`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00470
`Patent 10,259,020
`___________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF HAMID TOLIYAT, PH.D. REGARDING APPLE’S
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,259,020
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 2
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ......................................................................... 4
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 6
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ......................................................................................... 8
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................12
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................14
`
`VIII. `OVERVIEW OF THE ’020 PATENT ..........................................................14
`
`IX. GROUND 1A—Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 are not obvious in view of
`
`Bohbot and Gundlach. .............................................................................................21
`
`A. Overview of Bohbot .......................................................................................21
`
`B. Overview of Gundlach ...................................................................................29
`
`C. Dr. Cooperstock’s reasons for combining Bohbot and Gundlach are, to a
`
`POSITA, unfounded and unpersuasive.................................................................41
`
`1
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Analysis of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 ...................................................44
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................44
`
`2. Claim 2 ...........................................................................................................71
`
`3. Claim 3 ...........................................................................................................71
`
`4. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................72
`
`5. Claim 6 ........................................................................................................72
`
`6. Claim 7 ........................................................................................................78
`
`7. Claim 10 ......................................................................................................79
`
`8. Claim 16 ......................................................................................................80
`
`9. Claim 19 ......................................................................................................80
`
`X. GROUND 1B: Claim 2 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, and
`
`Nishikawa. ................................................................................................................81
`
`A. Overview of Nishikawa ..................................................................................81
`
`B. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Nishikawa Combination ..............................81
`
`C. Analysis of Claim 2 ........................................................................................81
`
`2
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XI. GROUND 1C: Claims 4, 18, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot,
`
`Gundlach, and Li. .....................................................................................................82
`
`A. Overview of Li ................................................................................................82
`
`B. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Li Combination ............................................83
`
`C. Analysis of Claims 4, 18, and 19 ....................................................................83
`
`1. Claims 4 and 18 ...........................................................................................83
`
`2. Claim 19 .........................................................................................................88
`
`XII. GROUND 1D: Claims 8 and 9 are not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`and Stevinson. ..........................................................................................................89
`
`A. Overview of Stevinson ...................................................................................89
`
`B. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Stevinson Combination ...............................92
`
`C. Analysis of Claims 8 and 9 .............................................................................92
`
`XIII. GROUND 1E: Claim 10 is obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, and
`
`Rosener. ....................................................................................................................94
`
`A. Overview of Rosener ......................................................................................94
`
`C. Analysis of Claim 10 ......................................................................................95
`
`3
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XIV. GROUND 1F: Claim 17 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`Stevinson, and Iio. ....................................................................................................96
`
`A. Overview of Iio ...............................................................................................96
`
`B. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Stevinson-Iio Combination .......................100
`
`B. Analysis of Claim 17 ....................................................................................107
`
`XV. GROUND 2A: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 are not obvious in view of
`
`Bohbot, Gundlach, and Diebel. ..............................................................................109
`
`A. Overview of Diebel ......................................................................................110
`
`B. The Alleged Bohbot-Gundlach-Diebel Combination ..................................110
`
`C. Analysis of 1[f] .............................................................................................113
`
`XVI. GROUND 2B: Claim 2 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`Diebel, and Nishikawa. ..........................................................................................115
`
`XVII. GROUND 2C: Claims 4, 18, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot,
`
`Gundlach, Diebel, and Li. ......................................................................................116
`
`XVIII. GROUND 2D: Claims 8 and 9 are not obvious based on Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`Diebel and Stevinson. ............................................................................................117
`
`4
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XIX. GROUND 2E: Claim 10 is not obvious based on Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`Diebel, and Rosener. ...........................................................................................117
`
`XX. GROUND 2F: Claim 17 is not obvious based on Bohbot, Gundlach, Diebel,
`
`Stevinson, and Iio. ..................................................................................................118
`
`XXI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................118
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Hamid Toliyat, of College Station, Texas, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Beck Redden LLP on behalf of Patent Owner Gwee
`
`Global Products, Inc. (“Gwee”) as an independent expert in the above referenced
`
`Inter Partes Review proceeding.
`
`
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Gwee to address the issues raised in the
`
`IPR Petition, including issues raised in its Exhibit APPLE 1003, the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock, including whether the references relied upon by Dr.
`
`Cooperstock teach or suggest the claim limitations of Claims 1-10 and 16-19 of the
`
`challenged ’020 patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,259,020 (“the ’020 patent”).
