UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-750
`
`
`Anne M. Cappella
`Jill J. Ho
`Brian C. Chang
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3000
`
`Matthew D. Powers
`Steven S. Cherensky
`Paul T. Ehrlich
`Robert L. Gerrity
`Tensegrity Law Group LLP
`555 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Served on behalf of Complainant:
`
`Apple Inc.
`1 Infinite Loop
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`Tel: (408) 974-2042
`
`Counsel for Complainant:
`
`Mark G. Davis
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Robert T. Vlasis
`Edward S. Jou
`Christopher T. Marando
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 682-7000
`Fax: (202) 857-0940
`
`
`COMPLAINANT APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES UPON WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT ...................... 3
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................... 4
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 5
`THE ’828 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Background............................................................................................................ 7
`B.
`The ALJ Erroneously Construed “Mathematically Fit(ting) an Ellipse”............... 8
`1.
`The ALJ’s Construction is Inconsistent with the Specification................. 9
`2.
`The ALJ’s Construction is Inconsistent With the Ordinary
`Meaning of Ellipse Fitting ....................................................................... 12
`The ALJ’s Construction is Circular and Fails to Define Ellipse
`Fitting....................................................................................................... 13
`Apple’s Proposed Construction is Consistent with the ’828 Patent
`Specification ............................................................................................ 14
`Apple’s Construction is Consistent with the Ordinary Meaning of
`“Mathematically Fit(ting) an Ellipse”...................................................... 15
`Motorola’s Infringement Of The ’828 Patent ...................................................... 17
`1.
`Infringement of “Mathematically Fit(ting) an Ellipse” under
`Apple’s Construction ............................................................................... 17
`a.
`.................................................................... 18
`b.
`Other ’828 Accused Products ...................................................... 23
`c.
`Prosecution History Estoppel....................................................... 25
`Infringement of “Mathematically Fit(ting) an Ellipse” under the
`ALJ’s Construction .................................................................................. 26
`a.
`Literal Infringement..................................................................... 26
`b.
`Doctrine of Equivalents ............................................................... 30
`c.
`Prosecution History Estoppel....................................................... 31
`Infringement of Claims 24-26 and 29 under the ALJ’s
`Construction............................................................................................. 32
`THE ’607 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 34
`A.
`Background.......................................................................................................... 35
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted ’607 Patent Claims Are Not Invalid .............................................. 37
`1.
`The ALJ Erred in Finding That Perski ’455 is Entitled to the
`Earlier Filing Date of the ’808 Provisional Application.......................... 39
`The Weight of the Evidence Shows that the Asserted Claims of the
`’607 Patent Were Conceived Before the Filing Date of Perski ’455....... 42
`The ALJ Erred in Finding that Perski ’455, if Prior Art, Anticipates
`the Asserted Claims Because Motorola Failed to Prove that Perski
`’455 Enables Detection of Multiple Touches “At Distinct
`Locations” and “At a Same Time.”.......................................................... 43
`Secondary Considerations And The Other Evidence And
`Testimony Presented At The Hearing Confirm That The Asserted
`Claims Of The ’607 Patent Are Non-Obvious......................................... 50
`a.
`The ’607 Patent Is Not Obvious in View of SmartSkin
`Alone or in Combination with Rekimoto ’033 ............................ 50
`The Overwhelming Commercial Success of the iPhone and
`Other Secondary Considerations Demonstrate that the ’607
`Patent Claims Were Not Obvious................................................ 55
`VII. THE ’430 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 59
`A.
`Background.......................................................................................................... 60
`B.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 63
`1.
`All Intrinsic Evidence Supports Apple’s Construction Of
`“Properties”.............................................................................................. 64
`The ALJ Erred By Giving A Non-Construction Of “Properties”............ 66
`2.
`Validity ................................................................................................................ 71
`1.
`The ALJ Erred In Finding That The Bondy ’813 Patent Anticipated
`The Asserted Claims................................................................................ 72
`The Malone ’870 Patent Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious
`“Adding Support” To The Operating System.......................................... 76
`a.
`Object Lens in Malone ’870 Is Not an Operating System........... 77
`b.
`The ALJ Identified No Clear and Convincing Evidence
`That Object Lens Adds Support To The Operating System
`That Runs Beneath It ................................................................... 80
`VIII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 84
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc.,
`119 F.3d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 58
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................. 2, 58
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 66
`
`Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.,
`2010 WL 3937157 (W.D.Pa. October 1, 2010)........................................................................ 11
`
`Celeritas Techs. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 49
`
`Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same,
`USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-382 (Jan. 9, 1997)............................................................................... 6
`
`Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras,
`and Components Thereof,
`USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-703 (July 8, 2011) ................................................................ 19, 26, 32
`
`Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. and Research
`346 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 2, 44
`
`Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc.,
`93 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc.,
`373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 70
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................... 38, 51
`
`Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc.
