`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. TBD
`
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEAN RENARD WARD
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,749,507
`
`Valve Exhibit 1003
`Valve v. Immersion
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Engagement ................................................................................................. 1 
`B.  Background and Qualifications ................................................................... 2 
`C.  Bases of My Opinions and Materials Considered ....................................... 9 
`D.  My Understanding of Patent Law ............................................................. 10 
`1.  Legal Standard for Anticipation .......................................................... 12 
`2.  Legal Standards of Obviousness ......................................................... 13 
`II.  DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE
`RELEVANT TIME FRAME ........................................................................... 16 
`III.  PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 17 
`IV.  PRIMARY REFERENCES CONSIDERED .................................................. 19 
`V.  SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................... 20 
`VI.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 20 
`A.  An Overview of Touchpads and Similar Devices ..................................... 20 
`B.  An Overview of Haptics ............................................................................ 31 
`VII.  THE ’507 PATENT ......................................................................................... 37 
`A.  ’507 Patent Embodiments .......................................................................... 37 
`B.  Challenged Claims ..................................................................................... 40 
`C.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 41 
`D.  Apple IPRs ................................................................................................. 46 
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 47 
`A.  “determining a press if… a first interval has elapsed” .............................. 47 
`1.  Claim language .................................................................................... 48 
`2.  Specification ........................................................................................ 49 
`a.  Fig. 2 Embodiment ...................................................................... 49 
`b.  Fig. 3 Embodiment ...................................................................... 52 
`B.  ITC Constructions ..................................................................................... 56 
`IX.  UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................... 57 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`c. 
`
`e. 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Astala+Shahoian Renders Obvious Claims 1-18. .................... 58 
`1.  Astala ................................................................................................... 58 
`2.  Shahoian .............................................................................................. 60 
`3.  Reasons to Combine Astala and Shahoian .......................................... 61 
`4.  Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 70 
`a.  1[PRE]: “A method comprising:” ............................................... 70 
`b.  [1A]: “receiving contact data from an input device” .................. 70 
`i.  Claim Terms ....................................................................... 70 
`(1)  “input device” ............................................................. 70 
`(2)  “contact data” ............................................................. 70 
`ii.  Astala+Shahoian meets [1A]. ............................................. 71 
`[1B]: “determining an interaction with a displayed object
`on a screen based on the contact data” ........................................ 72 
`d.  [1C]: “responsive to determining the interaction,
`determining a gesture based on the contact data
`comprising” ................................................................................. 72 
`[1D]: “determining a pressure and a change in pressure
`based on the contact data” ........................................................... 74 
`i. 
`“determining a pressure” .................................................... 74 
`ii.  “determining... a change in pressure” ................................. 74 
`[1E]: “determining a press if” ..................................................... 75 
`f. 
`g.  [1E1]: “the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold” .......... 75 
`h.  [1E2]: “the change in pressure is greater than a change in
`pressure threshold” ...................................................................... 76 
`i.  Astala+Shahoian Determining Whether a Pressure
`Reduction Exceeds a Threshold Meets [1E2] ..................... 76 
`ii.  Obvious To Add A Pressure-Change Determination
`to Astala’s Step 710. ........................................................... 79 
`[1E3]: “a first interval has elapsed” ............................................ 80 
`i.  Astala+Shahoian Meets [1E3] Under the Proper
`Construction. ....................................................................... 80 
`
`i. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`j. 
