IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`
`Pepin et al.
`8,093,767
`January 10, 2012
`12/782,697
`May 18, 2010
`LINEAR-RESONANT VIBRATION MODULE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BLAKE HANNAFORD
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. I further
`
`declare that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`12-Apr-2024
`
`By:
`
` Blake Hannaford, Ph.D.
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................................. 4
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................... 4
`II.
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................. 8
` Anticipation ......................................................................................................... 8
`Obviousness ......................................................................................................... 9
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 11
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 16
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 16
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’767 PATENT ................................................................... 21
`Summary of the ’767 Patent .......................................................................... 21
`Prosecution History of the ’767 patent ....................................................... 27
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ................................................... 33
` Overview of Shahoian ..................................................................................... 33
`Overview of Cosper ......................................................................................... 38
`Overview of Rossi ............................................................................................ 42
` Overview of Aldrich ........................................................................................ 45
`Overview of Ramsay ....................................................................................... 46
`Overview of Motohashi .................................................................................. 49
` Overview of Amaya ........................................................................................ 50
`VIII. GROUND 1A: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE SHAHOIAN-
`COSPER COMBINATION (PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING) ........ 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Predictable Combination of Shahoian and Cosper .......................... 53
`Analysis of Shahoian and Cosper with Respect to Claim 1 .................. 58
`IX. GROUND 1B: THE SHAHOIAN-COSPER-ROSSI COMBINATION
`RENDERS CLAIMS 1-4 OBVIOUS (PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING) ... 76
`The Predictable Combination of Shahoian, Cosper, and Rossi ............ 76
`Analysis of Shahoian, Cosper, and Rossi with Respect to Claims 1-4
`............................................................................................................................... 81
`X. GROUND 1C: THE SHAHOIAN-COSPER-ROSSI-RAMSAY
`COMBINATION RENDERS CLAIM 5 OBVIOUS (PLAIN AND ORDINARY
`MEANING) ............................................................................................................................... 92
`The Predictable Combination of Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi-Ramsay ..... 92
`Analysis of Shahoian, Cosper, Rossi, and Ramsay with Respect to
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................................ 97
`XI. GROUND 2A: THE SHAHOIAN-COSPER-RAMSAY-ALDRICH
`COMBINATION RENDERS CLAIM 1 OBVIOUS (MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION
`CONSTRUCTION AND PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING) ........................ 100
`The Predicable Combination of Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich 101
`Analysis of Shahoian, Cosper, Ramsay, and Aldrich with respect to
`claims 1-5 ......................................................................................................... 108
`XII. GROUND 2B: THE SHAHOIAN-COSPER-RAMSAY-ALDRICH-ROSSI
`COMBINATION RENDERS CLAIMS 1–5 OBVIOUs ............................................. 130
` Analysis of Shahoian, Cosper, Ramsay, Aldrich, and Rossi with
`respect to Claims 1-5 ..................................................................................... 131
`XIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 137
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`I, Dr. Blake Hannaford, declare that:
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`1.
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Apple (“Apple” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Apple is requesting that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767 (“the ’767 patent”)
`
`(APPLE-1001). I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’767
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`2.
`
`I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal
`
`hourly compensation based on my time actually spent analyzing the ’767 patent,
`
`the prior art publications cited below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not
`
`receive any added compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other
`
`proceeding involving the ’767 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`3.
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a
`
`current version of my curriculum vitae as Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. in Engineering and Applied Science from Yale
`
`University in 1977. I received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1982. I received a Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the University of California,
`
`Berkeley in 1985.
`
`5.
`
`I am a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
`
`University of Washington. I also hold appointments as an Adjunct Professor of
`
`Bioengineering, an Adjunct Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and an Adjunct
`
`Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington. I have been a member of
`
`the faculty at the University of Washington for approximately 27 years.
`
`6.
`
`During my teaching career, I have taught and performed research in
`
`the general areas of embedded computing, controls, robotics, human computer
`
`interfaces, and applications of these technologies, including to surgical
`
`telerobotics. I have taught over fifty course offerings at the undergraduate and
`
`graduate levels, including courses related to consumer electronics design, control
`
`systems, embedded and real-time software design, and haptic enabled systems. I
`
`have been an advisor for numerous graduate research projects including sensing in
`
`mobile devices, position sensors, the application of accelerometers to human
`
`carried devices, and sensors for multi-finger haptics.
`
`7.
