Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 985
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a RevelHMI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00423-JRG-RSP
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 986
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`“vibration module” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 1-8, 17) .................................. 3
`B.
`“frequency” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 17) ..................................... 4
`C.
`Typographical error in claim 4 (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 4, 5,
`6) ............................................................................................................................. 5
`“wherein the one or more operational control outputs is a control
`output that determines a current supplied by the power supply to
`the driving component and a frequency at which the control
`component drives the moveable component to [linearly] oscillate”
`(’081 and ’830 patents, claim 6) ............................................................................. 9
`“tube” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 8) ................................................................ 10
`“moveable component” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 1, 2, 5-7,
`17) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`“driving component that drives the moveable component [in each
`of two opposite directions/to oscillate] within the housing” (’081
`and ’830 patents, claim 1) ..................................................................................... 13
`“control component that controls supply of power from the power
`supply to the driving component to cause the moveable component
`to oscillate at a frequency and an amplitude specified by [user
`input received from the user-input features / one or more stored
`values” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 1) .............................................................. 14
`An oscillator circuit is sufficient for performing the claimed
`1.
`function, and is a structural element for which no algorithm
`is required .................................................................................................. 16
`A microcontroller connotes structure to a POSITA – it is
`not a general-purpose computer requiring special
`programming ............................................................................................. 18
`The corresponding algorithm contemplates setting the
`mode and strength to values “representing” user selections ..................... 19
`RevelHMI’s corresponding algorithm is sufficient for
`performing the claimed function—it is not necessary for the
`processor to also provide an output to the driving
`component ................................................................................................. 19
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 987
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`“wherein the control component receives output signals from
`sensors within the [linear] vibration module during operation of the
`[linear] vibration module and adjusts one or more operational
`control outputs of the control component according to the received
`output signals from the sensors” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 3) ....................... 22
`“wherein the control component adjusts the one or more
`operational control outputs of the control component according to
`the received output signals from the sensors in order that
`subsequent operation of the [linear] vibration module produces
`desired outputs from the one or more sensors corresponding to one
`or more operational control parameters” (’081 and ’830 patents,
`claim 4) ................................................................................................................. 24
`“wherein the one or more operational control parameters is a
`strength of vibration produced by the [linear] oscillation of the
`moveable component; and wherein the one or more operational
`control outputs is a frequency at which the control component
`drives the moveable component to [linearly] oscillate, the control
`component dynamically adjusting the power supplied to the
`driving component to produce [linear] oscillation of the movable
`component at a resonant frequency for the linear vibration module”
`(’081 and ’830 patents, claim 5) ........................................................................... 24
`“wherein the one or more operational control parameters include
`both a strength of vibration produced by the linear oscillation of
`the moveable component and a current operational mode; and
`wherein the one or more operational control outputs is a control
`output that determines a current supplied by the power supply to
`the driving component and a frequency at which the control
`component drives the moveable component to [linearly] oscillate”
`(’081 and ’830 patents, claim 6) ........................................................................... 28
`1.
`Claim 6 is not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ........................................... 29
`2.
`Even if 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 does apply, the specification
`discloses sufficient structure for performing Samsung’s
`proposed function ...................................................................................... 30
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`ii
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 988
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comp., Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 12
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 30
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 6
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................................... 12, 29
`Grp. One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,
`407 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 6
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 18, 30
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 14
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 3
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................... 16, 21, 24, 28
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 8
`Nanology Alpha LLC v. WITec Wissenschaftliche Instrumente und Technologie GmbH,
`No. 6:16-CV-00445-RWS, 2017 WL 5905272 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2017) ............................. 13
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................... 21, 24, 28
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 6
`Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs., ULC d/b/a ecobee,
`No. 2:22-CV-00072-JRG, Dkt. No. 105 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2023) ....................................... 6, 8
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 6
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 14
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00105-JRG, 2022 WL 36222 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2022) ........................................ 9
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 3
`
`iii
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 989
`
`
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 6
`Univ. of Pitt. of Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ. v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc.,
`561 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 20, 24, 28
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 990
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 (“’081 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830 (“’830 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Richard Hooper, RevelHMI’s claim construction expert
`(“Hooper Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Clifton Forlines, Samsung’s claim construction expert (“Forlines
`Decl.”)
`
`Deposition transcript of Dr. Forlines (“Forlines Tr.”)