`545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 37
`
`In re Donohue
`766 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................. 44
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 39
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`In re Gleave
`560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Wiggins
`488 F.2d 538 (CCPA 1973) ...................................................................................................... 44
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 51, 54
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings
`370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 70
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 58
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 54
`
`P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 13, 64, 70
`
`Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
`413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 1
`58 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 64
`
`SanDisk Corp v. Memorex Prods., Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Std. Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................. 54
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (April 29, 2011) ................................................................................................ 71
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. PDI Commun. Sys.,
`522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 80
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6....................................................................................................................... 32
`
`35 U.S.C. §282.............................................................................................................................. 37
`
`Rules
`
`Rule 210.43(b)(1)............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Regulations
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43(d)(2)................................................................................................................. 6
`
`75 Fed. Reg. No. 229 (Nov. 30, 2010)............................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`v
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Complainant’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`Complainant’s Physical Exhibit
`Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief
`Complainant’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`Complainant’s Exhibit
`Deposition
`Direct Witness Statement
`File History
`Joint Exhibit
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief
`Respondent’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`Respondent’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`Respondent’s Physical Exhibit
`Rebuttal Witness Statement
`Respondent’s Exhibit
`Staff’s Post-Hearing Brief
`Staff’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearing
`Witness Statement
`
`CDX
`CPX
`CPHB
`CRPHB
`CX
`Dep.
`DWS
`FH
`JX
`PTO
`RPHB
`RRPHB
`RDX
`RPX
`RWS
`RX
`SPHB
`SRPHB
`Tr.
`WS
`
`All emphasis added, unless otherwise stated.
`
`vi
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully seeks Commission review of the
`
`Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and
`
`Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“Final ID”) with respect to the issues of
`
`Respondent Motorola Mobility Inc.’s (“Motorola”) infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828
`
`(“the ’828 Patent”) and the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,663,607 (“the ’607 Patent”) and
`
`5,379,430 (“the ’430 Patent”). Apple respectfully submits that the ALJ committed legal error in
`
`construing certain claim terms in the ’828 Patent and the ’430 Patent. As a result of these
`
`constructions and other legal and factual errors, the ALJ erroneously concluded that Motorola
`
`did not infringe the ’828 Patent, and that the ’607 Patent and ’430 Patent were invalid in light of
`
`certain prior art. Commission review of these findings is thus warranted.
`
`Regarding the ’828 Patent, the ALJ adopted a construction for the term “mathematically
`
`fit(ting) an ellipse” that had not been proposed by any party in the Investigation. The ALJ’s
`
`erroneous construction is circular and not consistent with the evidence presented at the hearing.
`
`Since the ALJ’s construction was neither advanced by either party nor known to the parties prior
`
`to the Final ID, the parties of course did not put forth infringement evidence concerning this
`
`construction. As such, even assuming, arguendo, that the ALJ’s construction was correct, his
`
`factual findings on infringement are necessarily based on an incomplete record and cannot
`
`support a finding of non-infringement. Further, the ALJ’s legal conclusions regarding
`
`infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, and his application of prosecution history
`
`estoppel, are clearly erroneous.
`
`With respect to the ’607 Patent, the ALJ erroneously found that the ’607 Patent claims
`
`were rendered invalid by certain prior art references, but none of these references contain an
`
`enabling disclosure of the claimed invention. See Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Med.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`Educ. and Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The ALJ determined that the
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted claims of the ’607 Patent were anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,372,455 (“Perski ’455”),
`
`but the evidence at the hearing fell far short of establishing by the required clear and convincing
`
`evidence that Perski ’455 enabled the detection of multiple touches at the same time as the ‘607
`
`claims require. The ALJ also erroneously found that the asserted ’607 Patent claims were
`
`rendered obvious by the article SmartSkin: An Infrastructure for Freehand Manipulation on
`
`Interactive Surfaces (“SmartSkin”) alone or in combination with unexamined Japanese Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2002-342033A (“Rekimoto ’033”). Both SmartSkin and Rekimoto
`
`’033 were before the examiner of the ’607 Patent, however, and neither reference enables a
`
`transparent multitouch surface as claimed by the ’607 Patent. The person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, therefore, would not be motivated to the combine the references to arrive at the ‘607 claims,
`
`absent impermissible application of hindsight. Moreover, the ALJ’s erroneous obviousness
`
`determination was compounded by the fact that he dismissed compelling evidence directly tying
`
`the commercial success of Apple’s products to the claimed ‘607 patented invention. This and the
`
`other objective evidence of non-obviousness put forward by Apple when properly considered,
`
`overcomes any prima facie case of obviousness. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
`
`Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Secondary considerations may be the
`
`most pertinent, probative, and revealing evidence available to the decision maker in reaching a
`
`conclusion on the obviousness/nonobviousness issue”).
