Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 39
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19—cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1" Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 39
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS c0., LTD. And
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`case NO- 1‘19"GV'°°903‘ADA
`
`DECLARATION OF ARIS K. SILZARS
`
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the following is 1311—8 and correct.
`
`Executed on: April LZ 2020
`
`By:
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ........................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’770 Patent .................................................. 3
`B.
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’574 Patent .................................................. 3
`C.
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’960 Patent .................................................. 3
`D.
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’286 Patent .................................................. 3
`E.
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’784 Patent .................................................. 3
`SUMMARY OF THE LAW ................................................................................................ 4
`IV.
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Lack of Definiteness ............................................................................................... 6
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 7
`V.
`THE ’770 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 7
`VI.
`A.
`Overview of the ’770 Patent ................................................................................... 7
`B.
`The Claim.............................................................................................................. 10
`C.
`“generally straight line” .........................................................................................11
`VII. THE ’574 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 14
`D.
`The ’574 Patent ..................................................................................................... 14
`E.
`The Claim.............................................................................................................. 16
`F.
`“mesh” [Claims 1, 8, 15]....................................................................................... 17
`II.
`THE ’960 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 20
`A.
`Overview of the ’960 Patent ................................................................................. 20
`B.
`The Claim.............................................................................................................. 23
`C.
`“interconnecting mesh segments” [Claims 1, 9, 17] ............................................. 24
`VIII. THE ’286 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 28
`A.
`Overview of the ’286 Patent ................................................................................. 28
`B.
`The Claim.............................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IX.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 39
`
`“sensor value” ....................................................................................................... 29
`C.
`THE ’784 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 31
`A.
`Overview of the ’784 Patent ................................................................................. 31
`B.
`The Claim.............................................................................................................. 31
`C.
`sensing region relative to the plurality of sense electrodes” ................................. 32
`D.
`plurality of sense electrodes” ................................................................................ 33
`
`“together, the plurality of sense electrodes and the plurality of isolated conductive
`elements are substantially area filling within the sensing region relative to the
`
`“wherein the plurality of drive electrodes are substantially area filling within the
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Aris K. Silzars, Ph.D. I have been retained by Dell Technologies, Inc., HP Inc.,
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Microsoft Corporation to provide certain opinions regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 9,086,770
`
`(“the ’770 patent”), 8,946,574 (“the ’574 patent”), 10,088,960 (“the ’960 patent”), 8,102,286
`
`(“the ’286 patent”), and 9,823,784 (“the ’784 patent”) (collectively “the patents-in-suit”).
`
`Based on my analysis and investigation, I have reached certain conclusions and developed
`
`certain opinions on the issues relating to the patents-in-suit that are set forth below. I
`
`understand the scope of this declaration is limited to the Court’s claim construction
`
`proceedings, and, therefore, I confine my opinions regarding the patents-in-suit to issues
`
`solely related to claim construction. This declaration is based on information currently
`
`available to me. I reserve the right to continue my investigation and study, which may
`
`include a review of documents and information that recently have been or may be produced,
`
`as well as deposition testimony from depositions for which transcripts are not yet available
`
`or that may later be taken in this case.
`
`2. I expressly reserve the right to expand or modify my opinions as my investigation and study
`
`continues, and to supplement my opinions in response to any additional information that
`
`becomes available to me, any matters raised by the plaintiff and/or opinions provided by its
`
`expert(s), or in light of any relevant orders from the Court.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`3. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration. I received a BA
`
`degree in Physics from Reed College in 1963, a Masters degree in Physics from the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 39
`
`University of Utah in 1965, and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`Utah in 1969.
`
`4. I have been an active participant in the development of display technologies and products
`
`that use displays since 1974. I have managed research groups as large as 350 technologists
`
`in creating and implementing display technologies and high performance electronic circuits
`
`into products based on these technologies. In this experience, I have seen the importance of
`
`understanding how a product will be used and how chosen performance features will
`
`determine the predominant final product application.
`
`5. I have an intimate knowledge of the state of display-related product development, and can
`
`accurately reflect the current state of these product developments. I have participated in
`
`numerous technical conference activities (including Program and General Chair of the
`
`International Society for Information Display symposium – the preeminent annual
`
`international conference on display technology) and made numerous presentations on display
`
`applications and on the technology evolution of those products. I was President of the
`
`Society for Information Display (“SID”) from 2000 to 2002. I am currently chair of the SID
`
`Conventions Committee responsible for all US and International Display Technology
`
`conferences. I am an industry consultant with a broad client base and continue to be active
`
`and knowledgeable regarding all new display-related technologies.