`
`Dictionary of Computing, Sixth Ed., 146 (2010) (SAMRES_00053905-07)
`
`Dictionary of Energy (2009) (SAMRES_00053908-10)
`
`McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, Sixth Ed., 983
`(2009) (SAMRES_00053914-16)
`
`Lowes webpage for “Tubes,” https://www.lowes.com/pl/Tubes-Metal-rods-shapes-
`sheets-Hardware/2641124591, printed on Nov. 1, 2023
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 (IPR2023-00992,
`June 14, 2023)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830 (IPR2023-00993,
`June 14, 2023)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`v
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 991
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Samsung Defendants’ scattershot approach to claim construction is fundamentally
`
`flawed, and Samsung’s proposed constructions and indefiniteness arguments should be rejected.
`
`In stark contrast, Plaintiff Resonant Systems Inc. (“RevelHMI”) offers constructions that are
`
`consistent with the intrinsic evidence, the understanding of a POSITA, and applicable law.
`
`Samsung first seeks to construe several claim terms that it concedes are not subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. For most of these terms, Samsung seeks a narrowing construction by importing
`
`limitations from the specification that describe exemplary embodiments, defying fundamental
`
`principles of claim construction. Samsung also raises three meritless indefiniteness arguments that
`
`feign ignorance over an obvious, single-character typographical error.
`
`As to the remaining terms, Samsung argues that all of them are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`¶ 6 and, in nearly all cases, require disclosure of an algorithm allowing a general-purpose computer
`
`to perform the claimed function. RevelHMI attempted to compromise with Samsung where it
`
`could in order to minimize disputes, but Samsung’s remaining arguments are too unprincipled for
`
`compromise. For some terms, Samsung improperly seeks to narrow the claimed function by adding
`
`non-functional claim language. For several others, Samsung identifies corresponding structure that
`
`excludes disclosed embodiments or adds steps to algorithms that are unnecessary for performing
`
`the claimed functions—both of which are plainly improper under Federal Circuit precedent.
`
`As detailed below and in the declaration of RevelHMI’s claim construction expert, Dr.
`
`Richard Hooper, Samsung’s proposals should be rejected and RevelHMI’s should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`This case involves U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 (“’081 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,941,830 (“’830 patent”), which are related and share the same specification. Claims 1-8 and 17
`
`of each patent are asserted against Samsung, and there are no differences between a given claim
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 992
`
`
`
`in one patent and the same numbered claim in the other patent that are material to the parties’ claim
`
`construction disputes. Because of this overlap, citations and other references to one patent are
`
`equally applicable to both asserted patents, with only slight differences in specification line
`
`numbering and non-material differences in claim language noted with brackets herein.
`
`The asserted patents relate to controlling vibration according to a desired amplitude and
`
`frequency. Claim 1 of the ’081 patent is exemplary and recites:
`
`1. A linear vibration module comprising:
`
`a housing;
`a moveable component;
`a power supply;
`user-input features;
`a driving component that drives the moveable component in each of two opposite
`directions within the housing; and
`a control component that controls supply of power from the power supply to the
`driving component to cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency
`and an amplitude specified by user input received from the user-input features.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSITA at the time of the invention would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years of
`
`professional experience with electro-mechanical control systems, or other similarly relevant
`
`industry experience. Hooper Decl. ¶ 23. Additional relevant industry experience may compensate
`
`for lack of formal education or vice versa. Id. RevelHMI’s expert, Dr. Hooper, personally qualified
`
`as a POSITA as of the earliest claimed priority date and also understood the capabilities of a
`
`POSITA at the relevant time because he was working with and managing engineers with similar
`
`training and experience during that period. Id. Samsung’s expert, Dr. Clifton Forlines, agrees that
`
`Dr. Hooper is qualified as an expert in the relevant technology. Forlines Tr. at 20:4-21 (“I would
`
`agree that Dr. Hooper is well positioned to, you know, comment on technology in this space.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 993
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS1
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“vibration module” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 1-8, 17)
`
`RevelHMI’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`“a vibration-generating device that can be
`incorporated in a wide variety of appliances,
`devices, and systems to provide vibrational forces”
`
`The phrase “vibration module” does not require construction. This is a simple, two-word
`
`phrase that would be readily understood by a POSITA and jury. Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 26-28. Samsung’s
`
`proposal seeks to replace this term with a 20-word string that does not add clarity and only seeks
`
`to narrow the claims to exemplary applications described in the specification.