`
`I have published extensively over my career including numerous peer-
`
`reviewed and cited publications and papers. I have also contributed to books as an
`
`author and an editor. These publications are listed in my CV. I am named as an
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`inventor on at least twenty-one U.S. patents, including multiple patents related to
`
`haptic interfaces and a pen-based input device.
`
`8.
`
`I have many highly cited publications in the area of haptic interfaces
`
`and their use by human users. For example, my co-authored paper Hannaford,
`
`Blake and Jee-Hwan Ryu, Time-domain passivity control of haptic interfaces,
`
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION 18, 1 (2002) has 871
`
`citations on Google Scholar. Another paper Brittany Redmond, Rachel Aina,
`
`Tejaswi Gorti, and Blake Hannaford. "Haptic characteristics of some activities of
`
`daily living," in IEEE HAPTICS SYMPOSIUM at 71-76 (2010) measured force and
`
`torque recordings of several writing tasks with pen and pencil, opening and closing
`
`a jar, and dialing and texting with a cell phone.
`
`9.
`
`The paper Jacob Rosen, Mark MacFarlane, Christina Richards, Blake
`
`Hannaford, and Mika Sinanan, Surgeon-tool force/torque signatures-evaluation of
`
`surgical skills in minimally invasive surgery, in MEDICINE MEETS VIRTUAL REALITY
`
`at 290-296 IOS Press (1999) describes forces measured during animal surgeries by
`
`both expert and novice surgeons during training. In Jacob Rosen, Jeffrey D.
`
`Brown, Lily Chang, Marco Barreca, Mika Sinanan, and Blake Hannaford, The
`
`BlueDRAGON-a system for measuring the kinematics and dynamics of minimally
`
`invasive surgical tools in-vivo, in PROCEEDINGS 2002 IEEE INTERNATIONAL
`
`CONFERENCE ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION (Cat. No. 02CH37292), vol.2, at
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`1876-1881 (2002), we describe a system for measuring force and movement of
`
`surgical instruments in 6 directions simultaneously for collecting data on surgical
`
`skill.
`
`10. With my student Nancy Greivell, I studied application of ferrofluids
`
`to fluid pumps, reported in Nancy E. Greivell and Blake Hannaford, The design of
`
`a ferrofluid magnetic pipette, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
`
`44, no. 3, 129-135 (1997).
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my extensive academic research and teaching
`
`experience, I have also engaged in the industry. Since 1986, I have been involved
`
`in the research and design of devices that improve the interaction between humans
`
`and computer systems including robotics and control devices. While a Supervisor
`
`at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech, I gained a deep understanding and
`
`developed expertise in Man-Machine Systems and human factors engineering in
`
`computer-based systems. Since that time, I have expanded my involvement with
`
`human computer interfaces to include research, teaching, and design in the areas of
`
`human-computer interfaces and embedded computing. In 2014-15 I worked for
`
`Google-X as it created a new Alphabet company Verily. While there I worked,
`
`among other things, on haptic interfaces for surgical robots, and evaluated similar
`
`technologies from other companies.
`
`12.
`
`I have patented several haptic devices or control methods including
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`US 9,104,271B1, US RE375281E1, US 5,642,469, US 7,027,965B2, US
`
`6,437,770.
`
`13. A detailed list of my other professional activities, memberships, and
`
`speaking engagements is included in my CV, which is attached as Appendix A.
`
`14. Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to the knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’767 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time. Based on my experiences, I understand and know of the
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field during the 2000s and
`
`specifically during the time of the alleged invention of the ’767 patent. Indeed, I
`
`taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons
`
`in the field during that time frame.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`15.
`I have been informed about certain legal principles regarding
`
`patentability and related matters under United States patent law, which I have
`
`applied in performing my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this
`
`matter.
`
` Anticipation
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if
`
`16.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, I
`
`understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes
`
`the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published anywhere,
`
`before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is
`
`invalid if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public use,
`
`on sale, or offered for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing
`
`date of the patent application (the so-called critical date). I have also been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid if an invention described by that claim was
`
`described in a U.S. patent granted or an application for a patent (or in a published
`
`application for a U.S. patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date
`
`of invention for such a claim.
`
` Obviousness
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” in
`
`18.
`
`light of one or more prior art references if it would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”; refer to
`
`¶¶ 30-31 below), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`19. The application that led to the ’767 patent (U.S. Appl. No.