`
`
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered matters including my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my teaching and work experience. Although
`
`my qualifications exceed those of a POSITA for the challenged patent, my
`
`statements and opinions expressed herein are so expressed from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my time spent on this matter on an hourly
`
`1
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`basis. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or
`
`the content of my opinions.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`My background and qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae
`
`attached as Ex. 2002. In summary,
`
`• I have over 35 years of experience in the field of power electronics,
`
`microcontrollers, electric motors, motor control, and wireless power transfer.
`
`• I received my B.S. from Sharif University of Technology in 1982, M.S.
`
`degree from West Virginia University in 1986, and Ph.D. degree from the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991, all in electrical engineering.
`
`• In March 1994 I joined the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University. I am currently the Raytheon
`
`endowed professor of electrical engineering.
`
`• I received the Nikola Tesla Field Award for “outstanding contributions to
`
`the design, analysis and control of fault-tolerant multiphase electric
`
`machines” from IEEE in 2014, the Cyril Veinott Award in
`
`Electromechanical Energy Conversion from the IEEE Power Engineering
`
`Society in 2004, Patent and Innovation Award from Texas A&M University
`
`2
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`System Office of Technology Commercialization’s in 2020, 2016 and 2007,
`
`TEES Faculty Fellow Award in 2006, Distinguished Teaching Award in
`
`2003, E.D. Brockett Professorship Award in 2002, Eugene Webb Faculty
`
`Fellow Award in 2000, and Texas A&M Select Young Investigator Award
`
`in 1999. I also received the Space Act Award from NASA in 1999, and the
`
`Schlumberger Foundation Technical Awards in 2001 and 2000.
`
`• I was an Editor of IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion. I also was
`
`Chair of the IEEE-IAS Industrial Power Conversion Systems Department of
`
`IEEE-IAS, and am a member of Sigma Xi. I am a fellow of the IEEE, the
`
`recipient of the 2008 Industrial Electronics Society Electric Machines
`
`Committee Second Best Paper Award as well as the recipient of the IEEE
`
`Power Engineering Society Prize Paper Awards in 1996 and 2006, and IEEE
`
`Industry Applications Society Transactions Third Prize Paper Award and
`
`Second Prize Paper Award in 2006 and 2016, respectively. I was the
`
`General Chair of the 2005 IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives
`
`Conference in San Antonio, Texas.
`
`• My main research interests and experience include power electronics,
`
`microcontrollers, analysis and design of electrical machines, variable speed
`
`3
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drives for traction and propulsion applications, fault diagnosis of electric
`
`machinery, and sensorless variable speed drives.
`
`• I have supervised more than 120 graduate students, post docs, and research
`
`engineers. I have published over 520 technical papers, presented more than
`
`99 invited lectures all over the world, and has 34 issued and pending U.S.
`
`patents. My publications are highly cited by colleagues -- more than 27,000
`
`times.
`
`• I have purposely taught courses in two different areas within my department:
`
`power electronics, and electric machinery. I have developed and taught three
`
`new courses in the area of electromechanical motion devices. These are:
`
`• ECEN 611 General Theory of Electromechanical Motion Devices, 3 credits
`
`• ECEN 612 Computer Aided Design of Electromechanical Motion Devices, 4
`
`credits
`
`• ECEN 442/742 DSP-Based Electromechanical Motion Control, 3 credits
`
`• I am also a Professional Engineer in the State of Texas.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered matters including my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my teaching and work experience, which
`
`4
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includes overseeing POSITAs and persons studying to become POSITAs. I have
`
`reviewed Petitioner Apple’s IPR Petition and the substantive Exhibits thereto,
`
`namely Exhibits APPLE-1001 – APPLE-1030; APPLE-1034 - APPLE-1039;
`
`APPLE-1042 - APPLE-1045; APPLE-1050 - APPLE-1051; APPLE-1059 -
`
`APPLE-1060; and APPLE-1062 – APPLE-1068, and also the PTAB’s Institution
`
`Decision. I have also reviewed the declaration of Dr. Mark Horenstein submitted in
`
`the IPR proceeding involving Samsung’s challenge to this patent. I have also
`
`reviewed the Board’s institution decision relative to the challenged patent. I have
`
`also reviewed the transcript from Dr. Cooperstock’s deposition. I have also
`
`reviewed other materials noted herein.