`
`Samsung’s approach here is emblematic of its proposals for other terms, in that Samsung
`
`improperly seeks to limit the claims to particular disclosed embodiments, despite there being no
`
`lexicography or disclaimer to justify this. See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given
`
`their full ordinary and customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.”);2 JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, 424 F.3d
`
`1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or lexicography, courts
`
`“do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a
`
`patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the
`
`invention or even describes only a single embodiment”).
`
`Most of Samsung’s proposed construction language (i.e., everything after “a vibration-
`
`
`1 The parties have also identified two agreed constructions, including that the preamble of claim 1
`of each asserted patent is limiting. See Dkt. No. 65 (JCCS) at 1-2.
`2 All emphasis in quoted material has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 994
`
`
`
`generating device”) is quoted from the specification. See, e.g., ’081 patent at Abstract, 3:7-10.
`
`Critically, though, this language is not a definition for “module,” “vibration module,” or anything
`
`else, nor is it a disclaimer of any kind. Hooper Decl. ¶ 27. Instead, the specification simply states
`
`that it describes “various types of linear vibrational modules, including linear-resonant vibration
`
`modules, that can be incorporated in a wide variety of appliances, devices, and systems to provide
`
`vibrational forces.” That is simply a description of how vibration modules can be used in practice,
`
`such as in commercial applications. Id. ¶ 27. Such a description does not limit claim scope.
`
`B.
`
`“frequency” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 17)
`
`RevelHMI’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`“rate of oscillation”
`
`The word “frequency” would be readily understood by a POSITA and jury. See Hooper
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 29-31. It does not require construction.
`
`There is no lexicography or disclaimer to support Samsung’s attempt to narrow the scope
`
`of this claim term. As Samsung’s expert acknowledges, the plain meaning of “frequency” is
`
`broader than Samsung’s proposal and can refer, for example, to how often an event (not just
`
`oscillation) occurs. E.g., Forlines Tr. at 41:18-42:8 (“I think the word ‘frequency’ can have other
`
`meanings. You might speak about the frequency in which you visit your parents ….”).
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction does not even come from the specification, nor does
`
`Samsung’s proposal use language that would be more easily understood by a jury. Hooper Decl. ¶
`
`30. In fact, the intrinsic evidence shows the word “frequency” being used in multiple different
`
`contexts, some of which refer to oscillation of a moving mass/weight and others of which involve,
`
`for example, how frequently the direction of current is changed. E.g., ’081 patent at 5:43-45 (“the
`
`frequency at which the direction of the current applied to the coil is changed”). Samsung seeks to
`
`limit the scope of “frequency” only to particular usages of that term within the specification, which
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 995
`
`
`
`would not be a proper basis for Samsung’s construction even if the specification only used the
`
`term to refer to oscillation of the moving mass/weight (and it does not). E.g., JVW Enters, 424
`
`F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or
`
`embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes
`
`very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment”).
`
`It also bears noting that the three dictionary definitions of “frequency” raised by Samsung
`
`in its disclosures do not support Samsung’s proposal. See Dkt. No. 65-1 at 3; Exs. 6, 7, 8. None
`
`includes the phrase “rate of oscillation” or even the word “rate,” and only one includes a variant
`
`of the word “oscillation.” Id. Samsung’s own extrinsic evidence does not support its proposal.
`
`C.