`
`6. In my many years of engineering, manufacturing, and product development experience, I
`
`have personally been involved in the design of liquid crystal displays (LCDs), including
`
`touch sensors, and products based on those displays. With this broad knowledge of display-
`
`related products, I am qualified to provide an accurate assessment of the technical issues in
`
`this case.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`
`7. I am being compensated at an hourly rate of $350 for my time spent on this case. My
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of this case.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’770 Patent
`
`8. It is my opinion that the claim term “generally straight line,” which appears in asserted
`
`independent claim 7, is indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’574 Patent
`
`9. It is my opinion that Defedants’ construction of “mesh” to mean “a set of thin wires that
`
`surround open spaces in a net or network” comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`that term as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’960 Patent
`
`10. It is my opinion that Defedants’ construction of “interconnecting mesh segments” to mean
`
`“interconnected fine lines of highly conductive wires or traces, instead of a continuous layer
`
`of electrode material” comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of that term as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’286 Patent
`
`11. It is my opinion that Defedants’ construction of “sensor value” to mean “value indicating the
`
`strength of the sensor signal” comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of that term as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`E.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the ’784 Patent
`
`12. It is my opinion that the terms “wherein the plurality of drive electrodes are substantially
`
`area filling within the sensing region relative to the plurality of sense electrodes” and
`
`“together, the plurality of sense electrodes and the plurality of isolated conductive elements
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`
`are substantially area filling within the sensing region relative to the plurality of sense
`
`electrodes” are indefinite because they cannot be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art based on his or her knowledge and experience and in light of his or her review of the
`
`patent claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE LAW
`
`13. I am not an expert in patent law; however, I have been informed that the claims of a patent
`
`are judged from the perspective of “a person of ordinary skill in the art.” I have been
`
`informed that the claims of the patents-in-suit are interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood them in the relevant time period (i.e., when the patent
`
`application was filed). I have been informed of the relevant law as recounted below in this
`
`declaration.
`
`14. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Such a hypothetical person would
`
`have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to
`
`the pertinent art of the claimed invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art include: (A) the type of problems encountered in the art; (B)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are made; (D)
`
`sophistication of the technology; and (E) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`15. I understand that the claims of a patent define the limits of the patentees’ exclusive rights.
`
`In order to determine the scope of the claimed invention, courts typically construe (or define)
`
`claim terms. I understand that claim terms should generally be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention and after reading the patent and its prosecution history.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 39
`
`16. I understand that claims must be construed, however, in light of and consistent with the
`
`patent’s intrinsic evidence. Intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the written
`
`disclosure and figures in the specification, and the patent’s prosecution history, including the
`
`prior art that was considered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`17. The language of the claims helps guide the construction of claim terms. The context in which
`
`a term is used in the claims can be highly instructive.
`
`18. I understand that the specification of the patent is the best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`claim term. Embodiments disclosed in the specification help teach and enable those of skill
`
`in the art to make and use the invention, and are helpful to understanding the meaning of
`
`claim terms. Nevertheless, in most cases, preferred embodiments and examples appearing
`
`in the specification should not be read into the claims.
`
`19. In the specification, a patentee may also define his own terms, give a claim term a different
`
`meaning than it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow claim scope. A claim term
`
`is generally presumed to possess its plain and ordinary meaning. This presumption, however,
`
`does not arise when the patentee acts as his or her own lexicographer by explicitly defining
`
`or re-defining a claim term. The presumption that a term possesses its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning can also be overcome by statements, in the specification or prosecution history of
`
`the patent, of clear disclaimer or disavowal of a particular claim scope.
`
`20. I understand that the specification may also resolve any ambiguity where the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a claim term lacks sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim
`
`to be ascertained from the claim words alone.
`
`21. I understand that the prosecution history is another important source of evidence in the claim
`
`construction analysis. The prosecution history is the record of the proceedings before the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 39
`
`PTO, including communications between the patentee and the PTO regarding the patent
`
`application. I understand that the prosecution history can inform the meaning of the claim
`
`language by demonstrating how the patentee and the PTO understood the invention and
`
`whether the patentee limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim
`
`scope narrower than it would otherwise be. I understand that a patentee may also define a
`
`term during the prosecution of the patent. I understand that the patentee is precluded from
`
`recapturing through claim construction specific meanings or claim scope clearly and
`
`unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution.
`
`22. I understand that extrinsic evidence may also be considered when construing claims.
