UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-750
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 7, 2012
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT MOTOROLA MOBILITY INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`COMPLAINANT APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`THE ‘828 PATENT .............................................................................................................4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Overview Of The ‘828 Patent ..................................................................................6 
`
`Overview Of The ‘828 Accused Products ...............................................................7 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Construed The Phrase “Mathematically Fitting An
`Ellipse To At Least One Of The Pixel Groups” ....................................................15 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That None of the ‘828 Accused Products
`Infringe Any Asserted Claim Of The ‘828 Patent .................................................21 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`None Of The ‘828 Accused Products Infringes Claim 1 Or 10
`Under Apple’s Proposed Construction For “Mathematically Fitting
`An Ellipse To At Least One Of The Pixel Groups” ...................................21 
`
`None of the Accused Products Infringes Claim 1 or 10 Under The
`ALJ’s Construction For “Mathematically Fitting An Ellipse To At
`Least One Of The Pixel Groups” ...............................................................26 
`
`Equivalents Are Unavailable For The Ellipse-Fitting Limitations In
`Claims 1 And 10 Due To Prosecution History Estoppel ...........................30 
`
`Argument Estoppel Has Been Created With Respect To The
`Ellipse-Fitting Limitations In Claims 1, 10, And 24 .................................32 
`
`None of the ‘828 Accused Products Infringes Claim 1 Or 10 Under
`The Doctrine Of Equivalents .....................................................................34 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That None Of The Accused Products
`Infringes Claims 24-26 and 29 ...................................................................37 
`
`III. 
`
`THE ‘607 PATENT ...........................................................................................................39 
`
`A. 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Perski ‘455 Anticipates The ‘607 Patent .............40 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Perski ‘455 Is Prior Art To The ‘607 Patent ..............................................40 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Perski ‘455 Discloses Every
`Limitation Of The Asserted Claims Of The ‘607 Patent ...........................49 
`
`Apple’s Arguments Regarding Perski ‘455 Lack Merit ............................51 
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That SmartSkin Renders The ‘607 Patent
`Obvious ..................................................................................................................55 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That SmartSkin In Combination With Rekimoto
`‘033 Renders The ‘607 Patent Obvious .................................................................65 
`
`Apple’s Assertion That The ALJ Found The ‘607 Patent Obvious Based
`On Evidence That Was Considered By The PTO Is Incorrect ..............................68 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Secondary Considerations Of Non-
`Obviousness Did Not Outweigh The Strong Prima Facie Showing Of
`Obviousness By Motorola......................................................................................71 
`
`IV. 
`
`THE ‘430 PATENT ...........................................................................................................74 
`
`A. 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Determined That The Term “Properties” Should Be
`Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning .................................................................75 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence Supports The ALJ’s Construction Of
`“Properties” And Is Inconsistent With Apple’s Construction ...................77 
`
`The ALJ Did Not Commit Error By Rejecting Apple’s Proposed
`Construction ...............................................................................................80 
`
`B. 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Determined That The Malone Patent Anticipates The
`Asserted Claims Of The ‘430 Patent .....................................................................87 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Malone Patent Discloses The Same Examples Of “Adding
`Support To The Operating System” As The ‘430 Patent ...........................88 
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Object Lens System In The Malone
`Patent Is Part Of The Operating System ....................................................89 
`
`C. 