`
`Finally, the ALJ erroneously found that the asserted claims of the ’430 Patent were
`
`anticipated by two references. With respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,900,870 (“Malone ’870”), the
`
`ALJ erroneously concluded that the smart folders disclosed in Malone ’870 added support for
`
`components to the operating system as required by the ’430 claims. For U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`5,491,813 (“Bondy ’813”), the ALJ relied on an erroneous claim construction to conclude that
`
`
`
`
`
`the disclosed adapter and model IDs were “properties” in the context of the ’430 Patent claims.
`
`Neither of these references anticipate the claims of the ’430 Patent under a correct interpretation
`
`of the evidence presented at the hearing.
`
`Because the above-described findings of fact and conclusions of law were erroneous,
`
`Apple respectfully submits that the Final ID should be reviewed as to the infringement of the
`
`’828 Patent, and as to the validity of the ’607 Patent and the ’430 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES UPON WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT
`
`Apple respectfully seeks Commission review of the following issues in this Investigation:
`
`1.
`
`Whether the ALJ committed legal error in construing “mathematically fit(ting) an
`
`ellipse,” which contributed to clearly erroneous factual findings and/or erroneous legal
`
`conclusions regarding infringement of the asserted claims of the ’828 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the ALJ’s conclusions regarding Motorola’s infringement of the ’828
`
`Patent claims were the result of clearly erroneous factual findings and/or erroneous legal
`
`conclusions regarding both literal infringement and infringement under the Doctrine of
`
`Equivalents, particularly when (a) neither party advanced
`
`the claim construction of
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” adopted by the ALJ and as such did not present evidence of
`
`infringement under that construction, and (b) the ALJ did not address Motorola’s infringement of
`
`certain asserted claims.
`
`3.
`
`Whether the ALJ’s conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’607 Patent were
`
`anticipated by Perski ’455 was the result of clearly erroneous findings of fact and/or erroneous
`
`legal conclusions.
`
`4.
`
`Whether the ALJ’s conclusion that the ’607 Patent claims were rendered obvious
`
`by the SmartSkin reference and/or the Rekimoto reference was the result of clearly erroneous
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`findings of fact and/or erroneous legal conclusions, including a failure to adequately consider
`
`
`
`
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`5.
`
`Whether the ALJ’s conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’430 Patent were
`
`anticipated by Malone ’870 was the result of clearly erroneous findings of fact and/or erroneous
`
`legal conclusions.
`
`6.
`
`Whether the ALJ’s conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’430 Patent were
`
`anticipated by Bondy ’813 was the result of clearly erroneous findings of fact and/or erroneous
`
`legal conclusions, including legal error in construing the claim term “properties” in the ’430
`
`Patent.
`
`III.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On October 29, 2010, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a complaint with the Commission
`
`pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The complaint
`
`asserted unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in violation of Section 337 by
`
`Respondents Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. in connection with the importation, sale
`
`for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile phones and
`
`tablet devices.
`
`The complaint accused Motorola’s products of infringing claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 24-26, and
`
`29 of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (“the ’828 Patent”), claims 1-7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,663,607 (“the ’607 Patent”), and claims 1, 3, and 5 of the U.S. Patent No. 5,379,430 (“the ’430
`
`Patent”), all of which are owned by Apple by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`these patents. The complaint further alleged that there exists a domestic industry with respect to
`
`the ’828, ’607, and ’430 Patents. Apple seeks, among other things, a limited exclusion order and
`
`a cease-and-desist order directed to the infringing mobile devices. On November 23, 2010, the
`
`Commission issued a notice of Investigation that was subsequently published in the Federal
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`Register on November 30, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. No. 229 (Nov. 30, 2010). The evidentiary
`
`
`
`
`
`hearing began before ALJ Essex on September 26, 2011 and concluded on September 30. On
`
`October 14, 2011, the ALJ issued an initial determination extending the target date to May 14,
`
`2012, which was not reviewed by the Commission.
