`
`“[1] receive a plurality of signals from the plurality of sense electrodes associated
`with an interaction with the touch sensor by an external object, the plurality of
`signals indicative of an amount of capacitance between the touch sensor and the
`external object;
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1023, 0016
`
`

`

`
`
`[2] access a stored threshold value, the threshold value indicating a threshold
`magnitude of capacitance;
`
`[3] determine a grounding status of the touch sensor based on a strength of a
`charge return path between the touch sensor and a ground;
`
`[4] adjust the stored threshold value based on the determined grounding status of
`the touch sensor;”
`
`Respondents and Staff agree the claim language and specification require performing
`
`these steps in a particular order, namely, step “[1] receiv[ing] a plurality of signals from the
`
`plurality of sense electrodes associated with an interaction with the touch sensor by an external
`
`object” must occur before step “[3] determin[ing] a grounding status,” which must occur before
`
`step “[4] adjust[ing] the stored threshold value.” Every embodiment in the specification
`
`performs the steps in this order, and the alleged invention requires such an order.
`
`By contrast, Neodron argues step “[1] receiv[ing] a plurality of signals” can occur any
`
`time, including before or after any of the other required steps. Neodron’s proposal is
`
`inconsistent with the claim language, basic logic, and every embodiment of the specification.
`
`Neodron’s construction is also contrary to the alleged advantage provided by the invention.
`
`As described above, the ’472 Patent purports to address the problem of variations in
`
`capacitance measurements based on the grounding status of the device by proposing a touch
`
`sensor that “automatically adapt[s]” or “dynamically adjust[s]” the touch threshold based on the
`
`device’s grounding status when a user interacts with the device. JX-4