IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Pepin et al.
`In re Patent of:
`
`8,093,767
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 10, 2012
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/782,697
`Filing Date:
`May 18, 2010
`Title:
`LINEAR-RESONANT VIBRATION MODULE
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 8,093,767 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 1 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 1 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 1 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’767 PATENT ............................................................. 2 
`A.  Brief Description ....................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 3 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 4 
`IV.  Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ..................................... 4 
`A.  Means-Plus-Function Terms ..................................................................... 4 
`1. 
`“driving component” (all claims) .................................................... 6 
`2. 
`“control component . . .” (all claims) .............................................. 8 
`V.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 10 
`A.  GROUND 1A: Shahoian-Cosper renders obvious claim 1 (plain and
`ordinary meaning) ................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Shahoian ........................................................................................ 10 
`2. 
`Cosper ............................................................................................ 12 
`3. 
`Predictable Shahoian-Cosper Combination .................................. 14 
`4.  Application to Challenged Claims ................................................ 18 
`B.  GROUND 1B: Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi renders obvious claims 1-4
`(plain and ordinary meaning) .................................................................. 31 
`1. 
`Rossi .............................................................................................. 31 
`2. 
`Predictable Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi Combination ........................ 32 
`3.  Application to Challenged Claims ................................................ 36 
`C.  GROUND 1C: Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi-Ramsay renders obvious claim 5
`(plain and ordinary meaning) .................................................................. 47 
`1. 
`Ramsay .......................................................................................... 47 
`2. 
`Predictable Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi-Ramsay Combination .......... 49 
`3.  Application to Challenged Claims ................................................ 52 
`D.  GROUND 2A: Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich renders obvious
`claim 1 (means-plus-function construction) ........................................... 54 
`1.  Aldrich ........................................................................................... 55 
`2. 
`Predictable Combination of Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich .. 56 
`3.  Application to Challenged Claims ................................................ 60 
`E.  GROUND 2B: Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich-Rossi renders
`obvious claims 1-5 (means-plus-function construction) ........................ 73 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`1.  Application to Challenged Claims ................................................ 73 
`VI.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ............................... 77 
`A.  The General Plastic Factors Favor Institution ....................................... 77 
`B.  The Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution—§325(d) ...................... 78 
`C.  The Fintiv Factors Weigh in Favor of Institution - 35 U.S.C. § 314 ..... 78 
`VII.  PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 80 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80 
`IX.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 80 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 80 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 81 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 81 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................ 82 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767 (“’767 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’767 patent
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Blake Hannaford
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,696 (“Shahoian”)
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0275294 (“Izumi”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0294984 (“Ramsay”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,843,277 (“Gregorio”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0246532 (“Cosper”)
`
`APPLE-1010-19 RESERVED
`
`
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,879,641 (“Rossi”)
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`Jack Aldrich, et al, Controller for Driving a Piezoelectric
`Actuator at Resonance, NASA Tech Briefs, April 2008
`(“Aldrich”)
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`Declaration of June Munford re Aldrich
`
`APPLE-1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,032 (“Rosenberg”)
`
`APPLE-1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,736,797 (“Motohashi”)
`
`APPLE-1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,955,799 (“Amaya”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`APPLE-1026
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`J. Peckol, Embedded Systems, A contemporary Design Tool,
`2008 (“Peckol”)
`
`APPLE-1027-32 RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1033
`
`Resonant Systems Proposed Claim Constructions, 7-23-cv-
`00077 (WDTX) (Feb. 15, 2024)
`
`APPLE-1034
`
`Apple, Inc. Proposed Claim Constructions, 7-23-cv-00077
`(WDTX) (Feb. 15, 2024)
`
`APPLE-1035
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1036
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue, 7-23-cv-00077 (WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1037
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 09/608,125 (“Schena”)
`
`APPLE-1038
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1039
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0219206 (“Schena Pub.”)
`
`APPLE-1040
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0133682 (“Egger”)
`
`APPLE-1041
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0001484 (“Fuller”)
`
`APPLE-1042
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1043
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1044
`
`Central Processing Unit, Wikipedia,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20081205054505/http://en.wikiped
`ia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit, (Dec. 5, 2008)
`
`APPLE-1045
`
`RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1046
`
`Apple, Inc. Opening Claim Construction Brief, 7-23-cv-00077
`(WDTX) (March 21, 2024)
`
`v
`
`