`
`ii.  An Obvious Modification of Astala+Shahoian Meets
`The IPR2016-01777 Construction ...................................... 81 
`[1F]: “responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a
`haptic effect.” .............................................................................. 82 
`5.  Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 83 
`a.  Pseudo pressure ........................................................................... 83 
`b.  Actual pressure ............................................................................ 84 
`6.  Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 85 
`7.  Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 85 
`8.  Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 85 
`9.  Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 87 
`10. Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 88 
`a.  Preamble ...................................................................................... 88 
`b.  Limitation [7A] ........................................................................... 88 
`c.  Limitation [7B] ........................................................................... 89 
`d.  Limitation [7C] ........................................................................... 90 
`11. Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 90 
`12. Claim 9. ............................................................................................... 92 
`a.  Astala+Shahoian Uses Non-Transitory CRM With
`Program Code Executed by a Processor. .................................... 92 
`b.  Astala+Shahoia’s Program Code Causes a Processor to
`Perform [9A]-[9F]’s Method Steps ............................................. 94 
`13. Claims 10-13. ...................................................................................... 94 
`14. Claim 14. ............................................................................................. 95 
`a.  Astala+Shahoian’s System Has a Processor and CRM .............. 95 
`b.  Astala+Shahoia’s Processor is Configured to Perform
`[14C]-[14H] ................................................................................. 95 
`15. Claims 15-18. ...................................................................................... 96 
`B.  Ground 2: Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov Renders Obvious Claims 1, 6-
`9, 13-14, and 18. ........................................................................................ 96 
`1.  Keely .................................................................................................... 96 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`2.  Kolmykov-Zotov ................................................................................. 97 
`3.  Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov ..................................................................... 98 
`a.  Reasons to combine .................................................................... 98 
`b.  Reasonable expectation of success ........................................... 100 
`c.  Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov ........................................................... 101 
`4.  Claim 1 ..............................................................................................101 
`a.  Preamble .................................................................................... 101 
`b.  Limitation [1A] ......................................................................... 102 
`c.  Limitation [1B] ......................................................................... 103 
`d.  Limitation [1C] ......................................................................... 105 
`e.  Limitation [1D] ......................................................................... 105 
`f.  Limitation [1E] .......................................................................... 108 
`g.  Limitations [1E1]-[1E2] ............................................................ 109 
`i. 
`Pressure ............................................................................. 110 
`ii.  Pressure change ................................................................. 113 
`h.  Limitation [1E3] ........................................................................ 114 
`i.  Determining a Press ([1E]-[1E3]) ............................................. 115 
`(1)  Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov Meets the Proper
`Construction .............................................................. 115 
`(2)  Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov Meets a Narrower
`Construction .............................................................. 116 
`j.  Limitation [1F] .......................................................................... 118 
`5.  Claim 6 ..............................................................................................119 
`6.  Claim 7 ..............................................................................................120 
`a.  Preamble .................................................................................... 120 
`b.  Limitation [7A] ......................................................................... 121 
`c.  Limitations [7B]-[7C] ............................................................... 122 
`7.  Claim 8 ..............................................................................................123 
`a.  “filter” ....................................................................................... 123 
`b.  Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov meets claim 8. .................................. 123 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`8.  Claims 9 and 13 .................................................................................124 
`9.  Claims 14 and 18 ...............................................................................126 
`C.  Ground 3: Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov+Shahoian Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 10-12, and 15-17. .................................................................127 
`1.  Claim 2 ..............................................................................................127 
`2.  Claim 3 ..............................................................................................128 
`3.  Claims 4- 5 ........................................................................................128 
`4.  Claims 10-12, 15-17 ..........................................................................129 
`X.  CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................130 
`APPENDIX A: MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................132 
`APPENDIX B: U.S. PATENT NO. 8,749,507 CLAIM LIST ..............................136 
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`I, Jean Renard Ward, declare:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Valve Corporation (“Valve” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an independent technical expert in the above-captioned IPR
`
`proceeding (“the IPR”). This document provides certain of my opinions
`
`concerning the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (EX1001, “the
`
`’507 patent”), specifically claims 1-18 (the “Challenged Claims”). I make this
`
`Declaration in support of Valve’s Petition in the IPR.
`
`2.
`
`For my work as an expert in this matter, I am being compensated for
`
`my services at my standard rate, plus actual expenses. My hourly compensation is
`
`based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity related to this case and
`
`is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the presentation of my
`
`findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no
`
`other personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding. I do not have any expectation or promise of additional business with
`
`the Petitioner in exchange for the positions explained herein. My compensation is
`
`not dependent in any way upon the outcome of the inter partes review of the ’507
`
`patent, nor on the outcome of any related litigation.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge, including
`
`my education, training, research, and professional experience. I expect to make
`
`myself available for deposition in this matter. This Declaration is based on
`
`information currently available to me. I reserve the right to continue my
`
`investigation and study, which may include a review of documents and information
`
`that may be produced, as well as a review of deposition testimony from depositions
`
`for which transcripts are not yet available or that may yet have taken place in this
`
`matter. Therefore, I expressly reserve the right to expand or modify my opinions
`
`as my investigation and study continue, and to supplement my opinions in response
`
`to any additional information that becomes available to me, any matters raised by
`
`Immersion or the Patent Office, and/or other opinions provided by Immersion’s
`
`experts, or in light of any relevant orders by an appropriate authoritative body.
`
`B.
