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

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`4.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`THE ’828 PATENT ........................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The ALJ Correctly Construed “A Plurality of Touch-Sensing Electrodes
`Arranged on the Substrate”.................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Motorola’s Construction Misinterprets the Specification.......................... 4
`2.
`The ALJ’s Construction is Consistent with the Intrinsic Evidence ........... 6
`The Apple iPhone 4 Embodies the ’828 Patent under the Proper
`Construction of “A Plurality of Touch-Sensing Electrodes Arranged on the
`Substrate”............................................................................................................... 8
`Bisset ’352 Does Not Anticipate the ’828 Patent under Any Claim
`Construction........................................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Motorola Improperly Relies on the Prosecution History........................... 9
`2.
`Bisset ’352 Does Not Disclose the “Segmenting” Limitations ............... 11
`3.
`Bisset ’352 Does Not Disclose a “Contact Tracking and
`Identification Module”............................................................................. 12
`Bisset ’352 Does Not Disclose “Mathematically Fit(ting) an
`Ellipse”..................................................................................................... 13
`THE ’607 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Motorola’s ’607 Accused Products
`Infringe the Asserted Claims of the ’607 Patent.................................................. 14
`1.
`Overview of the ’607 Accused Products ................................................. 15
`2.
`All of the ’607 Accused Products Include At Least One Layer of
`Transparent Conductive Lines Operatively Coupled to Capacitive
`Monitoring Circuitry as Required by Claim 1 ......................................... 18
`
` the
`ALJ Correctly Found that Motorola’s Products Also Infringe
`Claims 4 and 5 ......................................................................................... 22
`
`......................................................... 25
`
`.......... 26
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Apple’s iPhone 4 Practices The ’607
`Patent.................................................................................................................... 27
`
`i
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`................................................ 27
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`
`................................................................................ 30
`
`................................................................................................... 32
`The ALJ Correctly Found That SmartSkin Does Not Anticipate the
`Asserted Claims of the ’607 Patent...................................................................... 34
`THE ’430 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 36
`A.
`The ALJ Is Correct That “Adding Support” Is Not Indefinite............................. 36
`B.
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Motorola’s Android Devices Infringe The
`’430 Patent ........................................................................................................... 39
`1.
`The Android System “Returns” Components .......................................... 39
`2.
`The Android System “Adds Support . . . To The Operating
`System” .................................................................................................... 40
`The Android System Specifies “Properties” When Using Implicit
`Intents....................................................................................................... 42
`Motorola Both Directly And Indirectly Infringes The Claims ................ 43
`4.
`The ALJ Correctly Found That Apple Meets The Domestic Industry
`Requirement For The ’430 Patent........................................................................ 44
`The ALJ Correctly Held That Apple Has Standing to Assert the ’430
`Patent and That Motorola Has No License Thereto............................................. 45
`1.
`Apple Owns the ’430 Patent Through a Series of Valid
`Assignments............................................................................................. 46
`Motorola’s Original Argument Was Properly Rejected by the ALJ........ 47
`2.
`Motorola’s New Argument Also Fails..................................................... 53
`3.
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 55
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Bd. of Trustees v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`487 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 47
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 35
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`691 F. Supp. 2d 566 (D. Del. 2010).......................................................................................... 48
`
`Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 35
`
`Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Labs.,
`651 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 47
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Frangipani v. Boecker,
`75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998)....................................................................... 53
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................ 9, 36
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Circ. 2003)............................................................................................... 35
`
`Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed.Cir.2004) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004). ............................................................................................... 38
`
`Lauth v. McCollum,
`424 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 49
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 36
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings,
`370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Nilssen v. GE Co.,
`Civil Action No. 06 C 04155, 2011 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 13615 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2011) .................................................................................... 49
`
`Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Railway Prods., Inc.,
`320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 47
`
`Phillips v. AWH,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`SIRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 54
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`United States v. Landry,
`257 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1958) ..................................................................................................... 49
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 37, 38
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc.,
`492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

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

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully submits this response to Respondent
`
`Motorola Mobility Inc.’s (“Motorola”) Contingent Petition for Review of the Administrative
`
`Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended
`
`Determination on Remedy and Bond (“Final ID”). Motorola’s petition raises issues on all three
`
`asserted patents, and Apple opposes each of Motorola’s arguments, as set forth below.