`
`The ALJ’s Determined That The Bondy Patent Anticipates The Asserted
`Claims Of The ‘430 Patent Is Correct And Supported By Substantial
`Evidence .................................................................................................................96 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................99 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................47
`
`Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................3, 91
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................ passim
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................91
`
`Chen v. Bouchard,
`347 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................49
`
`Coleman v. Dines,
`754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................49
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................86
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................43, 44
`
`Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc.,
`373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................85
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
`370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................31, 32
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................86
`
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................95
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370(1996) ........................................................86
`
`Merck & Co, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................3, 63, 72
`
`North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)....................................................................................................84
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp.,
`424 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................52, 59
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................74, 84, 85
`
`Pods, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc.,
`484 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................33
`
`Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
`413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................51
`
`SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................75, 98
`
`Source Search Technologies, LLC v. LendingTree, LLC,
`588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................91
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................71
`
`Ex Parte Yamaguchi,
`88 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1606, 2008 WL. 4233306 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. Aug. 29, 2008) ...................46
`
`Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. PDI Commc’n Sys.,
`522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................91
`
`Statutes
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b)(1)(i) ............................................................................................................92
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................51, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) .....................................................................................................................46
`
`MPEP § 2138.04 ......................................................................................................................35, 36
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828; U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607; and U.S. Patent
`No. 5,379,430
`
`
`plainant’s demonstrative exhibit
`
`
`Apple Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Apple Petition for Review
`
`Apple Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Apple Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`Complainant’s rebuttal exhibit
`
`
`plainant’s exhibit
`
`Determination
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`Respondent’s demonstrative exhibit
`
`Motorola Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Motorola Contingent Petition for Review
`
`Motorola Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s physical exhibit
`
`Motorola Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`
`exhibit
`
`
`Staff’s Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Staff’s Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Staff’s Post-Hearing Reply Brief
`
`
`v
`
`ALJ
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`CDX Com
`
`CIB
`
`CPR
`
`CPreHB
`
`CRB
`
`CRX
`
`CX Com
`
`ID Initial
`
`JX Joint
`
`RDX
`
`RIB
`
`RPR
`
`RPreHB
`
`RPX
`
`RRB
`
`RX Respondent’s
`
`SIB
`
`SPreHB
`
`SRB
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`Tr.
`
`Products
`
`Products
`
`‘828 patent
`
`Transcript of Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearing
`
`The Motorola products with
`including: Droid and Droid 2
`
`The Motorola products with
`including: Droid 3, Droid Bionic, and Flipout
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828
`
`‘828 Accused Products The Motorola products accused of infringing the ‘828 patent, including:
`Atrix, Backflip, Bravo, Charm, Citrus, Cliq 2, CliqXT/Quench, Defy,
`Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid 3, Droid Bionic, Droid Pro, Droid
`X, Droid X2, Flipout, Flipside, i1, Titanium, Xoom, and XPRT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
`
`The Motorola products accused of infringing the ‘828 patent, including:
`Atrix, Bravo, Charm, Citrus, Cliq 2, Defy, Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global,
`Droid 3, Droid Bionic, Droid Pro, Droid X, Droid X2, Flipout, Flipside,
`Titanium, and XPRT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,379,430
`
`‘430 Accused Products The Motorola products accused of infringing the ‘430 patent, including:
`Atrix, Backflip, Bravo, Charm, Citrus, Cliq/Dext, Cliq 2, CliqXT/Quench,
`Defy, Devour, Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid 3, Droid Bionic,
`Droid Pro, Droid X, Droid X2, Flipout, Flipside, i1, Titanium, Xoom, and
`XPRT
`
`
`‘607 patent
`
`‘607 Accused Products
`
`
`‘430 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43, Respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”)
`
`respectfully submits this Response to Complainant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple’s”) Petition for Review,
`
`
`
`filed on January 30, 2012.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple’s Petition asserts that the ALJ committed legal and factual errors in finding that
`
`there has been no violation of Section 337 by Motorola with respect to any of the three patents-
`
`in-suit. CPR at 1. However, it is Apple’s Petition, and not the ALJ’s Initial Determination, that
`
`is premised on legal and factual errors. The ALJ correctly found that the ‘828 patent was not
`
`infringed, and that the ‘607 and ‘430 patents were each invalid in multiple ways.
`
`Apple never proved infringement of the ‘828 patent, but now complains that it should not
`
`have been expected to prove “actually fit[ting]” an ellipse, even though the claims, specification,
`
`and prosecution history of the ‘828 patent unmistakably require at least this much. Apple argues
`
`that “the ALJ adopted a construction for the term ‘mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse’ that had
`
`not been proposed by any party in this Investigation,” and that “the parties of course did not put
`
`forth infringement evidence concerning this construction.” CPR at 1. But the ALJ’s
`
`construction simply requires “performing a mathematical process whereby an ellipse is actually
`
`fitted to the data consisting of one or more pixel groups,” and Apple’s own expert agreed that
`
`“both [constructions proposed by the parties] require at least fitting an ellipse to one or more
`
`pixel groups,” explaining that “they have to . . . [t]hat’s what the claim term is about.”
`
`Balakrishnan, Tr. 556:3-8. It is certainly true that Apple never proved that any of the ‘828
`
`Accused Products “actually” fits ellipses to pixel groups, but this failure of proof was the result
`
`of Apple’s own deficient infringement evidence, not legal error by the ALJ. Apple also argues
`
`that the ALJ’s construction for “mathematically fitting an ellipse” was erroneously narrow, yet as
`
`noted above, Apple’s own expert conceded that the asserted claims require “at least” the ALJ’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`construction.