`
`12/782,697) was filed on May 18, 2010 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application 61/179,109 filed on May 18, 2009. APPLE-1001 at cover page. For
`
`purposes of my analysis here, I have applied a date of May 18, 2009 as the date of
`
`the alleged invention in my obviousness analysis, although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even if the date of the alleged invention occurred earlier
`
`than May 18, 2009.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the predictable combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight
`
`in making the obviousness determination.
`
` Claim Construction
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`21.
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “ordinary and customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary
`
`and custom meaning, the words of a claim are first given their plain meaning that
`
`those words would have had to a POSITA. I understand that the structure of the
`
`claims, the specification, and the file history also may be used to better construe a
`
`claim insofar as the plain meaning of the claims cannot be understood. I have
`
`followed this approach in my analysis.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been informed that, according to 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is
`
`permissible for a claim element to be “expressed as a means or step for performing
`
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
`
`thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`was made (not today). I have used the date of May 18, 2009 for reasons explained
`
`in ¶ 19 (above) and ¶¶ 31-32 (below). However, the plain meanings/interpretations
`
`that I employed in my analysis below would have also been correct if the date of
`
`invention was anywhere within the early to mid-2000s. I have been informed by
`
`Counsel that the ’767 patent is the subject of litigation in federal district court in
`
`which claims or terms of the ’767 patent have been proposed by the parties. I have
`
`reviewed the proposed constructions from federal district court, including Patent
`
`Owner’s Identification of Proposed Constructions (APPLE-1033) and Apple’s
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions (APPLE-1034). As I discuss herein, the claims are
`
`obvious in view of the prior art under either construction.
`
`24.
`
`“control component” – I understand that Petitioner has interpreted
`
`“control component” as a means-plus-function term. APPLE-1034. The language
`
`of independent language recites the “control component” performs a specified
`
`function—“controls supply of power from the power supply to the driving
`
`component”—and that this function is performed to achieve a specified result—
`
`“cause the moveable component to linearly oscillate.” The ’767 patent describes
`
`the “control component” at columns 6-7 and FIGS. 7A-7C, and associated
`
`description, which provides the structure corresponding to the recited functions.
`
`APPLE-1034, 3-5. For the purpose of analyzing the prior art grounds according to
`
`the means-plus-function interpretation, I have treated “control component” as
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`including a microprocessor and a switch that receives a directional signal d from
`
`the processor and that selects a corresponding direction of the two opposite
`
`directions in which the driving component drives the moveable component; a
`
`control program, stored in one of a separated electronic memory or within the
`
`processor, that is executed by the microprocessor wherein the control program
`
`performs the algorithm shown in Figs. 7A–C and described at 6:15–8:3; and
`
`equivalents thereof (discussed below in the analysis of “control program” below).
`
`APPLE-1001, 6:15-7:2; 8:50-62; APPLE-1034, 3-5.
`
`25.
`
`I note that claim 1 recites a “control program” as part of the “control
`
`component.” Claim 1 recites functions of “control[ling] operation of the linear
`
`resonant vibration module,” “receiving output signals from sensors within the
`
`linear resonant vibration module during operation of the linear resonant vibration
`
`module,” and “adjusting one or more operational control outputs of the control
`
`component according to the received output signals from the sensors . . . .” I have
`
`applied the corresponding structure as the algorithm described at col. 6, line 15 to
`
`col. 8, line 3, with reference to the “control flow diagrams that illustrate the control
`
`program” at FIGS. 7A-7C. APPLE-1001, 6:18-19 (“FIG. 7A provides a control-
`
`[fl]ow diagram for the high-level control program.”); 7:3-4 (“FIG. 7B provides a
`
`control-flow diagram for the routine ‘monitor’ called in step 712 of FIG. 7A.”);
`
`7:50-51 (“FIG. 7C provides a control-flow diagram for the routine ‘control,’ called
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`in step 716 in FIG. 7A.”).
`
`26. As I discuss in more detail below, Grounds 2A-2B demonstrate
`
`unpatentability under the means-plus-function interpretation, as well as the plain
`
`and ordinary interpretation.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has argued in co-pending litigation
`
`that “control component” should be interpreted according to plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. APPLE-1033, 2. I also understand Patent Owner has proposed an
`
`alternative means-plus-function construction in which the corresponding structure
`
`includes a microprocessor; a switch; electronic memory; a control program that, if
`
`an algorithm is required, performs an algorithm comprising the following steps: (a)
`
`receive the value of an output signal; (b) compare that value to a different value,
`
`which could be a previous value; and (c) adjust one or more operational control
`
`outputs based on that comparison; and equivalents thereof. I have addressed plain
`
`and ordinary meaning and Patent Owner’s means-plus-function interpretation in
`
`the analysis of Grounds 1A-1C. To be clear, the prior art demonstrates the
`
`elements of the claims under either interpretation. Moreover, as these
`
`interpretations are broader than that applied in Grounds 2A-2B, the prior art
`
`likewise demonstrates the elements of the claims according to Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretations under Grounds 2A and 2B.
