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. 50095-0179IP2
`
`Elenga et al.
`9,941,830
`April 10, 2018
`15/181,249
`June 13, 2016
`LINEAR VIBRATION MODULES AND LINEAR-RESONANT
`VIBRATION MODULES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................... 5
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................ 5
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Anticipation ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Obviousness ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 12
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 19
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... 20
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’830 PATENT ........................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’830 Patent .......................................................................... 30
`
`Prosecution History of the ’830 Patent ....................................................... 36
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ............................................. 43
`
`A. Overview of Wakuda ...................................................................................... 43
`
`B. Overview of Ramsay ....................................................................................... 45
`
`C. Overview of Amaya ........................................................................................ 48
`
`D. Overview of Tierling ....................................................................................... 51
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Overview of Rossi ............................................................................................ 53
`
`Overview of Aldrich ........................................................................................ 56
`
`G. Overview of Motohashi .................................................................................. 57
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`VIII. GROUND 1A: The Wakuda-Ramsay Combination Renders Obvious Claims
`1-4, 7, 8, 14, 15-17, 19, and 20 (Plain-and-Ordinary Meaning and Patent
`Owner’s Means-Plus-Function Construction) ............................................... 59
`
`A.
`
`The Predictable Combination of Wakuda and Ramsay .......................... 59
`
`B. Analysis Of Wakuda-Ramsay With Respect To Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 14,
`15-17, 19, and 20 .............................................................................................. 64
`
`IX. GROUND 1B: The Wakuda-Ramsay-Amaya Combination Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-6 (Plain-and-Ordinary Meaning and Patent Owner’s Means-Plus-
`Function Construction) .................................................................................. 98
`
`A.
`
`The Predictable Combination of Wakuda-Ramsay and Amaya ........... 99
`
`B. Analysis of Wakuda-Ramsay-Amaya With Respect to Claims 2-6 .. 102
`
`X. GROUND 1C: The Wakuda-Ramsay-Tierling Combination Renders Obvious
`Claims 15, 16, and 20 (Plain-and-Ordinary Meaning and Patent Owner’s
`Means-Plus-Function Construction) ............................................................112
`
`A.
`
`The Predictable Combination of Wakuda-Ramsay and Tierling ....... 112
`
`B. Analysis of Wakuda-Ramsay-Tierling With Respect To Claims 15,
`16, and 20 ......................................................................................................... 115
`
`XI. GROUND 2A: The Wakuda-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich Combination Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-8, 14, 15-17, 19, and 20 (Means-Plus-Function
`Constructions By Both Parties) ...................................................................121
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Predictable Combination of Wakuda-Ramsay and Rossi ............ 122
`
`The Predictable Combination of Wakuda-Ramsay-Rossi and Aldrich
`............................................................................................................................. 125
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`C. Analysis of Wakuda-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich With Respect To Claims
`1-8, 14, 15-17, 19, and 20 ............................................................................ 131
`
`XII. GROUND 2B: The Wakuda-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich-Tierling Combination
`Renders Obvious Claims 15, 16, and 20 (Means-Plus-Function
`Constructions By Both Parties) ...................................................................154
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................155
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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. 9,941,830 (“the ’830 patent”)
`
`(APPLE-1001). I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’830
`
`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 ’830 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 ’830 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`3.
`In this section, I summarize my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I include 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
`
`Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1982. I received a Ph.D. in
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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 32 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`inventor on about 30 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 tasks including writing 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`12.
`
`I have patented several haptic devices or control methods including
`
`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 ’830 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 ’830 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.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if
`
`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.
`
`B. Obviousness
`18.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” in
`
`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
`
`¶¶ 33-34 below), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`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 ’830 patent (U.S. Appl. No.
`
`15/181,249) was filed on June 13, 2016 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application 61/179,109 filed on May 18, 2009. APPLE-1001, 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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`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.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`21.
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “ordinary and customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary
`
`and customary 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.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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
`
`was made (not today). I have used the date of May 18, 2009 for reasons explained
`
`in ¶ 19 (above). 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
`
`’830 patent is the subject of litigation in federal district court in which
`
`constructions of claims or terms of the ’830 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),
`
`Apple’s Proposed Claim Constructions (APPLE-1034), Apple’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (APPLE-1046), and Patent Owner’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief in litigation against Samsung Electronics (APPLE-1045). 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 claims 1 and 19 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
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`result—“cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency and an
`
`amplitude specified by one or more stored values.” The ’830 patent describes the
`
`“control component” at columns 5-8 and FIGS. 5A-7C, and associated description,
`
`which provides the structure corresponding to the recited functions (see e.g.,
`
`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
`
`including one of the switches (shown in FIGS. 5A-6 and described in 5:52-6:5 and
`
`6:9-16) and the processor (also referred to as microprocessor, microcontroller, or
`
`CPU), as recited in claim 1, and the processor is programmed with the algorithm
`
`(shown in FIGS. 7A-7C and described at 6:52-8:40), and equivalents thereof
`
`(APPLE-1001, 6:52-8:40; APPLE-1046, 13; APPLE-1034, 6).