`
`’828 Patent: Motorola’s petition disputes the ALJ’s finding that Apple meets the
`
`technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for U.S. Pat. No. 7,812,828 (“the ’828
`
`Patent”), and that the ’828 Patent is valid over the cited prior art. Motorola fails to identify any
`
`error in the ALJ’s findings, and the Commission should therefore affirm the Final ID on these
`
`issues. For domestic industry, Motorola seeks a narrow construction of the phrase “a plurality of
`
`touch-sensing electrodes arranged on the substrate” that would improperly restrict the ’828
`
`Patent claims to the preferred embodiment in the specification, and thus would incorrectly read
`
`out Apple’s products. On invalidity, Motorola relies on an overly broad interpretation of Apple’s
`
`construction for “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” to argue that that the ’828 Patent claims are
`
`anticipated by a prior art reference that was considered during prosecution, U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,825,352 (“Bisset ’352”). However, Motorola failed to show that Bisset ’352 disclosed the
`
`ellipse fitting limitation, and other limitations of the ’828 Patent, under any construction.
`
`’607 Patent: Motorola identifies no legal or factual errors by the ALJ regarding U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,663,607 (“the ’607 Patent”). Motorola does not seek review of any of the ALJ’s claim
`
`constructions for the ’607 Patent. On each of the points Motorola does address—infringement,
`
`domestic industry, and the ALJ’s finding of no anticipation by SmartSkin—Motorola ignores the
`
`substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings. Documentary evidence and testimony from
`
`Motorola’s third-party vendor support the ALJ’s infringement findings. Similarly, the great
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weight of the evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s finding that Apple’s iPhone 4 practices
`
`the asserted claims of the ’607 Patent. Finally, the ALJ correctly determined that the SmartSkin
`
`reference does not anticipate any of the asserted claims because SmartSkin failed to disclose the
`
`use of transparent conductive lines using ITO or conductive lines on spatially separated layers.
`
`’430 Patent: On each of Motorola’s points on U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,430 (“the ’430
`
`Patent”)—indefiniteness, infringement, domestic industry, and standing—Motorola ignores the
`
`great weight of the evidence. The ALJ correctly found that the claim phrase “adding support . . .
`
`to the operating system” is not indefinite, and Motorola has failed to identify any error in the
`
`ALJ’s determination. The ALJ also correctly found that Motorola’s Android devices infringe the
`
`’430 Patent claims, and this would not be affected under Apple’s construction of “properties.”
`
`Motorola also disputes indirect infringement, but every use of Motorola’s accused Android
`
`phones invokes the infringing implicit-intent action as a matter of course. There is no reasonable
`
`dispute that Apple’s Mac OS X operating system also practices the ’430 Patent claims. Finally,
`
`Motorola’s purported license to the ’430 Patent only supported by conjecture and speculation,
`
`and the ALJ correctly found that Apple –
`
` – is the proper owner of the ’430 patent.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’828 PATENT
`
`Motorola’s petition addresses two distinct issues regarding the ’828 Patent. Motorola
`
`first disputes the ALJ’s construction of the phrase “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes
`
`arranged on the substrate,” which affects the ALJ’s finding on domestic industry. RPet. at 6-15.
`
`But Motorola’s arguments misinterpret the ’828 Patent specification, and the ALJ’s construction
`
`is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the ordinary meaning of this term. Motorola also
`
`contends that, if the Commission adopts Apple’s construction for “mathematically fit(ting) an
`
`ellipse,” the ’828 Patent would be anticipated. Id. at 16-20. Motorola’s argument relies on a
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`misreading of the prosecution history, however, and Motorola has not shown that the ’828 Patent
`
`is invalid under any claim construction. Each of these issues is addressed in detail below.
`
`A.
`
`The ALJ Correctly Construed “A Plurality of Touch-Sensing Electrodes
`Arranged on the Substrate”
`
`The ALJ adopted a construction for “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on
`
`the substrate” consistent with Apple’s and the Staff’s constructions. See Final ID at 34-40.
`
`“a plurality of
`touch-sensing
`electrodes
`arranged on
`the substrate”
`(claim 10)
`
`Claim Term Apple’s/Staff’s Proposed
`Construction
`multiple electrically
`conductive elements
`(electrodes) arranged on
`the substrate that can
`sense the distance or
`pressure between the
`conductive elements and
`objects on or near the
`conductive elements
`
`
`
`Motorola’s Proposed
`Construction
`an array of pixilated
`self-capacitance
`sensing electrodes
`arranged on a surface
`
`ALJ’s Construction
`
`multiple electrodes
`arranged on the
`substrate that can
`sense the distance or
`pressure between the
`conductive elements
`and touch objects on
`or near the
`conductive elements
`
`The ALJ explicitly rejected Motorola’s proposed construction, which imports a
`
`requirement for “pixilated self-capacitance sensing electrodes” into the claim:
`
`In particular, the ALJ notes that the discussion of prior art discusses both self and
`mutual capacitance embodiments and there does not appear to be any distinction
`drawn between self-capacitance and any other technology in the prior art that
`would lead a person of ordinary skill to believe that the invention was limited
`only to “self-capacitance” embodiments. (See JX-3 at 5:1-57.) Accordingly, the
`ALJ rejects Motorola’s construction.