`
`
`
`The Cooperstock Declaration notes that the challenged patent was filed on
`
`December 22, 2017 with a priority claim dating back to the August 5, 2011 filing
`
`date of provisional application No. 61/515,752. For purposes of his Declaration,
`
`Dr. Cooperstock uses August 5, 2011 as the priority date for the patent and as the
`
`assumed date of invention. I am thus using August 5, 2011 as the priority date for
`
`the patent and the date of invention as well.
`
`
`
`As part of my independent analysis, I have considered my personal
`
`knowledge and experience; the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill (“POSITA”)
`
`5
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as of the invention date. My opinions are from the viewpoint of POSITA. Unless
`
`otherwise stated, my testimony herein refers to the knowledge and capabilities of a
`
`POSITA as of this invention date.
`
`
`
`In this declaration I only address some of the statements, arguments, and
`
`contentions of Apple and Dr. Cooperstock, and I only address some of the
`
`challenged claim elements. This is being done primarily to focus on what appear to
`
`be the main disputed issues. It should not be assumed that I agree with anything not
`
`specifically addressed in this Declaration.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`
`
`This Declaration states and explains the opinions/conclusions that I have
`
`formed using my independent analysis. They are summarized as follows:
`
`• Ground 1A: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot
`
`and Gundlach.
`
`• Ground 1B: Claim 2 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, and
`
`Nishikawa.
`
`• Ground 1C: Claims 4, 18, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot,
`
`Gundlach, and Li.
`
`6
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
` • Ground 1D: Claims 8 and 9 are not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, and
`
`Stevinson.
`
`• Ground 1E: Claim 10 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, and
`
`Rosener.
`
`• Ground 1F: Claim 17 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, Stevinson,
`
`and Iio.
`
`• Ground 2A: Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot,
`
`Gundlach, and Diebel.
`
`• Ground 2B: Claim 2 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, Diebel, and
`
`Nishikawa.
`
`• Ground 2C: Claims 4, 18, and 19 are not obvious in view of Bohbot,
`
`Gundlach, Diebel, and Li.
`
`• Ground 2D: Claims 8 and 9 are not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach,
`
`Diebel, and Stevinson.
`
`• Ground 2E: Claim 10 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, Diebel, and
`
`Rosener.
`
`• Ground 2F: Claim 17 is not obvious in view of Bohbot, Gundlach, Diebel,
`
`Stevinson, and Iio.
`
`7
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer any opinions on the
`
`law. I understand, however, that I must follow existing law and that I am offering
`
`opinions on the ultimate issue of obviousness. I have been provided with
`
`information about legal principles by counsel for Gwee, specifically as follows:
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that in an Inter Partes
`
`Review proceeding, the party challenging the patent’s validity must prove by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the patent claims are unpatentable. I have been
`
`further advised that the first step in assessing validity of a patent claim is to
`
`properly construe the claim at issue.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that Apple’s challenges to
`
`the patentability of the claims of the ‘’020 Patent are ultimately based on
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. To be patentable under this statute, an
`
`invention much be such that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the invention was made. That is, the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art must
`
`not be such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`8
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that when determining
`
`whether a claimed invention is obvious, one should consider the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and the prior art, and whether the claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of those differences. I
`
`understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior art to the
`
`invention for obviousness.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that the scope of the prior
`
`art includes analogous art, and that two separate tests define the scope of analogous
`
`prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
`
`problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's
`
`endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
`
`problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that obviousness may be
`
`shown by demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught
`
`in a single reference to arrive at the patented invention, and/or by showing that it
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one reference to
`
`arrive at the patented invention. I recognize that in determining whether prior art
`
`9
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`references would have been combined with one another and/or with other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, multiple
`
`approaches and rationales may be considered, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in
`
`the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success);
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or
`
`10
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led
`
`one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that if an independent
`
`claim is not obvious over a combination of references, then a claim that depends
`
`from the nonobvious independent claim is likewise not obvious in view of those
`
`references, because the dependent claim contains all of the limitations of the
`
`independent claim plus one or more further limitations.