`
`As to the ‘607 patent, Apple argues that “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.” CPR at 2. But again, it is
`
`Apple which has based its anticipation argument with respect to Perski ‘455 on a legal error.
`
`Perski ‘455 is a United States Patent that expressly discloses a transparent mutual capacitance
`
`touchscreen that “enables the detection of multiple finger touches” using an “algorithm that is
`
`preferably able to detect more than one finger touch at the same time.” RX-708 at 14:18-19, 37-
`
`38. The disclosures of the Perski ‘455 patent are presumed enabled, and it was Apple’s burden
`
`to rebut this presumption. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313,
`
`1354-56 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Apple failed to do so.
`
`Apple also argues that the ALJ erred in finding the asserted claims of the ‘607 patent
`
`obvious based on the SmartSkin reference and the SmartSkin reference in combination with the
`
`Rekimoto ‘033 published patent application. CPR at 2. According to Apple, “both SmartSkin
`
`and Rekimoto ‘033 were before the examiner of the ‘607 Patent,” but this ignores a critical fact:
`
`
`
` See ID at 172-73. The ALJ expressly relied on this copying evidence in his
`
`obviousness determination, and these documents were never before the PTO. Apple further
`
`argues that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were “dismissed” by the ALJ (CPR at
`
`2), but this is also incorrect. The ALJ squarely addressed Apple’s secondary considerations
`
`arguments, and found that “these secondary considerations cannot overcome the strong showing
`
`of obviousness in this instance.” ID at 176-77. Moreover, even Apple concedes that SmartSkin
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`discloses what it calls the “multitouch limitations” of the asserted claims, and the “question”
`
`with respect to obviousness is “whether the claimed invention is non-obvious in relation to the
`
`ideas set forth in the [prior art] articles.” Merck & Co, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., Inc., 395 F.3d 1364,
`
`1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Finally, with respect to the ‘430 patent, Apple asserts that ALJ based his finding that the
`
`asserted claims were anticipated by two separate references – the Malone patent and the Bondy
`
`patent – on legal and factual errors. But the ALJ did not err in his anticipation analysis with
`
`respect to the Malone and Bondy patents. Instead, the ALJ correctly rejected the Apple’s
`
`validity arguments with respect to the Malone patent as being “merely one of semantics” that
`
`sought to give the asserted claims one scope with respect to infringement and a wholly different
`
`scope with respect to invalidity. ID at 157, 166; see Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 239
`
`F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to
`
`avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quotation marks omitted)).
`
`Similarly, with respect to the Bondy patent, Apple first argues that the ALJ committed
`
`legal error by rejecting Apple’s proposed construction for “properties.” However, it is Apple
`
`who urges a claim construction that seeks to create an artificial distinction between “inherent”
`
`and “non-inherent” properties – a distinction that is not found anywhere in the intrinsic record.
`
`Likewise, Apple argues the ALJ erred in finding that the Bondy patent anticipates the asserted
`
`claims by failing to appreciate the “core distinction” between the Bondy patent and the ‘430
`
`patent even though that distinction is not reflected anywhere in the claims. CPR at 72.
`
`Because the ALJ correctly determined that Motorola does not infringe the ‘828 patent
`
`and that the ‘607 and ‘430 patents are invalid, the Commission should decline to review the
`
`ALJ’s determination of no violation of Section 337 in this investigation.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`THE ‘828 PATENT
`
`Apple’s Petition misstates the ALJ’s findings and the evidence; mischaracterizes the
`
`operation of the accused products; and misapplies both its own construction and that of the ALJ.
`
`Moreover, Apple’s Petition raises a bizarre new theory of infringement in which “[t]he step of
`
`‘mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse’ occurs in the computation of
`
`(CPR at 20), but the evidence of ellipse-fitting in the Atmel chip comes not from
`
`Atmel source code or documentation (both of which were reviewed by Apple’s expert), but
`
`“from the Android code and documentation.” Id. at 22. Apple’s new infringement theory is now
`
`its sixth different theory of infringement of the ‘828 patent by the ‘828 Accused Products.