`
`Final ID at 39-40. Motorola’s petition fails to identify any error in the ALJ’s conclusions. There
`
`is no statement in the specification citing any advantage of self-capacitance over mutual
`
`capacitance. The claim uses the broad term “touch-sensing electrode” rather than the “pixilated
`
`self-capacitance sensing electrodes” that Motorola seeks to import from the preferred
`
`embodiment. The Federal Circuit has warned: “When the specification describes a single
`
`embodiment to enable the invention, this court will not limit broader claim language to that
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`single application ‘unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope
`
`using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Abbott Laboratories v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313,
`
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). There is no such manifest exclusion or restriction in the ’828 Patent, and
`
`the Commission should therefore affirm the ALJ’s construction.
`
`1.
`
`Motorola’s Construction Misinterprets the Specification
`
`Motorola’s argument relies primarily on two statements in the ’828 Patent specification.
`
`See RPet. at 11-12. One statement in the Background of the Invention describes “a need in the
`
`art.” Id. (citing JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 5:40-43). Another statement in the Summary of the
`
`Invention describes what “the invention comprises.” Id. (citing JX-3 at 7:56-58). But Motorola
`
`ignores the context of these two statements. The Background of the Invention of the ’828 Patent
`
`contains at least ten different statements of “a need in the art.” See JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 1:53-
`
`56, 1:67-2:2, 3:19-23, 3:64-67, 4:17-20, 4:32:-35, 4:42-45, 5:40-43, 6:18-21. The Summary of
`
`the Invention identifies at least eleven different objectives of the patent and nine different
`
`descriptions of what “the invention comprises.” See JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 6:66-11:7. Motorola
`
`singles out two statements to support its narrow construction, but these do not correspond to the
`
`claim language at issue in the ’828 Patent. Motorola cites several cases where elements of an
`
`invention were explicitly defined, see RPet. at 12, but these are inapplicable to the ’828 Patent,
`
`where there are many different descriptions of the problems in the prior art and of what the
`
`“invention comprises.” A similar patent specification was at issue in Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., and the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he fact that a patent asserts that an invention
`
`achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to
`
`structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” 358 F.3d at 908 (emphasis
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`added). While a self-capacitance sensor may be one aspect of the invention described in the ’828
`
`Patent specification, it is not necessary to limit every claim to this structure.
`
`There are other statements in the specification that more directly correspond to claim 10
`
`of the ’828 Patent. The problem in the prior art addressed by this claim may be more accurately
`
`described as: “a need in the art for improved means to group exactly those electrodes which are
`
`covered by each distinguishable hand contact and to compute a centroid from such potentially
`
`irregular groups.” JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 6:18-21. The invention claimed by the ’828 Patent
`
`more closely corresponds to the description: “the present invention comprises a multi-touch
`
`surface apparatus for sensing diverse configurations and activities of fingers and palms of one or
`
`more hands near the surface and generating integrated manual input to one of an electronic or
`
`electromechanical device.” Id. at 8:53-57. Neither of these statements from the specification
`
`would limit the claims to the pixilated self-capacitance sensor in Motorola’s construction.
`
`The portions of the specification cited by Motorola do not correspond to any asserted
`
`claim but to claims in the parent of the ’828 Patent, U.S. Pat. No. 6,323,846 (“the ’846 Patent”),
`
`which shares the same specification. The ’846 Patent explicitly claims a self-capacitance sensor
`
`using language that mirrors the portion of the specification cited by Motorola. See JX-245.077
`
`[’846 Patent] at claim 1 (“A sensing device that is sensitive to changes in self-capacitance”).