`
`25. Further, the language of independent claim 20 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 oscillate at a
`
`frequency and an amplitude specified by one or more stored values” and “drives
`
`simultaneous oscillation of the moveable component at two or more frequencies to
`
`generate complex vibration modes.” The ’830 patent describes the “control
`
`component” at columns 5-8 and 13 and FIGS. 5A-7C, and associated description,
`
`which provides the structure corresponding to the recited functions (see e.g.,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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” in
`
`claim 20 as including one of the switches (shown in FIGS. 5A-6 and described in
`
`5:52-6:5 and 6:9-16) and the processor (also referred to as microprocessor,
`
`microcontroller, or CPU), as recited in claim 1, and the processor is programmed
`
`with the algorithm (shown in FIGS. 7A-7C and described at 6:52-8:40 and 13:20-
`
`59), and equivalents thereof (APPLE-1001, 6:52-8:40, 13:20-59; APPLE-1046, 12-
`
`13; APPLE-1034, 6).
`
`26. As I discuss in more detail below, Grounds 2A-2C demonstrate
`
`unpatentability under the means-plus-function interpretation.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has agreed in co-pending litigation
`
`that “control component” in claims 1, 19, and 20 should be interpreted according to
`
`the means-plus-function construction. I further note that Patent Owner identifies
`
`an alternative means-plus-function construction that only includes some
`
`unspecified part of the disclosed algorithm of the ’830 patent. In related litigation
`
`against Samsung Electronics (2:22-cv-00423), Patent Owner similarly identified
`
`alternative means-plus-function constructions. APPLE-1045, 14-22. Regardless,
`
`as discussed below, I note that the claims are unpatentable under Patent Owner’s
`
`various means-plus-function positions as to the “control component.” See Grounds
`
`1A ([1f]) and 2A ([1f]).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`28.
`
`I note that, in the co-pending litigation, Patent Owner alleged the
`
`“control component” in claims 1 and 19 as a means-plus-function limitation and
`
`identified the corresponding structure as “oscillator circuit; microcontroller with
`
`internal or external memory; processor; CPU; microprocessor; and equivalents
`
`thereof” and “[w]here the corresponding structure is a processor, CPU, or
`
`microprocessor, the processor/CPU/microprocessor is programmed with an
`
`algorithm comprising the following steps: (a) set the mode and strength to default
`
`values or values representing selections made by user input to the user input
`
`features; and (b) provide a corresponding output to the power supply so that the
`
`power supply provides a corresponding output to the driving component.”
`
`APPLE-1046, 12-13. Further, Patent Owner alleged the “control component” in
`
`claim 20 as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding
`
`structure as “microcontroller with internal or external memory; processor; CPU;
`
`microprocessor; and equivalents thereof” and “[if an algorithm is required] [w]here
`
`the corresponding structure is a processor, CPU, or microprocessor, the
`
`processor/CPU/microprocessor is programmed with an algorithm comprising the
`
`following steps: (a) set the mode and strength to values representing selections
`
`made by user input to the user input features; (b) provide a corresponding output to
`
`the power supply so that the power supply provides a corresponding output to the
`
`driving component; and (c) drive simultaneous oscillation of the moveable
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`component at two or more frequencies.” Id. As discussed below, Patent Owner’s
`
`position is met by Petitioner’s mapping under the means-plus-function
`
`interpretation (Ground 2A).
`
`29.
`
`I also note that Patent Owner interpreted the term “control
`
`component” in the ’830 patent as a mean-plus-function limitation in litigation
`
`against Samsung Electronics. APPLE-1045, 14-22. In fact, Patent Owner
`
`provided three versions of the means-plus-function interpretations. Id. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner first argued that the corresponding structure of the
`
`“control component” is “oscillator circuit; microcontroller with internal or external
`
`memory; processor; CPU; microprocessor; and equivalents thereof.” Id., 15.
`
`Patent Owner further alleged that “[if an algorithm is required] Where the
`
`corresponding structure is a processor, CPU, or microprocessor, the
`
`processor/CPU/microprocessor is programmed with an algorithm comprising the
`
`following steps: (a) set the mode and strength to [default values or] values
`
`representing selections made by user input to the user input features; and (b)
`
`provide a corresponding output to the power supply so that the power supply
`
`provides a corresponding output to the driving component.” Id. Lastly, Patent
`
`Owner argued that “[i]n the alternative, if the Court finds that a three-step
`
`algorithm is necessary, then [Patent Owner] proposes that the following three-step
`
`algorithm (which Samsung proposed in its IPR petitions) be adopted by the Court:
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`(1) set the mode and strength to [default values or] values represented by selections
`
`made by user input to the user input features, (2) provide a corresponding output to
`
`the power supply, and (3) provide a corresponding output to an H-bridge switch.”