`

`APPLE-1047
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`Resonant Systems, Inc’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`7-23-cv-00077 (WDTX) (April 11, 2024)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Claim 1
`
`[1.P]
`
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5.1]
`
`[1.5.2]
`
`[1.5.3]
`
`[1.6]
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`LISTING OF CLAIMS
`
`A linear resonant vibration module comprising:
`
`a housing;
`
`a moveable component;
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`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;
`
`a voltage input;
`
`a directional-signal splitter/inverter that generates two
`
`complementary internal signals, d and d(cid:3364), corresponding to
`the pair controlled by internal signal d(cid:3364), that apply the
`
`directional-signal d; and
`
`two pairs of solid-state switches, a first switch of each
`pair controlled by internal signal d and a second switch of
`
`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.
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2.1]
`
`[2.2]
`
`[2.3]
`
`[2.4]
`
`Claim 3
`
`[3.1]
`
`[3.2]
`
`Claim 4
`
`[4]
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Claim 5
`
`[5.1]
`
`[5.2]
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`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.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) petitions for IPR of claims 1-5
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767 (“’767 patent”). As explained
`
`in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Apple will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that IPR is available and Petitioner is not barred/estopped.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR based on the following grounds, as further explained
`
`in this Petition and supported by a declaration from Dr. Blake Hannaford (APPLE-
`
`1003):
`
`Ground
`1A
`1B
`1C
`2A
`2B
`
`
`
`Patent Claims
`1
`1-4
`5
`1
`1-5
`
`§103 Basis
`Shahoian-Cosper
`Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi
`Shahoian-Cosper-Rossi-Ramsay
`Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich
`Shahoian-Cosper-Ramsay-Aldrich-Rossi
`
`Each applied reference pre-dates U.S. provisional application 61/179,109,
`
`filed on May 18, 2009, which is the earliest filed application from which the ’767
`
`patent claims priority:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Shahoian (APPLE-1004)
`Cosper (APPLE-1009)
`
`Jan. 3, 2006 (issued)
`Apr. 9, 2007 (filed) Oct. 9,
`2008 (published)
`
`Pre-AIA
`Section
`§102(b)
`§102(a),
`§102(b) 1
`
`Rossi (APPLE-1020)
`
`Nov. 7, 1989 (issued)
`
`§102(b)
`
`Aldrich (APPLE-1021)
`
`April 2008 (published)
`(APPLE-1022)
`Ramsay (APPLE-1006) Nov. 27, 2008 (published) §102(a)
`
`None of the above references were applied in a substantive office action or
`
`§102(b)
`
`cited during original prosecution.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’767 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’767 patent relates to linear resonant vibration modules (“LRVM”).
`
`APPLE-1001, 1:9-10, Abstract; APPLE-1003, ¶¶58-64. The vibrational forces of
`
`the LRVM “are produced by a linear oscillation of a weight or component.”
`
`APPLE-1001, 3:63-66. The LRVM includes a feedback control mechanism to
`
`maintain the frequency of the vibration close to a resonant frequency. APPLE-
`
`
`
` The ’767 patent claims lack §112 support in the provisional application. But
`
` 1
`
`even if entitled to provisional priority, Cosper is prior art under §102(a).
`
`2
`
`

`

`1001, 4:12. The “frequency of vibration falls close to the resonant frequency of
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`the LRVM, [and] results in optimal power consumption with respect to the
`
`amplitude and frequency of vibration produced by the LRVM.” APPLE-1001,
`
`4:10-15; APPLE-1003, ¶64.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’767 patent issued on January 10, 2012 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/782,697 (“’697 application”), filed May 18, 2010. APPLE-1002, 197;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶65. In response to an initial office action, Applicant cancelled the
`
`single pending claim and filed new claims 2-20 that “include a control component
`
`that includes a microprocessor.” Id., 87. Independent claim 2 and dependent
`
`claims 3-6 were rejected over Oba(US2005/0231045) and Orr(US2005/0275508)
`
`and never allowed, but a final office action identified dependent claims 7-11, as
`
`allowable subject matter. APPLE-1002, 36, 52. Applicant cancelled the rejected
`
`claims, and amended claim 7 by incorporating the features of rejected base claims.
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶¶65-71.
`
`A notice of allowance followed, ending prosecution prematurely and without
`
`consideration of more pertinent art such as Shahoian, Cosper, Rossi, Izumi,
`
`Ramsay, and Aldrich, none of which were cited during original prosecution.
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶¶66-71. Indeed, none of the art applied by the Examiner was
`
`directed to pertinent disclosures related to linear actuator modules found in haptics
`
`3
`
`