`
`Extrinsic evidence is any evidence that is extrinsic to the patent itself and its prosecution
`
`history. Examples of extrinsic evidence are technical dictionaries, treatises, and expert
`
`testimony. I understand that extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the meaning of claim language.
`
`B.
`
`Lack of Definiteness
`
`23. I have been informed that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification “conclude with
`
`one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter” that
`
`the inventor regards as his or her invention. I understand that the requirement of this
`
`provision is commonly called the “definiteness” requirement.
`
`24. I have been informed that definiteness is to be evaluated from the perspective of someone
`
`skilled in the relevant art, and that definiteness is measured from the viewpoint of a person
`
`skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the patent’s application.
`
`25. I have been informed that, in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the
`
`patent’s specification and prosecution history.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`
`26. I have also been informed that the definiteness requirement requires that a patent’s claims,
`
`viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
`
`27. I have been informed that the purpose of the definiteness requirement is to make sure that
`
`the patent claims adequately perform their function of notifying the public of the scope of
`
`the patent, and of the patent owner’s right to exclude. For example, if a competitor
`
`attempting to practice a claimed invention or design around it would be unable to discern the
`
`metes and bounds of the invention, the claim may be indefinite.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`28. In my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applications of the patents-
`
`in-suit (herein, “Person of Ordinary Skill”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Physics, Electrical or Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or the equivalent plus at
`
`least two years of experience in the field of touch sensors, signal processing, human-
`
`computer interaction or interfaces, graphical user interfaces, or a related field. Additional
`
`education could substitute for work experience and vice versa.
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’770 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’770 Patent
`
`29. The ’770 patent, titled “[t]ouch sensor with high-density macro-feature design,” is directed
`
`to alleged improvements to touch-sensing panels. ’770 patent at Abstract. The ’770 patent
`
`describes a “conventional approach” to arranging sense and drive electrodes in a touch sensor
`
`for use in a capacitive touch screen. ’770 patent at 1:40-42; 7:34-36. This “conventional
`
`approach” described by the ’770 patent is to use electrodes with finger-like protrusions,
`
`which it describes as an “interdigitated pattern,” and can be seen in Figures 3A to 3C and is
`
`replicated below. ’770 patent at 7:34-49, Figs. 3A-3C.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`30. The ’770 patent further describes that use of the conventional interdigitated electrode pattern
`
`to arrange sense and drive electrodes can have shortcomings, because “the interdigitated
`
`pattern may make it difficult to employ in touch sensors with certain space or shape
`
`requirements that may prevent or limit the very precise cuts required in the conductive
`
`mesh.” ’770 patent at 8:32-36.
`
`31. The ’770 patent further states that “[t]o address these challenges, the teachings of the
`
`disclosure recognize that it is possible to use generally quadrilateral electrodes without one
`
`or more digits in an orthogonal pattern,” and that “FIGS 4A, 4B, and 4C through 6A, 6B,
`
`and 6C illustrate this new approach.” ’770 patent at 8:45-48; 8:53-54. In other words,
`
`the ’770 patent describes the use of “generally quadrilateral” electrodes, as seen, for example,
`
`in figures 4A to 4C replicated below, without using the interdigitated or digitized pattern
`
`seen in Figures 3A to 3C.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`32. Furthermore, as seen in Figures 4A to 4C, as well as figures 5A to 5C and 6A to 6C, the
`
`electrodes are separated by straight line gaps between each electrode. For example, in Figure
`
`4A, the ’770 patent shows that electrodes 102e, 102f and 102g are separated by perfectly
`
`straight and equally-sized gaps 104b. The fact that the same identifying number, 104b, is
`
`used for each gap indicates that the inventors of the ’770 patent intended for the gaps to be
`
`exactly the same between the adjacent electrodes in this embodiment.
`
`33. The ’770 patent discloses that “[b]ecause drive electrodes 102l, 102m, and 102n may be
`
`formed in conductive mesh without the precise cuts required for a digitized pattern, these or
`
`similar electrodes may be used in touch sensors with particular space and/or size
`
`constraints.” ’770 patent at 12:17-20. The ’770 patent thus asserts that the straight electrodes
`
`depicted in Figures 4A to 6C do not require the precise cuts of the conventional interdigitated
`
`electrodes.