`
`
`
`In considering the question of obviousness, I have been informed by
`
`counsel and understand that the POSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to be aware of all of the pertinent prior art. The POSITA is not an automaton and
`
`may be able to combine the teachings of multiple patents or references employing
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense, and that familiar items may have obvious
`
`uses in another context or beyond their primary purposes. The POSITA faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem. I also recognize that it
`
`is not necessary to demonstrate a precise teaching directed to the specific subject
`
`matter of the challenged claim, for a fact finder can take account of the inferences
`
`11
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and creative steps that a POSITA would employ. A patent that merely claims
`
`predictable uses of old elements according to their established functions to achieve
`
`predictable results may be found invalid as obvious. Hence, an invention may be
`
`obvious if a POSITA, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in
`
`the field, would have seen an obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant.
`
`And, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, it may have been obvious to
`
`a POSITA to try the known options. Also, if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device, and a POSITA would have recognized that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique may have been obvious.
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`Dr. Cooperstock’s Declaration opines that a POSITA would have had
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least
`
`two years of experience in the field working with electronic devices. He also opines
`
`that superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and
`
`vice-versa. Ex. 1003, 20.
`
`12
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I note that the use of the phrase “at least” in Dr. Cooperstock’s definition of
`
`a POSITA leaves the actual educational and other experience of a POSITA in doubt
`
`because it encompasses someone of greater education, training, and skill than a
`
`POSITA and could even include an expert in the field. As such, Dr. Cooperstock’s
`
`definition of a POSITA is of questionable assistance in understanding the true
`
`qualifications of the POSITA and how such a person would understand and employ
`
`the teachings of the various references cited in the petition. I concur with, and adopt
`
`as my own, the opinion previously expressed by Dr. Horenstein (in the declaration
`
`noted above) that for purposes of evaluating claims of the challenged patent, a
`
`POSITA would have been someone having either a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or mechanical engineering with some level of post-
`
`baccalaureate electronic device or system design experience, or someone with an
`
`equivalent level of experience and training through other means.
`
`
`
`I agree with Dr. Cooperstock that superior education might be able to
`
`compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.
`
`
`
`Dr. Cooperstock’s definition of a POSITA is somewhat different than mine;
`
`however, my opinions in this declaration would be the same regardless of whether
`
`or not my description or Dr. Cooperstock’s description of a POSITA is used.
`
`13
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`I do not see any expressed indication in Dr. Cooperstock’s Declaration of
`
`any constructions for any claim terms. To the extent that Dr. Cooperstock has
`
`implied constructions in his Declaration, they are addressed herein where relevant.
`
`From the point of view of a POSITA, and based upon my review of the materials
`
`noted herein, primarily the challenged patent and its prosecution history, I also
`
`assigned the claim terms their plain and ordinary meanings as a POSITA would
`
`have understood them in the context of the ’020 patent, unless otherwise noted
`
`herein.
`
`VIII. `OVERVIEW OF THE ’020 PATENT
`
`
`
`Gwee has already provided a relatively brief and straightforward overview
`
`of the challenged patent in its preliminary response, which I concur with and adopt
`
`as my own, including as follows:
`
`
`
`The ’020 Patent is entitled “APPARATUS FOR CLEANING VIEW
`
`SCREENS AND LENSES AND METHOD FOR THE USE THEREOF.” The
`
`presumed invention date is noted above, and the patent issued on April 16, 2019.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding the title of the patent, the ’020 claims are directed to
`
`systems comprising portable switching devices and portable electronic devices, and
`
`14
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’020 specification describes, in addition to apparatuses for cleaning view
`
`screens, systems comprising portable switching devices and portable electronic
`
`devices. Independent claim 1 covers the following (with the elements labeled as
`
`designated by Dr. Cooperstock):
`
`1[p] A system comprising:
`
`1[a] a portable switching device coupled to a portable electronic device;
`
`wherein
`
`1[b] the switching device and the electronic device are configured to
`
`selectively couple to each other employing magnetic force from a first
`
`magnet disposed within the switching device;
`
`1[c] the switching device comprises a first case;
`
`1[d] the electronic device comprises a second case and an electronic circuit
`
`that is responsive to the switching device;
`
`1[e] the electronic device comprises at least one element selected from the
`
`group consisting of beveled edges, ridges, recessed areas, grooves, slots,
`
`indented shapes, bumps, raised shapes, and combinations thereof;
`
`configured to correspond to complimentary surface elements on the
`
`switching device;
`
`15
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[f] the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate or send
`
`into hibernation the portable electronic device; and
`
`1[g] when coupled, the second case functions to protect the first case.
`
`
`
`The “SUMMARY” references “a switching device for use with a portable
`
`electronic device having... at least one switch that can be activated or de-activated.”