`

`in mobile devices. Id. While the ’767 patent touts its linear resonant vibration
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`module as an “invention,” it is beyond reasonable debate that those of skill in the
`
`art were aware of linear vibration modules that included microprocessor and
`
`feedback control features recited in the ’767 patent claims. Id.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`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. APPLE-1003, ¶¶30-31.
`
`IV. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`All claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. The
`
`Board has repeatedly explained that “claim terms need only be construed to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`
`642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the prior art discloses the claims under
`
`each of the constructions offered in the Petition, the Board need not construe the
`
`claims to resolve unpatentability. Id.
`
`A. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`
`4
`
`

`

`Certain claims recite “driving component” and “control component.” These
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`terms do not recite “means for” and thus a presumption exists that these terms are
`
`not subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(¶6). This Petition therefore applies the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of these terms, demonstrating unpatentability of each term
`
`consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`And yet, because Petitioner has endeavored in the District Court to
`
`overcome the presumption against construing under §112(¶6), Petitioner also
`
`applies herein a means-plus-function (“MPF”) approach to claim construction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112(¶6) and demonstrates unpatentability of each term to the
`
`extent construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(¶6). APPLE-1034, 3-8. That is, to equip
`
`the Board to resolve unpatentability under any plausible construction, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates unpatentability of the claims under a plain meaning interpretation of
`
`these terms (e.g., as set forth in Grounds 1A-1C) and also under the means-plus-
`
`function interpretation (e.g., as set forth in Grounds 2A-2B). Petitioner
`
`acknowledges 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3), to the extent that §112(¶6) is deemed to
`
`apply, and it has fully addressed the attendant requirement to “identify the specific
`
`portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts
`
`corresponding to each claimed function” for each means-plus-function limitation,
`
`and sets forth the corresponding analysis and construction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112(¶6) for each term below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Therefore, regardless of the interpretation adopted, the instant record
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`demonstrates that the implicated terms are plainly satisfied in view of the overlap
`
`between the prior art cited herein and the ’767 patent specification.2 General
`
`Electric Co. v Vestas Wind Systems A/S, IPR2018-00928, Paper 9, 12-16 (PTAB
`
`Nov. 5, 2018) (“rule [37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)] does not prohibit a petitioner from
`
`submitting more than one construction”); Intel Corp. v Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-
`
`01340, Paper 8, 11-13 (PTAB Jan. 15, 2019).
`
`1.
`“driving component” (all claims)
`As agreed by Patent Owner in co-pending litigation, “driving component”
`
`should be interpreted according to the means-plus-function construction, including
`
`the identified corresponding structures, as set forth here. Claim 1 recites the
`
`“driving component” performs a specified function (“drives the moveable
`
`component”). The Petition identifies the ’767 patent’s columns 4, 5, 9 and 10 as
`
`the “specific portions of the specification that describe the structure”
`
`corresponding to the recited function of “driv[ing] the moveable component in
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The claims also recite “moveable component,” which is satisfied based on
`
`any interpretation based on the overlap between the cited art and the ’767
`
`specification.
`
`6
`
`

`

`each of two opposite directions.” 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3); APPLE-1034, 7. In
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`particular, the ’767 patent describes one or more coils that receive alternating
`
`current as a structure that performs the recited function. For example, 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”); APPLE-1003, ¶¶28-29. For the purpose of analyzing
`
`the prior art grounds, the Petition treats these structures and their equivalents as the
`
`corresponding structure.
`
`To be clear, all Grounds include disclosure of the specific structures
`
`described by the ’767 patent for performing this function, and, regardless of
`
`7
`
`

`

`whether this term is subject to §112(¶6) or plain and ordinary meaning, all
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`Grounds set forth why this element was provided in the prior art publications.
`
`2.
`“control component . . .” (all claims)
`The claim 1 language recites the “control component” performs a specified
`
`function (“controls supply of power from the power supply to the driving
`
`component to cause the moveable component to linearly oscillate”). The ’767
`
`patent’s column 6-7 and associated description of the flowcharts shown in FIGS.
`
`7A-7C are the “specific portions of the specification that describe the structure”
`
`corresponding to the recited functions. 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3); APPLE-1034, 3-5;
`
`APPLE-1046, 19. For the purpose of analyzing the prior art grounds, the Petition
`
`treats “control component” as including a microprocessor and switch, as recited in
`
`claim 1, and the microprocessor is programmed with an algorithm (refer to analysis
`
`of “control program” below, and shown in FIGS. 7A-7C of the ’767 patent). In
`
`particular, the structure includes a microprocessor; 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. APPLE-1001, 6:15-7:2-8:50-62; APPLE-1034, 3-5;
`
`8
`
`