`
`28.
`
`“driving component” – I understand that Petitioner has interpreted
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`“driving component” as a means-plus-function term. APPLE-1034, 7. Claim 1
`
`recites the “driving component” performs a specified function—“drives the
`
`moveable component.” The ’767 patent describes one or more coils that receive
`
`alternating current as a structure that performs the recited function. The ’767
`
`patent describes “a coil of conductive wire 420” such that “[w]hen an electric
`
`current is applied to the coil 420 in a first direction 422, a corresponding magnetic
`
`force 424 is generated in a direction parallel to the axis of the cylindrical chamber,
`
`which accelerates the weight 404 in the direction of the magnetic force 424,” and
`
`“[a]s the weight reverses direction, as shown in FIG. 4D, current is applied in an
`
`opposite direction 430 to the coil 420, producing a magnetic force 432 in an
`
`opposite direction from the direction of the magnetic force shown in FIG. 4B,
`
`which accelerates the weight 404 in a direction opposite to the direction in which
`
`the weight is accelerated in FIG. 4B.” APPLE-1001, 4:44-60, Figures 4A-4G; see
`
`also 5:25-37; 5:49-6:14; 8:64-9:6; 9:7-20; 9:33-45; FIGS. 5A-5B (“coil 514”);
`
`FIG. 6 (“coil 626”); FIGS. 10-11 (“electromagnet”); FIG. 12 (“coil 1202 and
`
`1204”); FIG. 13 (“coils 1302 and 1304”); FIG. 14 (“driving coils 1412 and 1414”);
`
`FIGS. 15-17 (“coil 1510”).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has agreed in co-pending litigation
`
`that “driving component” should be interpreted according to the means-plus-
`
`function interpretation set forth above. As I discuss in more detail herein, all
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`grounds disclose the claimed “driving component” regardless of whether the
`
`means-plus-function or plain and ordinary meaning is applied, all Grounds set
`
`forth why this element was provided in the prior art publications.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`30. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’767 patent (a
`
`“POSITA”) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2-3 years of
`
`experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear
`
`actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level
`
`degree. In view of the pertinent prior art discussed herein, my analysis would be
`
`the same applying a slightly higher or lower level of skill.
`
`31.
`
`I have used the date the application that led to the ’767 patent claims
`
`priority as the point in time from which my analysis from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA is based—May 18, 2009—but my analysis would be similar even if the
`
`date was slightly earlier or later.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`32. My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of linear actuators, including haptic interfaces. Based on my above-
`
`described experience in the field, I believe that I am considered to be an expert in
`
`the field. Also, based on my experiences, I understand and know of the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field during the mid- to late-2000s
`
`and specifically during the time before the alleged priority date (May 18, 2009) for
`
`the ’767 patent, and I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely
`
`with many such persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`33. As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged priority date for the ’767 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the field; and my experience in working with
`
`others, including teaching and advising others in the field. In addition, I have
`
`analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
`34. APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767 (“’767 patent”)
`
`35. APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’767
`
`patent
`
`36. APPLE-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,696 (“Shahoian”)
`
`37. APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0275294
`
`(“Izumi”)
`
`38. APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0294984
`
`(“Ramsay”)
`
`39. APPLE-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,843,277 (“Gregorio”)
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`40. APPLE-1009
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0246532
`
`(“Cosper”)
`
`41. APPLE-1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,879,641 (“Rossi”)
`
`42. APPLE-1021
`
`Jack Aldrich, et al, Controller for Driving a
`
`Piezoelectric Actuator at Resonance, NASA Tech Briefs, April 2008 (“Aldrich”)
`
`43. APPLE-1022
`
`Declaration of June Munford re Aldrich
`
`44. APPLE-1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,032 (“Rosenberg”)
`
`45. APPLE-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,736,797 (“Motohashi”)
`
`46. APPLE-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,955,799 (“Amaya”)
`
`47. APPLE-1026
`
`J. Peckol, Embedded Systems, A contemporary
`
`Design Tool, 2008 (“Peckol”)
`
`48. APPLE-1033
`
`Resonant Systems Proposed Claim Constructions,
`
`7-23-cv-00077 (WDTX) (Feb. 15, 2024)
`
`49. APPLE-1034
`
`Apple, Inc. Proposed Claim Constructions, 7-23-
`
`cv-00077 (WDTX) (Feb. 15, 2024)
`
`50. APPLE-1037
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 09/608,125 (“Schena”)
`
`51. APPLE-1038
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0144784
`
`(“Ibuki”)
`
`52. APPLE-1039
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0219206
`
`(“Schena Pub.”)