`
`
`
`By the start of the hearing, Apple had already alleged four different theories of
`
`infringement of the ‘828 patent, as shown in a demonstrative in Dr. Wolfe’s witness statement:
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`At the hearing, Apple asserted a fifth, radically different theory of infringement for the
`
`‘828 patent – a change in theory so dramatic that the ALJ expressly found it undermined Apple’s
`
`credibility with respect to the ‘828 patent:
`
`
`
`The ALJ also agrees that there is no literal infringement [by] the
`Motorola handset products. Apple has failed to show any part of
`the code mathematically fits an ellipse to the pixel group. Neither
`Dr. Balakrishnan nor Apple ever identified the actions of the
`Android code layer as meeting this element in their pre-hearing
`testimony or statements. Such a dramatic change in theory (as
`discussed above) seriously undermines the credibility of the theory
`and the testimony supporting it.
`
`However, even considering Apple’s new infringement theory
`regarding the operations performed by the Android code, the
`Motorola Handset products still do nothing to that even resembles
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” to one or more pixel
`groups. . . . At no time, is any ellipse fitted to the
`
`
`
`
`ID at 99-100 (emphasis added); see also ID at 94 (“Dr. Balakrishnan’s testimony is severely
`
`undercut because this theory regarding the Android layer was not presented . . . in his direct
`
`witness statement and this new theory appears to contradict his direct witness statement.”).
`
`
`
`Apple’s new theory fares no better that its previous theories for a very basic reason:
`
`none of the ‘828 Accused Products mathematically fit an ellipse to a pixel group under any
`
`construction that actually requires mathematical ellipse-fitting of any kind. The ‘828 Accused
`
`Products simply do not mathematically fit ellipses to pixel groups.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Motorola respectfully requests that the Commission deny Apple’s petition for review
`
`with respect to the Apple’s now-sixth meritless infringement theory for the ‘828 Patent.1
`
`A.
`
`Overview Of The ‘828 Patent
`
`The ‘828 patent was filed February 22, 2007 and issued October 12, 2010. JX-3.002.
`
`There are two named inventors on the ‘828 patent, Wayne Westerman and John Elias. Id. The
`
`patent claims priority to two patent applications, the first of which was filed January 25, 1999.
`
`Id. The patent also claims priority to a provisional patent application filed January 26, 1998. Id.
`
`Wayne Westerman, who testified about the ‘828 patent at the hearing, explained that the
`
`subject matter of the ‘828 patent originated in work he and Elias did in connection with Mr.
`
`Westerman’s dissertation at the University of Delaware in the late 1990s. Westerman, Tr.
`
`289:22-290:18. The ‘828 patent is a continuation of a patent application Mr. Westerman
`
`personally drafted while at the University of Delaware. Westerman, Tr. 290:19-291:23. The
`
`‘828 patent family was originally assigned to the University of Delaware. Id. at 293:11-14. It
`
`was purchased by Apple in February 2005 along with Mr. Westerman and Mr. Elias’s startup
`
`company, FingerWorks. Id. at 292:12-294:22.
`
`The claims of the ‘828 patent primarily concern mathematical fitting of ellipses to pixel
`
`groups that are received from a touch-sensing device. Id. at 295:11-20. The primary reason for
`
`ellipse-fitting in Mr. Westerman’s thesis and patents was to distinguish one hand part from
`
`another on a touch device. Id. at 295:21-299:18. For example, as explained in Mr. Westerman’s
`
`thesis, contact shape and orientation parameters generated from the ellipse-fitting procedure were
`
`used to assist finger and hand identification. Id. at 297:25-299:18; JX-291.084. Once fingers
`
`
`1 In addition to being meritless, Apple’s new theories with respect to the ‘828 patent are
`untimely and do not comply with Commission Rules and Regulations. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 207.113
`and 207.115; G.R. 11.1.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`and hand parts had been specifically identified using the ellipse-fitting process, multi-finger
`
`gestures known as “chords” could be recognized. Westerman, Tr. at 301:7-303:7. In fact, the
`
`title of Mr. Westerman’s dissertation was “Hand Tracking, Finger Identification, and Chordic
`
`Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface.” JX-291.01.
`
`In order to identify specific fingers to allow for “chordic manipulation,” Mr. Westerman
`
`developed a precise way to measure the shape and orientation of individual touches and the
`
`arrangement of these touches relative to one another – mathematically fitting ellipses to pixel
`
`groups. Id. at 302:11-19; see also Westerman, Tr. 302:11-303:12.