`
`Ex. 1001/3:59-65. In one embodiment, the portable electronic device can be
`
`activated or deactivated by introducing a magnetic field. Id. Exemplary portable
`
`magnetic switching devices in FIGs. 1-26 of the ’020 patent. In certain preferred
`
`embodiments such switching devices may be cleaning devices, but they need not be
`
`cleaning devices. Ex. 1001/Abstract (“The cleaning devices may have secondary
`
`applications such as … activating or deactivating a device having a magnetic switch
`
`… They may also be manufactured without a cleaning component for use with the
`
`secondary applications.”); Ex. 1001/21:24-26 (“Where such a secondary use has
`
`been disclosed, then such devices, with or without the cleaning material are also
`
`within the scope of the application.”). The disclosed switching devices have
`
`functions such as activating, deactivating and hibernating electronic devices such as
`
`cell phones, smartphones, tablet computers and laptop computers. For example, the
`
`magnetic switching device 2401 in FIGs. 24 and 25, i.e.,
`
`16
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`comprising magnets 2504 activates, deactivates or hibernates tablet computer 2400.
`
`Ex. 1001/17:63-67. Another example is the doll-shaped switching device in Fig.
`
`26, which is depicted as a switching device for a version of the iPad. Ex. 1001/5:47-
`
`49.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments comprise a switching device selectively
`
`coupled to the front of the portable electronic device. Ex. 1001/17:63-67
`
`(“switching device (2401) is selectively coupled to the front of the portable
`
`electronic device 2402 outside of the view screen 2403.”).
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments comprise a switching device having a
`
`magnet element to activate or deactivate a magnetic switch. Ex. 1001/2:65-67. See,
`
`17
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.g., a round switching device 100 comprising magnet 102 (Figs 1A and 1B); a
`
`square switching device 200 comprising magnet 202 in FIGs. 2A-2C; a switching
`
`device 303 comprising a magnetic substrate (Fig. 3); a switching device 402 with a
`
`magnet (Fig. 4); a switching device 503/503a with magnets 506 (FIGs. 5A, 5B).
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise a case for an electronic
`
`device having a magnetic switch, and in the area of the case over the magnetic
`
`switch, a recessed area functions to facilitate a switching device having a magnet
`
`moving past the switch in order to activate or deactivate the switch. Ex. 1001/3:125-
`
`17. Examples of depicted recesses include indention 302 in Fig. 3:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001/8:51-55, and recess 904 in Fig. 9.
`
`,
`
`18
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21/011:39-45. Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise
`
`switching devices with beveled edges. Ex. 1001/18:53-54. Aspects of disclosed
`
`embodiments further comprise switching devices that may be received into a
`
`groove, slot, or other indented geometrical shape to lower the profile of the
`
`switching device to facilitate closing a cover or prevent snagging a cleaning
`
`component. Ex. 1001/8:51-55; 19:2-6.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise a switching device
`
`including at least one ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic material within, wherein the
`
`ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic material may function to actuate a power switch or
`
`sensor that is capable of being actuated using a magnet. Ex. 1001/8:29-34; 3:54-60.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise a switching device that
`
`activates or deactivates an electronic device by employing a magnet, the switching
`
`device having a body surrounding the magnet and at least one surface non-abrasive
`
`to the electronic device. Ex. 1001/3:49-55.
`
`19
`
`Apple v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00470
`GUI Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise methods of conserving
`
`power when using a portable electronic device having a view screen and a switch
`
`that can activated or de-activated by introducing a magnetic field to the switch,
`
`wherein the switching device has at least one magnet and at least one surface that is
`
`non-abrasive to the surface of the view screen, wherein the method includes using
`
`the switching device to turn the portable electronic device off when the portable
`
`electronic device is not in actual use and then on when the portable electronic
`
`device is needed. Ex. 1001/4:7-17.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise a switching device
`
`putting a tablet into hibernation mode with a single touch to the switching device as
`
`compared to the multiple touches required to do the same thing using the touch pad
`
`of the tablet. Ex. 1001/20:8-13.
`
`
`
`Aspects of disclosed embodiments further comprise a case for an electronic
`
`device having a magnetic switch, and in the area of the case over the magnetic
`
`switch, a recessed area (see above regarding recesses) that facilitates a cleaning
`
`component having a magnet moving past the switch in order to activate or
`
`deactivate the switch. E