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`53. APPLE-1040
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0133682
`
`(“Egger”)
`
`54. APPLE-1041
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0001484
`
`(“Fuller”)
`
`55. APPLE-1042
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0145547
`
`(“Kraus”)
`
`56. APPLE-1046
`
`Apple, Inc. Opening Claim Construction Brief, 7-
`
`23-cv-00077 (WDTX) (March 21, 2024)
`
`57. This declaration refers to selected portions of the cited references for
`
`the sake of brevity. These references are examples. It should be understood that a
`
`POSITA would have viewed the references cited herein in their entirety and in
`
`combination with other references cited herein or cited within the references
`
`themselves. The references used in this declaration, therefore, should be viewed as
`
`being considered herein in their entireties. Of course, I have also considered the
`
`claims of the ’767 patent. The following table provides a quick sheet enumerating
`
`claim elements for ease of reference:
`
`Claim Element
`
`Language
`
`[1.P]
`
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`A linear resonant vibration module comprising:
`
`a housing;
`
`a moveable component;
`
`19
`
`

`

`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5.1]
`
`[1.5.2]
`
`[1.5.3]
`
`[1.6]
`
`[2.1]
`
`[2.2]
`
`[2.3]
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`a power supply;
`
`a driving component that drives the moveable component
`in each of two opposite directions; and
`
`a control component that includes a microprocessor and
`that controls supply of power from the power supply to
`the driving component to cause the moveable component
`to linearly oscillate, the control component including, in
`addition to the microprocessor,
`
`a control program, stored in one of a separated electronic
`memory or within the processor, that is executed by the
`microprocessor to control operation of the linear resonant
`vibration module, and
`
`a switch that receives a directional signal d from the
`processor and that selects a corresponding direction of the
`two opposite directions in which the driving component
`drives the moveable component,
`
`the control component receiving output signals from
`sensors within the linear resonant vibration module
`during operation of the linear resonant vibration module
`and adjusting 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 linear resonant vibration module produces
`desired outputs from the one or more sensors
`corresponding to one or more operational control
`parameters.
`
`The linear resonant vibration module of claim 1 wherein
`the switch comprises: a directional-signal d input;
`
`complementary internal signals, d and d(cid:3364), corresponding to
`
`a voltage input;
`
`a directional-signal splitter/inverter that generates two
`
`directional-signal d; and
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`two pairs of solid-state switches, a first switch of each
`pair controlled by internal signal d and a second switch of
`
`the pair controlled by internal signal d(cid:3364), that apply the
`
`input voltage in a first direction to the driving component
`when the d is in a first voltage state and that apply the
`input voltage in a second direction to the driving
`component when the d is in a second voltage state.
`
`The linear resonant vibration module of claim 2 wherein
`the linear resonant vibration module further includes a
`vibration sensor; and
`
`wherein the control program continuously monitors
`output from the vibration sensor in order to adjust the
`frequency at which the control program changes the
`voltage state of the directional signal d.
`
`The linear resonant vibration module of claim 2 wherein
`the control program receives user input from one or more
`input features, including one or more of buttons, dials,
`switches, and other user-input features.
`
`The linear resonant vibration module of claim 4 wherein,
`when the control program receives user input directing a
`change in vibration strength, the control program changes
`the current provided from a power supply to the driving
`component; and
`
`wherein, when the control program receives user input
`directing a change in vibration frequency, the control
`program changes the frequency at which the control
`program changes the voltage state of the directional signal
`d.
`
`[2.4]
`
`[3.1]
`
`[3.2]
`
`[4]
`
`[5.1]
`
`[5.2]
`
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’767 PATENT
`
`Summary of the ’767 Patent
`58. The ’767 patent describes “vibration-generating devices that can be
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`incorporated into a wide variety of different types of electro-mechanical devices
`
`and systems to produce vibrations of selected a