`Background and Qualifications
`4. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) detailing my educational background,
`
`professional experience, and list of publications is provided as Exhibit 1004. Some
`
`of my background and experience that qualifies me to offer the opinions in this
`
`Declaration as an expert in the technical issues in this case are as follows.
`
`5.
`
`I received an SBEE degree (combined program in Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science) from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology as a member of the class of 1973.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I am a practicing engineer. For a number of years, I have primarily
`
`been doing consulting projects and contract development work under the business
`
`name of Rueters-Ward Services. I have worked professionally in the general field
`
`of software engineering and relevant hardware for approximately 50 years,
`
`primarily in pen/touch computing and related technologies, applications of public-
`
`key cryptography, and web development. In recent years, my major projects have
`
`concerned pen/touch computing: also referred to simply as pen computing or touch
`
`computing. Pen computing refers to computing that makes use of a pen, stylus
`
`(including a finger), or other touch-sensitive tool, and a tablet or touchscreen. This
`
`is contrasted with computing that makes use of input devices such as a physical
`
`keyboard or a physical mouse.
`
`7.
`
`During and immediately after my university studies, from 1973 to
`
`1977, I worked at Data General Corporation on compilers and source-level
`
`emulation tools for a number of programming languages.
`
`8.
`
`For the next approximately 17 years, I worked primarily on many
`
`aspects of pen computing, both software and hardware, at a number of
`
`development companies. From 1977 to 1987, I was heavily involved in the
`
`development of base technology and three generations of pen-computing products
`
`of Pencept Inc., a pioneering commercial company for pen-computing technology
`
`that I co-founded. Pencept filed for and was granted a number of patents for my
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`work during that time. My contributions included developing novel techniques for
`
`
`
`gesture and handwriting recognition, new paradigms for pen- and stylus-based user
`
`interfaces, two generations of an applicative computer language for gesture and
`
`handwriting recognition, and engineering solutions to problems with touchscreens
`
`and digitizing tablets.
`
`9. While at Pencept, I participated in the re-engineering of off-the-shelf
`
`commercial tablets that detected touch from an electronic stylus; the engineering
`
`evaluation of off-the-shelf tablet technologies, including at least one having
`
`transparent touchscreen sensors that responded both to finger touches and to touch
`
`by a specialized stylus; and the design of a custom electronic tablet responsive to
`
`an electromagnetic stylus.
`
`10. During that time and in the years following, I authored or co-authored
`
`a number of peer-reviewed articles concerning pen-computing, generative models
`
`for handwriting variability, and digitizer/touchscreen technologies and error
`
`behaviors. These articles are listed in my CV, which is provided at EX1004.
`
`11.
`
`I was an invited speaker at an international research conference on
`
`handwriting recognition in Montreal, Canada. I also made presentations concerning
`
`gesture input for Pencept and its competitors to the Graphical Kernel System
`
`(GKS) and Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System (PHIGS)
`
`standardization committees for computer graphics systems, and organized and
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`chaired a panel discussion concerning real-world problems of handwriting
`
`
`
`recognition technology at another academic conference. I was also invited to visit
`
`and speak to the research groups in pen computing at a number of major computer
`
`technology companies, including IBM in the United States and the AEG-
`
`Telefunken Research Center in Germany.
`
`12.
`
`In 1989, I joined the Freestyle development group at Wang
`
`Laboratories as a Software Architect. Freestyle was a direct-manipulation pen-
`
`computing system that integrated stylus- and voice-input and annotations. During
`
`my tenure there, Wang filed for and later was granted U.S. and international
`
`patents for my work on simulating virtual keyboard and mouse input from stylus
`
`user input on a touch-sensitive tablet. In addition, I was the lead engineer for
`
`Wang on a joint hardware project with for a low-power, touchscreen technology
`
`using a capacitive stylus for a line of highly-portable handheld computers.
`
`13.
`
`In 1991, at the end of Freestyle development, I joined Slate
`
`Corporation, a company formed to develop pen-centric applications for both the
`
`new Pen-Point (GO Corporation) and Pen Windows (Microsoft) operating systems
`
`for tablet and touchscreen computers. During that time, I was Slate’s representative
`
`and the co-chair of a number of meetings involving GO Corporation, Microsoft,
`
`and other companies concerning the JOT cross-platform storage-level standard for
`
`compressed electronic ink data, and was the primary author of the first draft for
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`that standard. I made presentations regarding the history of pen computing to
`
`
`
`technical groups interested in the topic. I also conducted tutorials on
`
`touchscreen/pen interfaces and technology at two annual meetings of the Society
`
`for Information Display, the leading engineering society for display technologies.