`
`As explained in identical language in Mr. Westerman’s thesis (JX-291.084) and in the
`
`specification of the ‘828 patent (JX-3 at 26:18-55), the ellipse-fitting procedure Mr. Westerman
`
`developed used a particular mathematical method – a unitary transformation of a covariance
`
`matrix – to statistically model an ellipse. Westerman, Tr. 304:11-315:11. By applying a unitary
`
`transformation of a group covariance matrix of second moments of pixel values, Mr. Westerman
`
`was able to generate the parameters of a model ellipse – X and Y position, major and minor axis,
`
`and orientation – that best fit the underlying pixel data to identify and track separate finger
`
`contacts. See id.; see also JX-3 at 26:18-45.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of The ‘828 Accused Products
`
`There can be no serious dispute as to how touch input is received and processed in the
`
`‘828 Accused Products. See generally ID at 78-83; RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 72-92. Each of these
`
`products has a touchscreen that has
`
` See RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 72-74. The sense electrodes are
`
`
`
`See id. The
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`. See id. Q/A 75-76.
`
`below:
`
`
`
` as shown in the example
`
`RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 76 at Fig. WB9. In the example shown above,
`
`
`
` See RX-
`
`1895, Wolfe Q/A 76. The result of this process is the identification of a touch or touches, such
`
`as in the examples shown below:
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`RDX-11.32C (orange and green touches); RDX-11.33C (purple and blue touches).
`
`Once the Atmel chip has identified a touch (or touches), the chip performs further
`
`processing to generate what is called
`
` RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 75. This
`
` – which in the ‘828 Accused Products comprises the values
`
` – provides specific
`
`information about each touch to other portions of the device. See id. In the ‘828 Accused
`
`Products, the Atmel chip
`
`
`
` so that the device can perform functions in response to input from the touchscreen.
`
`RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 93-115.
`
`Based on the hearing testimony of Apple’s expert, Dr. Balakrishnan, there is no dispute
`
`that the Atmel chip is
`
`touchscreen.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`rmation from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Balakrishnan, Tr. 580:2-21, 581:16-20 (emphases added). If information regarding some aspect
`
`of a touch such as height, width, shape, or orientation is not explicitly provided by
`
`Android never has access to information regarding this aspect of the pixel
`
`data. See Balakrishnan, Tr. 701:16-702:6; Brown, Tr. 1054:5-19.
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘828 patent require mathematically fitting an ellipse to a pixel
`
`group. See, e.g., JX-3 at 60:5-15. Because the asserted claims require mathematically fitting an
`
`ellipse to a pixel group, and because the Atmel chip is the
`
` from the touchscreen, it is no surprise that Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`
`witness statement identified only “processing performed in the Atmel sensor ICs” in connection
`
`with his assertions that the ‘828 Accused Products mathematically fit an ellipse to at least one
`
`pixel group. CX-201C, Balakrishnan Q/A 526 and 527. Any attempt by Apple to refocus its
`
`arguments on variables used in other layers (none of which have access to the underlying pixel
`
`data) is an attempt to confuse the issues. Balakrishnan, Tr. 704:18-711:22.
`
`(a)
`
`Atmel
`
`
`
`As Dr. Balakrishnan conceded at the hearing, every ‘828 Accused Product except for one
`
`– the non-test build of the Motorola Xoom – computes only four
`
`in the Atmel
`
`chip,
`
`
`
` See Balakrishnan, Tr.
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`594:4-13, 701:16-702:7. There is no dispute as to how the four
`
`
`
` products are calculated or as to what they represent.
`
`The first two values,
`
` represent
`
`respectively. See RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 80; Balakrishnan, Tr.
`
`598:23-599:12. Neither
`
`provides any information regarding the size,
`
`shape, or orientation of a touch. See id.
`
`The third value,
`
` See
`
`RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 77; Balakrishnan, Tr. 599:13-600:7. For example, in the graphic shown
`
`below, RDX-11.33C,
`
`1895C, Wolfe Q/A 301. The purple touch has a
`
`The blue touch has
`
`the blue touch.
`
`as the purple touch, because there are
`
` See RX-
`
`
`
` in
`
`RDX-11.33C.
`
`As can be seen from the above graphic and as Dr. Balakrishnan conceded,
`
`provides no information about the shape or orientation of a touch. See Balakrishnan, Tr. 607:15-
`
`23; 608:5-15.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Balakrishnan, Tr. 607:15-23, 608:5-7.
