Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00942
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`Issue Date: June 25, 2013
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING COMPLEX HAPTIC
`STIMULATION DURING INPUT OF CONTROL GESTURES, AND
`RELATING TO CONTROL OF VIRTUAL EQUIPMENT
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEREMY COOPERSTOCK, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`B.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`II.
`III.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 5
`A. Qualifications and Experience ........................................................... 5
`B. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 7
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 8
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................. 11
`A.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 11
`B.
`Obviousness ..................................................................................... 14
`IV. THE ’806 PATENT ................................................................................... 20
`A. Overview of the Specification .......................................................... 20
`B.
`The Challenged Claims .................................................................... 22
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS .................................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Brief Summary and Overview of the Prior Art ................................. 24
`1.
`Poupyrev [EX1003] ............................................................... 24
`2.
`Grant ’499 [EX.1004] ............................................................ 30
`Ground 1: Claims 11, 12, and 15 Are Obvious Over Poupyrev ........ 35
`1.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................ 35
`(a)
`“monitoring, on the one or more processors,
`performance of a control gesture by a user” (11[a]) ..... 41
`“wherein the control gesture is a gesture associated
`with a command input to the system, and includes
`an initial portion, a first intermediate portion, and
`an ending portion” (11[b]) ........................................... 41
`“determining, on the one or more processors,
`haptic stimulation associated with performance of
`the control gesture to be generated for the user”
`(11[c]) .......................................................................... 59
`2
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`“wherein the haptic stimulation includes a first
`stimulation determined responsive to performance
`of the initial portion of the control gesture, and a
`second stimulation that is different from the first
`stimulation and is determined responsive to
`performance of the first intermediate portion of the
`control gesture; and” (11[d]) ........................................ 59
`“generating, with the haptic device, the determined
`stimulation during performance of the control
`gesture.” (11[e]) ........................................................... 62
`Claim 12: “The method of claim 11, wherein the haptic
`stimulation associated with the control gesture includes a
`third stimulation different from the first stimulation and
`the second stimulation that is determined responsive to
`performance of the ending portion of the control
`gesture.” ................................................................................. 64
`Claim 15: “The method of claim 11, wherein the
`command input associated with the control gesture is a
`single, discrete command.” .................................................... 65
`Ground 2: Claims 11, 12, and 15 Are Obvious Over Grant ’499 ...... 65
`1.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................ 65
`(a)
`“monitoring, on the one or more processors,
`performance of a control gesture by a user” (11[a]) ..... 69
`“wherein the control gesture is a gesture associated
`with a command input to the system, and includes
`an initial portion, a first intermediate portion, and
`an ending portion” (11[b]) ........................................... 69
`“determining, on the one or more processors,
`haptic stimulation associated with performance of
`the control gesture to be generated for the user”
`(11[c]) .......................................................................... 81
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“wherein the haptic stimulation includes a first
`stimulation determined responsive to performance
`of the initial portion of the control gesture, and a
`second stimulation that is different from the first
`stimulation and is determined responsive to
`performance of the first intermediate portion of the
`control gesture; and” (11[d]) ........................................ 81
`“generating, with the haptic device, the determined
`stimulation during performance of the control
`gesture.” (11[e]) ........................................................... 83
`Claim 12: “The method of claim 11, wherein the haptic
`stimulation associated with the control gesture includes a
`third stimulation different from the first stimulation and
`the second stimulation that is determined responsive to
`performance of the ending portion of the control
`gesture.” ................................................................................. 84
`Claim 15: “The method of claim 11, wherein the
`command input associated with the control gesture is a
`single, discrete command.” .................................................... 85
`VI. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ....... 86
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 88
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`I, Jeremy Cooperstock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`I am a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`1.
`
`Engineering at McGill University. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering (with Honors) from the
`
`University of British Columbia in 1990, my M.Sc. in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Toronto in 1992, and my Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1996.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, and a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology at McGill University. I presently direct a group of approximately 50
`
`researchers at the Shared Reality Lab at McGill, which focuses on computer
`
`mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human communication and the synthesis of
`
`perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive environments. I led the development
`
`of the Intelligent Classroom, the world's first Internet streaming demonstrations of
`
`Dolby Digital 5.1, multiple simultaneous streams of uncompressed high-definition
`
`video, a high-fidelity orchestra rehearsal simulator, a simulation environment that
`
`renders graphic, audio, and vibrotactile effects in response to footsteps, and a mobile
`5
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`game treatment for amblyopia.