`
`Id. As discussed below, Patent Owner’s first position is met by Petitioner’s
`
`mapping under the plain-and-ordinary meaning (Ground 1A), and Patent Owner’s
`
`second and third positions are satisfied by Petitioner’s mapping under the means-
`
`plus-function interpretation (Ground 2A).
`
`30. Patent Owner also argued in litigation against Samsung Electronics
`
`that the term “control component” in claims 3-5 are means-plus-function
`
`limitations. APPLE-1045, 22-28. Notably, Patent Owner’s positions are the same
`
`as its position with respect to claim 1 in that litigation, or fall squarely within
`
`Petitioner’s means-plus-function interpretations. Therefore, my analysis shows
`
`that claims 3-5 are unpatentable under Patent Owner’s means-plus-function
`
`positions offered in the Samsung case.
`
`31.
`
`“driving component” – I understand that Petitioner has interpreted
`
`“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 to oscillate within the housing.” The ’830 patent describes
`
`the “driving component” at columns 5-6, 9-10, and 14-15, which provides the
`
`structure corresponding to the recited functions. For the purpose of analyzing the
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`prior art grounds according to the means-plus-function interpretation, I have
`
`treated “driving component” as including “a coil of conductive wire 420” (Figures
`
`4A-4G); “coil 514” (Figures 5A-5B); “coil 626” (Figure 6); “electromagnet”
`
`(Figures 10-11); “additional coils 1202 and 1204” (Figure 12); “coils 1302 and
`
`1304” (Figure 13); “driving coils 1412 and 1414” (Figure 14); “coil 1510” (Figures
`
`15-16), “stator coils” (Figures 24A-25), and equivalents thereof (APPLE-1001,
`
`5:7-41, 5:61-66, 6:40-44, 9:22-64, 10:9-34, 14:24-28).
`
`32.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has agreed in co-pending litigation
`
`that “driving component” should be interpreted according to the means-plus-
`
`function construction, as set forth above. APPLE-1046, 5. As I discuss in more
`
`detail herein, all Grounds set forth why this element was provided in the prior art
`
`publications, regardless of whether this term is a means-plus-function or plain-and-
`
`ordinary meaning limitation.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`33. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’830 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
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`I have used the date of the application that led to the ’830 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
`35. 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
`
`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 ’830 patent, and I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely
`
`with many such persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`36. 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 ’830 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the field; and my experience in working with
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
`others, including teaching and advising others in the field. In addition, I have
`
`analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830 (APPLE-1001)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830 File History (APPLE-1002)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,843,277 to Pedro Gregorio, et al. (“Gregorio”)
`
`(APPLE-1004)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,005,811 to Hiroshi Wakuda, et al. (“Wakuda”)
`
`(APPLE-1005)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication. No. 2008/0294984 to Erin B.
`
`Ramsay, et al. (“Ramsay”) (APPLE-1006)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0109256 to Danny A.
`
`Grant, et al. (“Grant”) (APPLE-1007)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134561 to Kollin M.
`
`Tierling, et al. (“Tierling”) (APPLE-1008)
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0246532 (“Cosper”) (APPLE-1009)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0198139 to Robert Andre
`
`Lacroix, et al. (“Lacroix”) (APPLE-1010)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0134562 to Danny Grant,
`
`et al. (APPLE-1011)
`
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0179IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830
`
` C. McLyman, Chapter 1 – Fundamentals of Magnetics in Transformer
`
`and Inductor Design Handbook, Marcel Dekker, Third Edition, Revised
`
`and Expanded, 2004 (APPLE-1012)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,088,017 to Mark R. Tremblay, et al. (APPLE-1013)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,686,952 to Bobby Burrough, et al. (APPLE-1014)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,207,832 to Jue Byung Yun, et al. (APPLE-1015)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,203,640 to Jong Hwan Kim, et al. (APPLE-1016)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0285216 to Kollin M.
`
`Tierling, et al. (APPLE-1017)
`
` Thorsten A. Kern, Engineering Haptic Devices: A Beginner's Guide for
`
`Engineers, Springer, 2009 (APPLE-1018)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,982,696 to Erik J. Shahoian (APPLE-1019)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,879,641 to Domenico Rossi, et al. (“Rossi”) (APPLE-
`
`1020)
`
` Jack Aldrich, et al, Controller for Driving a Piezoelectric Actuator at
`
`Resonance, NASA Tech Briefs, April 2008 (“Aldrich”) (APPLE-1021)
`
` Declaration of June Munford re Aldrich (APPLE-1022)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,027,032 to Louis B. Rosenberg, et al. (“Rosenberg”)
`
`(APPLE-1023)
`
`22
`
`

`