`
`The ALJ issued his Final ID on January 13, 2012. The ALJ found that no violation of
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act has occurred. Specifically, as to the issue of infringement, the ALJ
`
`found that the accused Motorola devices literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’430 Patent
`
`and the ’607 Patent but do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’828 Patent, and do not infringe
`
`any of the asserted patents under the Doctrine of Equivalents. See Final ID at 79-135. On the
`
`issue of invalidity, the ALJ found that Motorola had failed to prove that the asserted claims of
`
`the ’828 Patent were invalid, but he found that the asserted claims of the ’430 Patent and the
`
`’607 Patent are invalid for anticipation, and the asserted claims of the ’607 Patent are also invalid
`
`for obviousness. Id. at 136-178. The ALJ further concluded that the asserted claims of the ’430
`
`Patent are not invalid for failing to meet the written description, enablement, and indefiniteness
`
`or best mode requirements, that Apple has standing to assert the ’430 Patent, and that Motorola is
`
`not licensed to practice the ’430 Patent. Id. at 178-193. Finally, the ALJ found that the
`
`economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement were satisfied for all three
`
`asserted patents. Id. at 193-203.
`
`IV.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(b)(1), a petition for review must “specify one or
`
`more of the following grounds upon which review is sought:
`
`(i) That a finding or conclusion of material fact is clearly erroneous;
`
`(ii) That a legal conclusion is erroneous, without governing precedent, rule or law, or
`
`constitutes an abuse of discretion; or
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`(iii) That the determination is one affecting Commission policy.”
`
`
`
`
`
`The Commission will grant a petition and order review if it appears that an error or abuse
`
`of one of these three types has occurred or if the petition raises a policy matter connected with
`
`the initial determination, which the Commission thinks it is necessary or appropriate to address.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43(d)(2). Commission review of an Initial Determination is de novo. Certain
`
`Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-382, Comm’n
`
`Op. at 14 (Jan. 9, 1997).
`
`V.
`
`THE ’828 PATENT
`
`The ALJ’s findings concerning infringement of the asserted ‘828 Patent claims were
`
`based on a single limitation – “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” – found in claims 1 and 10.1
`
`Final ID at 78-107. The ALJ adopted a construction for “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” that
`
`had not been proposed by any party in this Investigation. See Final ID at 18-30. Apple
`
`respectfully submits that the ALJ erred in his construction of this term, and further reached
`
`clearly erroneous conclusions regarding whether the accused Motorola products met this
`
`limitation. Moreover, Apple submits that, even under the ALJ’s construction of “mathematically
`
`fit(ting) an ellipse,” the ALJ’s finding that
`
` does not contain this limitation,
`
`either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, was clearly erroneous. The ALJ also erred
`
`in his determination that prosecution history estoppel applied to this limitation. Finally, the ALJ
`
`erred in failing to address Motorola’s infringement of asserted claims 24-26 and 29.
`
`
`1 The ALJ stated in the Final ID that “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” is found in all of the
`asserted claims, but claim 24 uses the phrase “means for fitting an ellipse.” The Final ID did not
`directly address this claim or dependent claims 25-26 and 29.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`Apple’s ’828 Patent issued on October 12, 2010, and is entitled “Ellipse Fitting for Multi-
`
`Touch Surfaces.” The ’828 Patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on January
`
`26, 1998, and a parent application filed on January 25, 1999, which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,323,846 (“the ’846 patent”), see JX-245, on November 27, 2001. The asserted claims 1, 2, 10,
`
`11, 24, 25, 26 and 29 of the ’828 Patent are directed to a method and apparatus for tracking and
`
`identifying multiple fingers on a touch-sensitive surface by constructing a proximity image,
`
`segmenting that image into pixel groups representing different fingers, and fitting an ellipse to at
`
`least one of those pixel groups. Fitting an ellipse allows each finger to be described by a small
`
`set of ellipse parameters that characterize the position, shape, and size of the finger. Claim 1 is
`
`the asserted independent method claim:
`
`1. A method of processing input from a touch-sensitive surface, the
`method comprising:
`
`receiving at least one proximity image representing a scan of a
`plurality of electrodes of the touch-sensitive surface;
`
`segmenting each proximity image into one or more pixel groups
`that
`indicate
`significant proximity, each pixel group
`representing proximity of a distinguishable hand part or other
`touch object on or near the touch-sensitive surface; and
`
`mathematically fitting an ellipse to at least one of the pixel groups.