`
`Typographical error in claim 4 (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 4, 5, 6)
`
`RevelHMI’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal
`Claim Term
`“claim 1” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 4) “claim 3”; not indefinite Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`Indefinite; no
`antecedent basis
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning; not indefinite
`
`“the one or more operational control
`outputs” (’081 and ’830 patents, claims 4,
`5, 6)
`“the received output signals from the
`sensors” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 4)
`“the sensors” / “the one or more sensors”
`(’081 and ’830 patents, claim 4)
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning; not indefinite
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning; not indefinite
`
`Indefinite; no
`antecedent basis
`Indefinite; no
`antecedent basis
`
`Claim 4 of each asserted patent includes a one-character typographical error that should be
`
`corrected. Instead of claim 4’s preamble reciting “The [linear] vibration module of claim 1,” the
`
`preamble should read “The [linear] vibration module of claim 3.” It is clear from the claim
`
`language that this is a one-character typographical error, and the specification and prosecution
`
`history do not suggest any different interpretation. A POSITA would readily recognize this as a
`
`typo, and Samsung cannot meet the heavy burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and
`
`convincing evidence with respect to any disputed term. See Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 32-37.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 996
`
`
`
`All four of the claim construction disputes listed above relate to this same issue. In the first
`
`dispute, RevelHMI proposes that the typographical error be corrected, such that the phrase “of
`
`claim 1” appearing at the start of claim 4 would be replaced with “of claim 3.” Samsung denies
`
`that this is a typographical error and argues that “claim 1” should be applied as written. Samsung
`
`takes this position not out of principle but because doing so enables Samsung to present the three
`
`indefiniteness arguments listed in the above table, all of which are based on lack of antecedent
`
`basis. But the challenged phrases do have clear antecedent basis in claim 3, demonstrating that the
`
`typo identified by RevelHMI should be corrected. See Hooper Decl. ¶ 33.
`
`As this Court explained in the Ollnova Technologies case:
`
`“A district court may correct ‘obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in
`patents.’” Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`2022) (quoting Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003)). “Correction is appropriate ‘only if (1) the correction is not subject to
`reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the
`specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different
`interpretation of the claims.’” Id. (quoting Novo Indus., 350 F.3d at 1354). “The
`error must be ‘evident from the face of the patent,’ . . . and the determination
`‘must be made from the point of view of one skilled in the art[.]’” Id. (quoting Grp.
`One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed.
`Cir. 2009)). “In deciding whether a particular correction is appropriate, the court
`‘must consider how a potential correction would impact the scope of a claim and if
`the inventor is entitled to the resulting claim scope based on the written description
`of the patent.’” Id. (quoting CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d
`1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
`
`Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs., ULC d/b/a ecobee, No. 2:22-CV-00072-JRG, Dkt. No. 105
`
`at 9 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2023) (hereinafter “Ollnova”) (making judicial correction).
`
`The requirements for judicial correction are met here. The parties agree that an error is
`
`evident from the face of the patent, which is what Samsung uses as the basis for its indefiniteness
`
`arguments. But those same indefiniteness arguments demonstrate that there can be no reasonable
`
`debate that the preamble of claim 4 was intended to recite “The [linear] vibration module of claim
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 997
`
`
`
`3.” For example, claim 4 recites three phrases that are preceded by the word “the” but have no
`
`antecedent basis from earlier in claim 4 or from claim 1: (1) “the one or more operational control
`
`outputs,” (2) “the received output signals from the sensors,” and (3) “the [one or more] sensors.”
`
`See ’081 and ’830 patents, cl. 4. Samsung recognizes that if RevelHMI’s proposed correction (i.e.,
`
`the change of a single character from “claim 1” to “claim 3”) were implemented, then Samsung’s
`
`indefiniteness arguments would have no grounds because claim 3 provides proper antecedent basis
`
`for all three of the phrases alleged to be indefinite.
`
`According to Samsung, it is “equally plausible” that the patentee mistyped a single numeral
`
`as it is that the patentee mistakenly introduced three new phrases in claim 4, each preceded by the
`
`definite article “the.” Forlines Decl. ¶¶ 52-55; Forlines Tr. at 28:13-25. That is not a credible
`
`argument. As Dr. Hooper explains, “[a] single-character typo is a far more reasonable explanation
`
`for the lack of antecedent basis Samsung raises than the patentee rendering its own patent claim
`
`indefinite in three separate ways.” Hooper Decl. ¶ 36. The patentee plainly intended to refer back
`
`to the immediately preceding claim 3, which provides clear antecedent basis for all three phrases
`
`Samsung challenges. Id. Reading claims 3 and 4 together only further illustrates this, because claim
`
`4 builds upon claim 3 by adding further limitations to the “adjusts” limitation of claim 3:
`
`3. The linear vibration module of claim 1 wherein the control component receives
`output signals from sensors within the linear vibration module during operation of
`the linear vibration module and adjusts one or more operational control outputs of
`the control component according to the received output signals from the sensors.