`

`APPLE-1003, ¶¶21-27; APPLE-1046, 19-20.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`Claim 1 recites further functions of the “control component” 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 . . . .” The corresponding structure is 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 in step 716 in FIG. 7A.”); APPLE-1003, ¶¶24-27. The
`
`Petition treats this structure and its equivalents as the corresponding structure.
`
`Patent Owner has argued in co-pending litigation that “control component”
`
`should be interpreted according to plain and ordinary meaning. APPLE-1033, 2;
`
`APPLE-1047, 9. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative means-plus-function
`
`construction that omits much of the disclosed algorithm of the ’767 patent.
`
`APPLE-1046, 19-20; APPLE-1047, 10-14.
`
`Regardless, the claims are unpatentable. Specifically, the claims are
`
`9
`
`

`

`demonstrated unpatentable in Grounds 2A-2B that apply a means-plus-function
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`interpretation of the recited control component. As Grounds 2A-2B demonstrate
`
`how the prior art addresses the claims according to the narrower means-plus-
`
`function interpretation, Grounds 2A-2B likewise address each element of the claim
`
`according under plain and ordinary meaning. And, the claims are demonstrated
`
`unpatentable in Grounds 1A-1C, as well as 2A-2B, that apply the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning interpretation and Patent Owner’s alternative means-plus
`
`function construction based on Grounds 1A-1C.
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. GROUND 1A: Shahoian-Cosper renders obvious claim 1
`(plain and ordinary meaning)
`Under the plain and ordinary meaning of “control component,” and
`
`Resonant’s means-plus-function interpretation, claim 1 is obvious based on the
`
`Shahoian-Cosper combination. APPLE-1003, ¶¶107-137.
`
`1.
`Shahoian
`Shahoian describes a “force feedback interface device” having a “linear
`
`actuator” that includes a moving magnet. APPLE-1004, Abstract; 2:1-3:2; 3:9-10;
`
`3:21-5:39; 6:3-7:63. The actuator of the “force feedback interface device” is used
`
`to provide haptic feedback to a user (e.g., as part of a “handheld game device or
`
`computer”). APPLE-1004, 6:3-6. The actuator includes a “wire coil 104” and a
`
`moveable “magnet head 105,” which consists of two magnets 106 and 108.
`
`10
`
`

`

`APPLE-1004, 3:9-10, 6:14-32, FIG. 2; see also FIGS. 1, 3-5; APPLE-1003, ¶¶72-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`80.
`
`
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶73 (APPLE-1004, FIG. 2 (annotated)).
`A “local microprocessor” executing software instructions provides the
`
`actuator with a drive waveform, which generates bi-directional linear movement of
`
`the magnet head. APPLE-1004, 7:29-53; see also 4:10-30; FIG. 1; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶¶74-76. An H-bridge switch is used to provide the drive signal to the actuator,
`
`and facilitates switching of the signal. APPLE-1004, 7:46-53; APPLE-1003, ¶¶78-
`
`79. Input devices 39 (e.g., buttons) are used to provide additional commands to the
`
`microprocessor. APPLE-1004, 4:44-49; FIG. 1.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶75 (APPLE-1004, FIG. 1 (annotated)).
`
`2.
`Cosper
`Cosper describes a feedback control system for maintaining resonant
`
`
`
`oscillation of a linear actuator. APPLE-1009, [0049]-[0050]; FIG. 1; APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶¶81-82.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶84 (APPLE-1009, FIG. 1 (annotated)).
`
`A controller utilizes a combination of control logic, hardware, and software
`
`to drive and maintain the moveable subassembly at or near resonance. Id.;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶¶81-84. Multiple sensors are included to monitor parameters of the
`
`moving mass and provide data to the control circuit, including sensors configured
`
`to measure position, velocity, and/or acceleration, or other related data of the
`
`moving mass. APPLE-1009, [0050] (“detect position, velocity, acceleration, etc.
`
`for the subassembly” or “load or driving force applied”); [0054]; [0058]; [0069];
`
`[0125]; [0127]; cls. 1-2, 7, 12, 17, 23, 28; Abstract (“position or motion”); APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶¶85-88. “Feedback on the position, velocity, and/or acceleration of the
`
`mass” is input to the controller, and the controller processes the feedback signal
`
`and generate drive signals “to maintain mechanical oscillation at the mechanical
`
`resonant frequency of the system.” Id., [0008]-[0010]; Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`3.
`Predictable Shahoian-Cosper Combination
`A POSITA would have been motivated to implement a feedback control
`
`system, in accordance with Cosper, in Shahoian’s “linear actuator” module to
`
`achieve known benefits. APPLE-1003, ¶¶108-115. Shahoian’s actuator outputs
`
`vibrations having amplitude and frequency controlled by a microprocessor. See,
`
`APPLE-1004, 7:29-54. Similar prior art systems, such as Cosper, demonstrated
`
`the conventional knowledge of using a feedback system to precisely monitor and
`
`control vibrations of the actuator. Id.
`
`In the resulting system, Shahoian’s module that provides haptic feedback
`
`would have included multiple sensors, such as sensors that “detect position,
`
`velocity, acceleration, etc.,” or a “load or driving force,” respectively, in
`
`accordance with Cosper. APPLE-1003, ¶¶109-110; APPLE-1009, [0049]-[0050].
`
`The sensors would monitor the moving mass of the actuator during operation, and
`
`communicate detected sensor data to the microprocessor, which would in turn
`
`adjust a control signal to drive the actuator, thereby facilitating vibration according
`
`to desired characteristics. Id.
`
`Moreover, Cosper specifically describes common user device features, such
`
`as an “on/off” switch for “controlling the power to the control logic/control circuit
`
`12,” and a user input for adjusting a “mode” of operation, which would have been
`
`beneficially implemented in the combined system. APPLE-1009, [0053], [0106].
`
`14
`
`