`
`34. The ’770 patent also states how wide the gap is between the adjacent electrodes of the
`
`invention. The two independent claims of the ’770 patent both recite that the gaps between
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 39
`
`the electrodes should be “greater than or equal to 5 micrometers and less than 20
`
`micrometers.” ’770 patent at claims 1 and 7. The ’770 patent describes that this gap of
`
`greater than or equal to five micrometers and less than twenty micrometers should run “in a
`
`generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side of the sensing
`
`area.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Claim
`
`35. Claim 7 of the ’770 patent is representative for the purposes of claim construction and recites:
`
`7. A touch position-sensing panel comprising:
`a sensing area comprising:
`a substrate;
`a plurality of first electrodes in a first layer on a first side of the substrate, the
`plurality of first electrodes comprising a conductive mesh and arranged in a
`first direction, each of the plurality of first electrodes spanning the sensing area
`in the first direction;
`the first layer having a first plurality of gaps formed in the mesh, at least one of the
`plurality of first electrodes separated from an adjacent electrode of the plurality
`of first electrodes by a gap of the first plurality of gaps, the gap of the first
`plurality of gaps separating the at least one electrode of the plurality of first
`electrodes and the adjacent electrode of the plurality of first electrodes from
`one side of the sensing area to an opposing side of the sensing area;
`a plurality of second electrodes in a second layer on a second side of the substrate,
`the plurality of second electrodes comprising a conductive mesh and arranged
`in a second direction, each of the plurality of second electrodes spanning the
`sensing area in the second direction;
`the second layer having a second plurality of gaps formed in the mesh, at least one
`of the plurality of second electrodes separated from an adjacent elec trode of
`the plurality of second electrodes by a gap of the second plurality of gaps, the
`gap of the second plurality of gaps separating the at least one electrode of the
`plurality of second electrodes and the adjacent electrode of the plurality of
`second electrodes from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side of the
`sensing area;
`wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes
`overlap to create a plurality of nodes;
`wherein each of the first plurality of gaps and each of the second plurality of gaps
`runs in a generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an
`opposing side of the sensing area and has a width greater than or equal to 5
`micrometers and less than 20 micrometers,
`wherein the plurality of first electrodes are formed from a piece of conductive mesh
`by creating a plurality of cuts in the piece of conductive mesh, each of the
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 39
`
`plurality of cuts in the piece of conductive mesh being one of the first plurality
`of gaps.
`
`
`’770 patent at 15:18 to 16:14 (emphasis added).
`
`C.
`
` “generally straight line”
`
`36. Although the ’770 patent claims 1 and 7 recite that the gap must be a “generally straight line”
`
`and between five and less than 20 micrometers in width, the ’770 patent is silent on how
`
`much the gap direction and/or width can vary from one side of the sensing area to an opposing
`
`side of the sensing area, and still be considered to run in a “generally straight line.”
`
`Demonstrative Figure 1 below illustrates this point. As depicted in Figure 1, all three
`
`examples, A, B, and C, have gap measurements that fall within five and 20 micrometers.
`
`Example A has a perfectly straight gap of ten micrometers, which is similar to the ’770
`
`patent’s illustration in Figures 4A to 4C. In contrast, example B has electrodes with a
`
`sinusoidal shape that maintains a consistent gap of ten micrometers between electrodes, even
`
`though the gap direction varies according to the sinusoidal shape of the electrodes. It is
`
`unclear from the ’770 patent’s claims and specification whether the gaps between the
`
`sinusoidal electrodes in example B run in a “generally straight line.” Likewise, the ’770
`
`patent does not provide any guidance on the extent to which the width of a gap can vary and
`
`still be considered to run in a “generally straight line.” For instance, with reference to
`
`example C below, it is unclear whether a gap that starts at five micrometers wide on one end
`
`of the sensing area, bows to 19 micrometers wide in the middle of the sensing area, then
`
`narrows to 16 micrometers at the other end of the sensing area is considered a “generally
`
`straight line” gap for purposes of the ’770 invention. Thus, the ’770 patent does not provide
`
`a definition or any objective guidance of what constitutes a “generally straight line” gap, as
`
`claimed.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 39
`
`Fig. 1
`
`
`
`37. The touch sensing electrodes described in the ’770 patent are often only a few millimeters in
`
`width and separated from adjacent electrodes by small fractions of a millimeter, i.e. 5-20
`
`micrometers or microns. Given the extremely precise dimensions of electrodes and
`
`exceedingly narrow gaps that separate them, great precision is required to design and
`
`manufacture the touch-sensing electrodes disclosed and claimed in the ’770 patent. Thus,
`
`even a few microns—fractions of a hair-width—of difference in how wide an electrode is at
`
`any given point can reduce the gap between electrodes to nearly zero, or conversely, can
`
`make the gap too wide.