`
`The fourth value,
`
` does not provide two-dimensional information at
`
`all. See Balakrishnan, Tr. 647:2-9.
`
`
`
` See RDX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 78-79; Balakrishnan, Tr. 602:13-24. For example, in
`
`the graphic below, RDX-11.32C, the orange and green touches both have the same
`
` The orange touch has
`
` This
`
`
`
` The green touch
`
` as well.
`
`It is surrounded by
`
` and
`
` The
`
`of the green touch is therefore
`
` – the same
`
` as the orange touch.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`RDX-11.32C. As can be seen in RDX-11.32C and as Dr. Balakrishnan conceded,
`
` does not provide information about the shape, size, or orientation of a touch.2
`
`All right. And so this doesn’t tell me what the size is either,
`correct? It doesn’t tell me the size of the touch, touch
`amplitude? It doesn’t give me the information about the
`size of the touch?
`Not the full size, no.
`A.
`Q. The
`what?
`A.
`Not the full size, no. It does not give me the full size of the
`touch, no.
`Right. And, in fact, all it does is tell me
` right?
`That’s one interpretation, sure.
`A.
`Okay. And that’s a fair interpretation?
`Q.
`A. Fair
`enough.
`. . .
`Q.
`
`Q.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`Q.
`
`Right. And the
`of the touch?
`Not in itself, no.
`Okay. And the
`the touch, right?
`
`doesn’t tell me what the shape is
`
`doesn’t tell me the orientation of
`
`A. No.
`
`2 It is also worth noting that
`is a very different value than what the
`‘828 patent calls “total group proximity.” See RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 79. According to the ‘828
`patent, “total group proximity” is the sum of proximity values for an entire contact. See JX-3 at
`26:12-13 (“total group proximity Gz integrates proximity over each pixel in the group”). In the
`above graphic, the orange touch and the green touch have
`. The “total group proximity” for
`even though both touches have the same
`the orange touch is 23, while the “total group proximity” for the green touch is 93—more than
`four times that of the orange touch.
`
`
`
`13
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`Balakrishnan, Tr. 603:24-604:14, 607:24-608:4.
`
`The above
`
`
`
`– represent
`
`the only information calculated in or passed out of the Atmel chip in every ‘828 Accused Product
`
`except the non-test build of the Motorola Xoom. RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 75, 88; Balakrishnan,
`
`Tr. 605:14-21. In these products, the only information provided by the Atmel chip
`
`
`
` Balakrishnan, Tr. 608:8-15.
`
`(b)
`
`Touch Vector
`
`In one ‘828 Accused Product – the non-test build of the Motorola Xoom – an additional
`
` is calculated in the Atmel chip.
`
`
`
` See RX-1895C, Q/A 91; Balakrishnan, Tr. 621:21-623:10. Thus, in the figure below,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See
`
`
`
`
`
`RX-1885C, Wolfe Q/A 76. In the figure below, the
`
`
`
`14
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`RX-1895C, Wolfe Q/A 76 Fig. WB10.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan did not dispute that the
`
` is calculated using the exact
`
`method described above. See Balakrishnan, Tr. 621:21-623:10
`
`
`
` As
`
`explained by Dr. Wolfe and by Atmel’s Martin Simmons,
`
` is not calculated by
`
`mathematically fitting an ellipse, nor do its values correspond to an ellipse model. RX-1895C,
`
`Wolfe Q/A 91; Wolfe, Tr. 78:4-17; RX-1879C, Simmons Q/A 16-22.
`
`C.
`
`The ALJ Correctly Construed The Phrase “Mathematically Fitting An
`Ellipse To At Least One Of The Pixel Groups”
`
`The ALJ’s claim construction analysis was thorough and well-reasoned, and the
`
`construction the ALJ ultimately adopted – “performing a mathematical process whereby an
`
`ellipse is actually fitted to the data consisting of one or more pixel groups and from that ellipse
`
`various parameters can be calculated” – is consistent with the intrinsic record of the ‘828 patent.
`
`Apple’s proposed construction, by contrast, is a vacuous phrase that finds no support in the
`
`intrinsic record and has been treated like a nose of wax throughout this investigation.
`
`The final limitation in claims 1 and 10 of the ‘828 patent is “mathematically fit[ting] an
`
`ellipse to at least one of the [one or more] pixel groups.” At the hea