`
`14.
`
` From approximately 1993 onward, my professional work has been
`
`primarily as an independent developer and consultant in the areas of applications
`
`of public-key cryptography and computer security, in addition to pen/touch
`
`computing.
`
`15. Since the late 1980s, I have maintained an extensive library of
`
`references relating to pen-computing, touchscreens, and related technical subjects.
`
`I have continually published a working annotated bibliography of these references
`
`on the internet for more than 20 years.
`
`16.
`
`In about 1985 to 1987, I was preparing an article for publication in the
`
`IEEE journal “Systems Man and Cybernetics,” which included a substantial review
`
`of problems presented by handwriting variability in the field of handwriting and
`
`gesture recognition using touch screens and tablets. About this same time, I also
`
`prepared a tutorial article for the IEEE publication Computer Graphics and
`
`Applications on some of the broad variety of touch screen and tablet technologies
`
`and an introduction to their technical limitations. In the course of preparing those
`
`articles, I began keeping a bibliography in electronic form, with annotations, to
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`assist in referencing the articles. I also spent several days, for each article, doing
`
`
`
`technical research in the MIT engineering library – the Internet did not exist at that
`
`time. At the end of those projects, I had an electronic database of several hundred
`
`references with annotations. To assist me in keeping up to date and preparing
`
`possible future presentations or articles (such as a presentation I gave a few years
`
`later on the history of pen and touchscreen computing), I decided to add other
`
`references I collected in my professional work, and to continue adding references
`
`of interest.
`
`17. When the Internet became available, a number of technical people in
`
`computer-related fields began publishing their technical materials on the Internet
`
`as a service to each other. As a service to those with an interest in the field, I also
`
`began posting my bibliography online in about the early 1990s. In more recent
`
`years, because of my professional work and because of the relation to applications,
`
`the bibliography also contains references related to computer security,
`
`cryptography, and DRM digital rights management.
`
`18. The bibliography is available on my professional web site at
`
`www.ruetersward.com, and on a number of mirrors. The annotations appearing in
`
`the bibliography were written by me to provide a short statement/reminder of what
`
`I thought was interesting and/or relevant about each reference at the time. It has
`
`been my usual practice to update the bibliography at irregular periods several times
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`a year or more often, as I had time. The bibliography has been cited in refereed
`
`
`
`technical papers by others, by the USPTO, and in academic degree theses such as
`
`at M.I.T.
`
`19.
`
`I obtained copies of the many of the publications and references in the
`
`course of the projects I have worked on throughout my career, others through my
`
`independent reading and study. I keep hard or electronic copies of the majority of
`
`the references as part of my personal records. I have read the references in my
`
`bibliography because of my professional work, my intellectual interests, to keep up
`
`to date with developments in pen-computing and other fields, and/or to record the
`
`history of the field.
`
`20.
`
`I also have a personal collection of touch screen and touch tablet
`
`devices that I have acquired over the years. These include equipment from past
`
`projects I have worked on, as well as other items I considered of note, including a
`
`very early model portable phone with an integrated touch screen and display, a
`
`very early calculator that used an electromechanical touchpad for handwritten
`
`entry of calculations, at least one model of a very early PDA with an integrated
`
`touch screen and display and handwriting recognition, and various models from the
`
`early 1990’s of portable touchscreen computers running one or another complete
`
`touchscreen operating systems, and devices such as smartphones with
`
`haptic/vibrotactile feedback.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`21. A copy of my curriculum vitae with descriptions of my education,
`
`professional achievements, and qualifications is attached to this declaration as
`
`EX1004. It includes a listing of relevant industry experience, publications,
`
`presentations, and prior testimony.
`
`C. Bases of My Opinions and Materials Considered
`22.
`I have reviewed the ’507 patent, its prosecution history, and the prior
`
`art and other documents and materials cited herein. For ease of reference, the full
`
`list of documents that I have considered in forming the opinions provided below is
`
`included in Appendix A. I have also considered the documents cited and
`
`referenced herein, even if not included in Appendix A. Each of these materials is a
`
`type of document that experts in my field would have reasonably relied upon when
`
`forming their opinions and would have had access to either through the applicable
`
`patent office and/or well-known libraries, conferences, publications, organizations,
`
`and websites in the field as further discussed herein.