`
`4. My work on the Ultra-Videoconferencing system was recognized by an
`
`award for Most Innovative Use of New Technology from ACM/IEEE
`
`Supercomputing and a Distinction Award from the Audio Engineering Society. The
`
`research I supervised on the Autour project earned the Hochhausen Research Award
`
`from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and an Impact Award from the
`
`Canadian Internet Registry Association, and my Real-Time Emergency Response
`
`project won the Gold Prize (brainstorm round) of the Mozilla Ignite Challenge. I
`
`am also a recipient of several “best paper” awards from scholarly societies for my
`
`research.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked with IBM at the Haifa Research Center, Israel, and the
`
`Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, the Sony Computer
`
`Science Laboratory in Tokyo, Japan, and was a visiting professor at Bang & Olufsen,
`
`Denmark, where I conducted research on telepresence technologies as part of the
`
`World Opera Project. I led the theme of Enabling Technologies for a Networks of
`
`Centres of Excellence on Graphics, Animation, and New Media (GRAND) and I am
`
`an associate editor of the Journal of the AES, the Frontiers Journal in Virtual Reality,
`
`and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Transactions on
`
`Haptics.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have carried out significant research
`
`involving design and
`
`implementation of haptic feedback systems, virtual and augmented reality, and
`
`mobile computing applications. My work in these areas has been recognized with
`
`several best paper awards. In recognition of my expertise in the domain of haptics, I
`
`was invited to serve as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Haptics,
`
`Associate Editor for the Frontiers in Virtual Reality, and Associate Editor for the
`
`World Haptics Conference.
`
`7. My experience in academic and practical situations as well as my
`
`hands-on experience with multimedia production systems provides me with an
`
`appreciation of the technology involved with U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`9.
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2 (“’806
`
`patent”) [EX1001] and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`Description of Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2 to Danny A. Grant, Robert W. Heubel,
`David M. Birnbaum, and Erin B. Ramsay (filed July 21, 2010 and
`issued June 25, 2013) (“’806” or “’806 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0024459 A1 to Ivan
`Poupyrev et al. (filed July 31, 2007 and published January 31, 2008)
`(“Poupyrev”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0064499 A1 to Danny A.
`Grant et al. (filed September 13, 2007 and published March 13, 2008)
`(“Grant ’499”)
`1005 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, filed in Immersion Corp. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00541-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (dated Jan. 21,
`2023)
`1007 Prosecution history of ’806 patent
`
`1006
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I am informed by counsel that, under the patent laws in effect before
`10.
`
`the America Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed
`
`before the AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the
`
`invention was made”). For purposes of the ’806 patent, I have assumed that date to
`
`be July 22, 2009, the filing date of the earliest patent application to which the ’806
`8
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`patent claims priority, Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/227,645. I am also
`
`informed that in the related district court litigation, Patent Owner has asserted that
`
`the ’806 patent is entitled to a March 26, 2009 priority date. I express no opinion on
`
`whether the ’806 patent is actually entitled to a priority date of the provisional
`
`application. This issue is not relevant here because all of the prior art references
`
`relied upon pre-date that date, and my analysis and conclusions (including POSITA
`
`definition) would not change if a priority date earlier in 2009 were applied. In the
`
`event the priority date of the ’806 patent may become relevant, for example based
`
`on arguments later presented by Patent Owner, I reserve my right to provide opinions
`
`on that issue at that time.
`
`11.
`
`I have also been advised by counsel that to determine the appropriate
`
`level of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be
`
`considered: (1) the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and
`
`prior art solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and
`
`the rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of
`
`active workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`12. The ’806 patent states that it relates to “a system and method of
`
`providing haptic stimulation to a user during performance of a complex control
`
`gesture, and/or during the control of virtual equipment.” (’806, 1:18-21.) The
`9
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`Background section of the ’806 patent states that “[p]rovision of haptic stimulation
`
`to users is known. Haptic stimulation provide[s] a physical sensation to users. Haptic
`
`stimulation is used in the context of games, and virtual worlds, and in real world
`
`control systems.” (’806, 1:25-28.)