`
`The processing steps that correspond to the claims of the ’828 Patent are shown in Figure
`
`18 of the specification, which depicts the processing of proximity images. This is best
`
`understood alongside Figure 13, which is an exemplary “proximity image:”
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The “proximity image” described in the ’828 Patent is constructed from data obtained
`
`from a scan of the touch-sensitive surface, which “provide[s] clear indications of where the body
`
`contacts the surface.” JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 6:25-27. The image segmentation process shown in
`
`Figure 18 “takes the most recently scanned proximity image data 240 and segments it into
`
`groups of electrodes 242 corresponding to the distinguishable hand parts of FIG. 13.” Id. at
`
`19:2-5. The ellipse fitting step 272 then “extract[s] shape, size, and position parameters from
`
`each electrode group.” Id. at 25:54-56. These parameters “are used by higher level modules to
`
`help distinguish finger, palm, and thumb contacts.” Id. at 25:58-60.
`
`B.
`
`The ALJ Erroneously Construed “Mathematically Fit(ting) an Ellipse”
`
`The ALJ adopted a construction for “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse to at least one of
`
`the [one or more] pixel groups” that had not been proposed by any party in this Investigation.
`
`See Final ID at 18-30.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Motorola’s/Staff’s
`Proposed Construction
`for at least one of the
`pixel groups, applying a
`unitary transformation of
`the group covariance
`matrix of second
`moments of proximity
`data for all pixels in that
`pixel group to fit an
`ellipse
`
`Apple’s Proposed
`Construction
`comput(ing)
`numerical
`parameters that
`mathematically
`define an ellipse
`which approximates
`the shape of at least
`one of the pixel
`groups
`
`
`
`ALJ’s Construction
`
`performing a
`mathematical
`process where by an
`ellipse is actually
`fitted to the data
`consisting of one or
`more pixel groups
`and from that ellipse
`various parameters
`can be calculated
`
`Claim Term
`
`“mathematically
`fitting an ellipse to
`at least one of the
`pixel groups”
`(claim 1)
`“mathematically
`fit an ellipse to at
`least one of the
`one or more pixel
`groups” (claim 10)
`
`
`The ALJ’s construction is not consistent with the intrinsic evidence. The ’828 Patent
`
`specification does not describe any step where “an ellipse is actually fitted” and “from that
`
`ellipse various parameters can be calculated.” Instead, the ellipse-fitting step in the specification
`
`is synonymous with computing numerical parameters that mathematically define an ellipse, as
`
`reflected in Apple’s proposed construction. Moreover, the ALJ’s construction is circular, and it
`
`thus fails to delineate the proper scope of “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.” The Commission
`
`should therefore reverse the ALJ’s claim construction and adopt Apple’s construction for
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.”
`
`1.
`
`The ALJ’s Construction is Inconsistent with the Specification
`
`The ALJ’s construction erroneously divorces the calculation of ellipse parameters from
`
`the process of ellipse fitting. This is inconsistent with the disclosure in the ’828 Patent
`
`specification, wherein the ellipse fitting procedure is one and the same with the calculation of
`
`ellipse parameters. The specification explicitly states that pixel groups “are parameterized by
`
`fitting an ellipse to the positions and proximity measurements of the electrodes within each
`
`group.” JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 19:8-12. Figure 18 of the ’828 Patent depicts step 272 labeled
`
`“Fit Ellipse to Combined Groups.” Id. at Fig. 18. This results in “parameterized electrode
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`groups,” id., and the specification describes step 272 as “ extract[ing] shape, size, and position
`
`
`
`
`
`parameters.” Id. at 25:54-56. The specification further refers to “fitted ellipse parameters.”
`
`Id. at 27:1-3. Dependent claims refer to the “transmitting one or more ellipse parameters”
`
`without describing a separate step where these parameters are computed; the clear implication is
`
`that “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” includes the computation of ellipse parameters. See id.
`
`at 60:16-18 (claim 5), 61:1-4 (claim 11). The ALJ’s attempt to divorce ellipse fitting from these
`
`parameters is a misreading of the ’828 Patent.
`
`Further, while it was not his intention, the ALJ’s construction excludes the preferred
`
`embodiment of the ’828 Patent, and such a construction is “rarely, if ever, correct.” SanDisk
`
`Corp v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The ALJ’s error stems from a
`
`mistaken belief that the covariance matrix transformation described in the ’828 Patent
`
`specification embodies a process that fits an ellipse prior to the computation of e