`
`38. Because touch panel performance is highly sensitive to variations in electrode and gap
`
`dimensions, such dimensions typically have relatively high accuracy and precision
`
`requirements. For example, if the width of the gaps between touch-sensing electrodes is too
`
`small, the proximity of the electrodes to one-another can create unwanted interference or
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 39
`
`parasitic capacitance between electrodes, thereby greatly diminishing the touch-sensing
`
`performance of the device. Similarly, if the width between the electrodes becomes too large,
`
`it can reduce the precision of the touch detection. In both scenarios, the result is poor touch-
`
`sensing performance. Precision of design and manufacturing is thus a key requirement to
`
`create touch-sensing electrodes that perform optimally.
`
`39. Given the microscopic distance by which the touch-sensing electrodes are separated from
`
`adjacent electrodes, the precision with which electrode dimensions and shapes are defined is
`
`very important. For example, if an electrode is created with a very slight sinusoidal wave
`
`pattern with a dimensional variation of only five microns—as compared to a human hair that
`
`is typically around 70 microns thick—that electrode’s dimensional variation is large enough
`
`to potentially close the entire gap to an adjacent electrode, if the adjacent electrode is not
`
`shaped in a complimentary way (e.g., two wave shapes that complement each other, such
`
`that every “peak” of one electrode’s shape corresponds to the “valley” of another electrode’s
`
`shape, thereby maintaining a constant gap between, as shown in Figure 1 example B, above).
`
`From a macro view, a sinusoidal line with a five-micron dimensional variation will look
`
`almost perfectly straight, but at the microscopic level required for the engineering of
`
`electrodes, a sinusoidal line with a five-micron dimensional variation will look anything but
`
`straight. Thus, vague terminology such as “generally straight line” lacks the clarity for a
`
`person of skill in the art to determine how much variance from “perfectly straight” is
`
`permitted for the gap between two electrodes to still be considered “generally straight”. The
`
`‘770 patent offers no guidance as to how many micrometers or nanometers of variance would
`
`be permitted in the gap between electrodes to still qualify as a “generally straight line” gap.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 39
`
`
`
`
`40. The ‘770 patent offers no guidance regarding how much dimensional variation there may be
`
`and still be within the “generally straight line” claim requirement. Accordingly, the ‘770
`
`patent lacks the disclosure necessary to permit a Person of Ordinary Skill to understand
`
`whether a given electrode array has the shape and arrangement to be within the scope of the
`
`‘770 patent’s claimed invention.
`
`41. For these reasons, I conclude that claim 7 of the ’770 patent and its dependent claims are
`
`indefinite.
`
`VII. THE ’574 PATENT
`
`D.
`
`Overview of the ’574 Patent
`
`42. The ’574 patent, titled “Two-Layer Sensor Stack,” is directed to alleged improvements to
`
`touch sensors by claiming a specific touch sensor arrangement. ’574 patent at 1:10. The ’574
`
`patent discloses “a mutual capacitance configuration” for a touch sensor including “an array
`
`of conductive drive electrodes or lines and conductive sense electrodes [that] can be used to
`
`form a touch screen having capacitive nodes.” ’574 patent at 1:37-40. The drive and sense
`
`electrodes are “separated by an insulator to avoid electrical contact.” Id. at 1:41-42. The
`
`sense electrodes are capacitively coupled with the drive electrodes at the nodes such that “[a]
`
`pulsed or alternating voltage applied on a drive electrode . . . induce[s] a charge on the sense
`
`electrodes that overlap with the drive electrode.” Id. at 1:42-45. “When an object touches
`
`the surface of the screen, the capacitance change at each node on the grid can be measured
`
`to determine the position of the touch.” Id. at 1:48-50. Such touch sensors in a mutual
`
`capacitance configuration were well known prior to April 18, 2011, the earlist effective filing
`
`date available to the ’574 patent.
`
`43. The ’574 patent describes a “touch position-sensing panel 1” that “may be used to implement
`
`a mutual capacitance type touch sensitive panel” and that “overlies a display 2.” ’574 patent
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 60-1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 19 of 39
`
`at 2:52-58. The panel 1 “includes a number of electrodes 4 (X) and a number of electrodes
`
`5 (Y) provided on opposite faces 3a and 3b of the substrate 3.” Id. at 2:59-61. “Other
`
`conductive tracks” may connect to the electrodes to “provide drive and sense connections to
`
`the electrodes 4 (X) and 5 (Y).” Id. at 2:64-3:1. “An adhesive layer 6 of an optically clear
`
`adhesive may be between the electrodes 4 (X) and a transparent covering sheet 7. Another
`
`adhesive layer 8 of an optically clear adhesive may be between the electrodes 5