`

`Multiple reasons would have prompted a POSITA to implement feedback
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`control and user-input features in Shahoian’s actuator in accordance with Cosper’s
`
`suggestions. APPLE-1003, ¶¶108-115.
`
`First, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Shahoian with
`
`Cosper’s suggestions for continuous feedback control to achieve the benefit of
`
`enhancing the vibration performance of Shahoian’s actuator. Shahoian describes
`
`that a drive waveform, provided by a microprocessor, is used to cause the actuator
`
`to produce a specific vibration output. APPLE-1004, 6:40-44; 7:29-53; APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶111. A POSITA would have predictably looked to other teachings such as
`
`Cosper in order to implement and further this objective, especially where Cosper
`
`expressly describes driving an oscillating assembly based on feedback (e.g., to
`
`achieve a particular oscillation frequency, such as resonant frequency). APPLE-
`
`1009, Abstract; [0050]-[0052].
`
`Second, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Shahoian and
`
`Cosper to achieve the benefit of monitoring the real-time movement of the actuator
`
`with a high level of resolution using multiple sensors, thereby enhancing the ability
`
`to output vibration according to particular parameters while rendering the
`
`vibrational output less susceptible to external influences (e.g., such as external
`
`forces on the device). APPLE-1003, ¶112. A POSITA would have recognized,
`
`based on Cosper’s description, that including sensors to monitor aspects of position
`
`15
`
`

`

`and/or movement of the mass during operation (e.g., that detect “position,”
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0177IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,767
`
`
`“velocity,” “acceleration”, and/or “load”/“driving” force), would facilitate
`
`characterization of movement of the mass with a high degree of accuracy in real-
`
`time. Id.; APPLE-1009, [0050]. Indeed, Cosper discloses that “[a]ny appropriate
`
`sensor may be used (e.g., optical, magnetic, capacitive, etc.)” to “detect any
`
`appropriate parameter that may correlate to the position of the subassembly,” and
`
`“one or more sensors 14 may detect position, velocity, acceleration, etc. for the
`
`subassembly (e.g., of bias 16 and/or mass 18).).” Id. A POSITA would have also
`
`recognized that the feedback control in accordance with Cosper would have
`
`facilitated preferred sensations for the user (e.g., even when external forces may be
`
`acting on the device). APPLE-1003, ¶112.
`
`Third, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Shahoian’s
`
`vibrational system to include user inputs to facilitate device operation, in
`
`accordance with Cosper. APPLE-1009, [0053] (“on/off switch,” “a control for
`
`increasing the oscillation rate,” “any other appropriate control.”). For example, a
`
`POSITA would have been prompted to modify Shahoian’s vibrational system to
`
`include an “on/off switch” as a user input to the “microprocessor” in order to
`
`provide a user power control. APPLE-1009, [0106] (“a user control (e.g., switch,
`
`dial, button, etc.) may be present on the outside of the housing. A power switch
`
`may b