`
`4. The linear vibration module of claim 1 wherein the control component adjusts
`the one or more operational control outputs of the control component according to
`the received output signals from the sensors in order that subsequent operation of
`the linear vibration module produces desired outputs from the one or more sensors
`corresponding to one or more operational control parameters.
`
`’081 patent at cls. 3, 4; see also id. at 6:24-42 (describing how sensor output signals are received
`
`and used adjusting control outputs, consistent with the limitations of claims 3 and 4).
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 998
`
`
`
`Thus, there can be no reasonable debate as to what correction should be made. It is far more
`
`likely that the patentee made a single-character typo (mistaking one numeral for another) than it is
`
`that the patentee mistakenly added the word “the” three separate times. Indeed, Samsung’s expert
`
`was asked at deposition whether “adding the word ‘the’ three separate times is unlikely to be a
`
`typo” and struggled to offer a nonsensical explanation of how “this could be explained by a copy-
`
`paste error” of “[p]erhaps copying and pasting, you know, these, you know, phrases with an
`
`antecedent basis, you know, from elsewhere, you know, in, you know, errors in drafting where,
`
`you know, we get used to, you know, certain phrases and whatnot as we’re typing.” Forlines Tr.
`
`at 29:16-30:5. Again, this is not credible and does not rise to the level of reasonable debate.
`
`Neither the prosecution histories of the asserted patents, nor any other intrinsic evidence,
`
`suggest any different interpretation. As Dr. Hooper explains, all intrinsic evidence either supports
`
`RevelHMI’s conclusion (i.e., one-character typo) or is neutral on the subject. Hooper Decl. ¶ 37.
`
`Furthermore, RevelHMI’s proposed correction “will not impact the scope of the claim, as
`
`the correction aligns with how a skilled artisan would understand the limitation in its uncorrected
`
`form.” Ollnova at 11; see Hooper Decl. ¶ 34 (“While I believe a POSITA would not need for this
`
`typo to be corrected in order to understand claim 4, I understand that a typographical error in a
`
`patent claim can be corrected ….”). And there can be no dispute that claim 4 as corrected would
`
`be fully supported by the specification. See, e.g., ’081 patent at 6:24-42, 7:32-8:9, Figs. 6, 7B.
`
`With RevelHMI’s proposed correction (i.e., replacing “of claim 1” with “of claim 3”),
`
`Samsung’s lack of antecedent basis arguments fall away, mooting its indefiniteness positions.
`
`RevelHMI respectfully requests that the Court make this judicial correction.3
`
`
`3 Notably, “claims are not necessarily invalid for a lack of antecedent basis.” Microprocessor
`Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In particular,
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2024-00570
`Sony EX1004 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00423-JRG Document 69 Filed 12/21/23 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 999
`
`
`
`D.
`
`“wherein the one or more operational control outputs is a control output that
`determines a current supplied by the power supply to the driving component
`and a frequency at which the control component drives the moveable
`component to [linearly] oscillate” (’081 and ’830 patents, claim 6)
`
`RevelHMI’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`“wherein the one or more operational control outputs is a control
`output that determines a current supplied by the power supply to
`the driving component and is a frequency at which the control
`component drives the moveable component to [linearly] oscillate”
`
`A POSITA would understand this claim term as “wherein the one or more operational
`
`control outputs is a control output that determines [1] a current supplied by the power supply to
`
`the driving component and [2] a frequency at which the control component drives the moveable
`
`component to [linearly] oscillate.” This is the plain and ordinary meaning and makes grammatical
`
`sense because the claim refers to “a control output” (singular) and goes on to recite two quantities
`
`that the control output determines. See Hooper Decl. ¶¶ 38-39. There is no need for construction.
`
`Samsung proposes interpreting this term as “wherein the one or more operational control
`
`outputs [1] is a control output that determines a current supplied by the power supply to the driving
`
`component and [2] is a frequency at which the control component drives the moveable component
`
`to [linearly] oscillate.” But the plain language of the claim does not require that the control output
`
`is itself a frequency. Contrary to Samsung’s suggestions, the claim is not ambiguous as written
`
`because it would not make grammatical sense to require two separate control outputs because the
`
`claim recites “is a control output” before reciting that this control output determines current and
`
`frequency. This is why Samsung is compelled to add an “is” in its proposed construction. But there
`
`
`“when a claim’s meaning would reasonably be understood by skilled artisans when read in light
`of the specification, it is not invalid.” Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.