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an
`
`equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of
`
`human computer interaction, including implementation of computer-based systems
`
`and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. A person could also
`
`have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1)
`
`more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree or higher) and less
`
`practical or industry experience, or (2) less formal education and more practical or
`
`industry experience. Under either formulation, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood how to interface with haptic feedback devices using software
`
`and/or hardware, and would have understood computer-user interface design
`
`including, for example, receiving input from a user through a computer input device
`
`(such as touch screen, mouse, or other input device) and displaying information to
`
`the user via a graphical user interface.
`
`14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`10
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`on, among other things, my decades of experience in the field, my understanding of
`
`the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with
`
`investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the
`
`backgrounds of colleagues, research associates, and students, both past and present.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’806 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`16.
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the effective filing date.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I
`
`understand that the patent specification, under the legal principles, has been
`11
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and is thus highly
`
`relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of
`
`a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
`
`the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the
`
`same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S. district court (which I
`
`understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including
`12
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in the related district court litigation, the parties
`
`dispute the meaning of one term appearing in the challenged claims: “control
`
`gesture.” Petitioner asserts that “control gesture” as used in the ’806 patent has the
`
`following meaning:
`
`a gesture made by a user that is a single and discrete control input
`having separate portions. The separate portions must be performed in
`specific order and/or with a specific timing to effectively achieve the
`control input associated with the “control gesture.” Performance of the
`separate portions, on their own, will not result in the control input
`associated with the “control gesture” as a whole (e.g., a “control
`gesture” is not merely a combination of other gestures, each associated
`with its own control input).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`(EX1006 at 001-002.) This proposal matches the description of “control gesture”
`
`stated in the ’806 patent specification: “As used herein, a ‘control gesture’ refers to
`
`a gesture made by a user that is a single and discrete control input having separate
`
`portions. The separate portions must be performed in specific order and/or with a
`
`specific timing to effectively achieve the control input associated with the ‘control
`
`gesture.’ Performance of the separate portions, on their own, will not result in the
`
`control input associated with the ‘control gesture’ as a whole (e.g., a ‘control gesture’
`
`is not merely a combination of other gestures, each associated with its own control
`
`input).” (’806, 5:7-19.)
`
`23. Patent Owner asserts that the term “control gesture” should be given
`
`its “plain and ordinary meaning,” or alternatively, “a user manipulation having
`
`separate portions that must be performed in a specific order and/or with a specific
`
`timing.” (EX1006 at 001.)
`
`24. For purposes of my analysis here, I do not believe express claim
`
`constructions are necessary because the prior art renders the claims obvious under
`
`both competing claim constructions or any other reasonable construction.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`25.
`
`date, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`14
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (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.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`15
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`30.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
`
`solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`16
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this finite number of predictable solutions leads to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`17
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common
`
`sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`32.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1)
`
`Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`18
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) 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);
`
`(6)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that, when determining whether a claimed combination is
`
`obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`19
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`reference. The test for obviousness, in other words, is not whether the references
`
`could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`IV. THE ’806 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`35. The ’806 patent, entitled “System and Method for Providing Complex
`
`Haptic Stimulation During Input of Control Gestures, and Relating to Control of
`
`Virtual Equipment,” states that it “relates to a system and method of providing haptic
`
`stimulation to a user during performance of a complex control gesture, and/or during
`
`the control of virtual equipment.” (’806, 1:25-31.)
`
`36. The term “gesture” in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI)
`
`generally refers to a physical action taken by a user with respect to a computer that
`
`provides an input to the computer, which can range from simple interactions such as
`
`tapping and pressing on a touch-sensitive display to more complex interactions such
`
`as dragging an item from one location to another. One example of a “gesture” that
`20
`
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms Exhibit 1002
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 B2
`
`
`would likely have been widely-known to laypersons by July 2009 would have
`
`included a “swipe” gesture in which a mobile phone user could touch and slide their
`
`finger across a touch-sensitive display to perform a particular action.
`
`37.
`
`In the “Background of the Invention” section, the ’806 patent
`
`acknowledges t