`
`23. My opinions in this Declaration are based on my review of these
`
`documents, as well as upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`experience. When developing the opinions set forth in this declaration, unless
`
`specifically stated otherwise, I assumed the point of view of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), as described in Section III below.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`24. The opinions and comments formulated during this assessment are
`
`based on observations and information available at the time of this investigation. I
`
`reserve the right to amend if further information is made available to me.
`
`D. My Understanding of Patent Law
`25.
`I am not an attorney. My knowledge of the law is that of a lay person.
`
`I offer no opinions on the law. Unless noted otherwise, wherever I may use a term
`
`that has some special meaning in a legal context, I imply no such special legal
`
`meaning should be assigned to use of that term. Further, as I have no special
`
`expertise in the law, I am likely unaware whether a term even might or might not
`
`have some special legal meaning, nor what any such meaning might be.
`
`26.
`
`In developing my opinions, Petitioner’s attorneys (“Counsel” for
`
`short) discussed various relevant legal principles with me. When I have thought
`
`that my understanding could be based inadvertently in some part on my experience
`
`elsewhere, I have sought to confirm or correct that understanding with Counsel. I
`
`understood these principles when they were explained to me and have relied upon
`
`such legal principles, as explained to me, in the course of forming the opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration. I summarize my understandings in this respect is as
`
`follows:
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that “inter partes review” (IPR) is a proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the patentability of an
`
`issued patent’s claims based on prior-art patents and printed publications.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims of the ’507 patent are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “preponderance of the evidence”
`
`means that a fact or conclusion is more likely true than not true. I have applied this
`
`burden in my analysis and in deriving the opinions in this declaration.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, in IPR proceedings, claim terms in a patent are
`
`“construed” or given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the context of the entire patent
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. If the specification or
`
`prosecution history provides a special definition for a claim term that differs from
`
`the meaning the term would otherwise possess, that special definition controls. I
`
`have applied these standards in my analysis and in deriving the opinions in this
`
`declaration.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to render a patent claim anticipated or obvious. I
`
`understand that whether or not a particular reference qualifies as prior art is a legal
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`determination: as I am not a lawyer, I have relied on Counsel to inform me as to
`
`
`
`whether a reference qualifies as prior art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that determining whether a particular patent or printed
`
`publication constitutes prior art to a challenged patent claim can require
`
`determining the effective filing date (also known as the priority date) to which the
`
`challenged claim is entitled. I understand that for a patent claim to be entitled to
`
`the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application to which the patent claims
`
`priority, the earlier application must have described the claimed invention in
`
`sufficient detail to convey with reasonable clarity to the POSITA that the inventor
`
`had possession of the claimed invention as of the earlier application’s filing date. I
`
`understand that a disclosure that merely renders the claimed invention obvious is
`
`not sufficient written description for the claim to be entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of the application containing that disclosure.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new (novel—i.e., not anticipated) and not obvious
`
`from the prior art. My understanding of these two legal standards is set forth
`
`below.
`
`1.
`Legal Standard for Anticipation
`I understand that for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art
`
`33.
`
`(and therefore not novel), each and every limitation of the claim must be found,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`expressly or inherently, in a single prior-art reference. I understand that a claim
`
`
`
`limitation is disclosed for the purpose of anticipation if a POSITA would have
`
`understood the reference to disclose the limitation based on inferences that a
`
`POSITA would reasonably be expected to draw from the explicit teachings in the
`
`reference when read in light of the POSITA’s knowledge and experience.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference
`
`if that limitation is necessarily present when practicing the teachings of the
`
`reference, regardless of whether a person of ordinary skill recognized the presence
`
`of that limitation in the prior art
`
`2.
`Legal Standards of Obviousness
`I understand that if a patent claim is not anticipated, a patent claim
`
`35.
`
`may be invalid if it would have been obvious in view of a single prior-art reference
`
`or a combination of prior-art references.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at
`
`the time the invention was made. Specifically, I understand that the obviousness
`
`question involves a consideration of:
`
`
`
`
`
`the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`if present, objective factors indicative of non-obviousness, such as
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others,
`
`etc. sometimes referred to as “secondary indicia” or “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`37. To my knowledge, Patent Owner has not asserted any secondary
`
`considerations with respect to the ’507 patent.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, a POSITA must have had a reason for combining teachings from multiple
`
`prior-art references (or for altering