`
`The explicit claiming of “self-capacitance” in claim 1 of the ’846 Patent contrasts with the
`
`generic term “touch-sensing electrode” in claim 10 of the ’828 Patent. A similar contrast in
`
`claim language led the Federal Circuit to reject the importation of a “hybridization” limitation
`
`into the asserted claims in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.: “[W]e see no basis to read a
`
`‘hybridization’ requirement into the claims of the ’928 patent. Nothing in the claims refers to
`
`hybridization…. The applicants knew how to claim a linkage group that does not substantially
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interfere with hybridization, as they did in the ’824 and ’767 patents, but specifically omitted
`
`that language from the claims of the related ’928 patent.” 599 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). When the ’828 Patent claims are read in view of the ’846 Patent claims, it is clear that the
`
`applicants knew how to claim self-capacitance sensors but specifically omitted that language
`
`from the claims asserted here. See CX-201C.086 [Balakrishnan DWS] at Q.381. Reading a
`
`self-capacitance limitation back into the claims would be wholly inconsistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
`2.
`
`The ALJ’s Construction is Consistent with the Intrinsic Evidence
`
`The ALJ correctly found that in the ’828 Patent specification, “the discussion of prior art
`
`discusses both self and mutual capacitance embodiments and there does not appear to be any
`
`distinction drawn between self-capacitance and any other technology in the prior art.” Final ID
`
`at 39-40. The Background section of the ’828 Patent uses the generic term “electrode” to refer to
`
`both mutual and self-capacitance systems. See JX-3 [’828 Patent] at 5:1-5, 22-24. The
`
`specification also describes both “row and column electrodes,” id. and “arrayed unit-cell
`
`electrodes.” Id. at 5:44-50. While the preferred embodiment described in the specification is an
`
`array of self-capacitance sensing electrodes, there is no evidence that the inventors sought to
`
`redefine the term “electrode” to refer only to this type of electrode. Claim 10 of the ’828 Patent
`
`uses the generic term “touch-sensing electrodes,” and “[i]t is a ‘bedrock principle of patent law
`
`that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water,
`
`Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.Cir.2004)). The ALJ thus
`
`correctly relied on the ordinary meaning of the terms that were actually used in the asserted
`
`claims. One of ordinary skill in the art reading “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes” would
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have understood the claim language to refer to a broad range of electrical sensing elements. See
`
`CX-201C.083-084 [Balakrishnan DWS] at Q.365-384.
`
`The file history further supports the ALJ’s construction. As the Federal Circuit has held,
`
`“the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the
`
`patent.” Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d at 1317. During prosecution, the examiner rejected claim 10
`
`based on the Bisset ’352 Patent (JX-196), stating: “the horizontal traces and vertical traces
`
`correspond to Applicants electrodes.” JX-6.1415 [’828 Patent File History]. But, as Motorola’s
`
`expert admitted, the horizontal and vertical traces in Bisset ’352 are not the “pixilated self-
`
`capacitance electrodes” required under Motorola’s construction. See Tr. [Wolfe] at 1381:2-5.
`
`Motorola’s construction would thus be inconsistent with the examiner’s understanding of this
`
`limitation, while the ALJ’s construction correctly includes the row and column electrodes of
`
`Bisset ’352 within the scope of this limitation.
`
`The ALJ’s construction is thus grounded in the ordinary meaning of this term and is
`
`consistent with the general use of the term “electrode” throughout the specification of the ’828
`
`Patent. As the Federal Circuit held in Phillips, “the line between construing terms and importing
`
`limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court's focus
`
`remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim
`
`terms.” 415 F.3d at 1323. The record shows that the use of broad language in claim 10 was
`
`intentional, and distinguished the ’828 Patent from narrower claims in the parent ’846 Patent.
`
`The prosecution history further confirms that one of ordinary skill in the art would read “a
`
`plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on the substrate” consistent with the ALJ’s
`
`construction. Motorola’s attempt to read a self-capacitance limitation from the specification into
`
`the claims should therefore be rejected by the Commission.
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`iPhone 4 Embodies the ’828 Patent under the Proper
`The Apple
`Construction of “A Plurality of Touch-Sensing Electrodes Arranged on the
`Substrate”
`
`Under the ALJ’s construction for “a plurality of touch-sensing electrodes arranged on the
`
`substrate,” the Apple iPhone 4 embodies claim 10 of the ’828 Patent. As discussed in more
`
`detail below in the context of the ’607 Patent, see infra. Section III.B,
`
`
`
` The structure
`
`of this touchscreen meets the “plurality of electrodes” limitation of claim 10 of the ’828 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under the ALJ’s construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The Commission should therefore
`
`affirm the ALJ’s finding that the iPhone 4 meets the technical prong of the domestic industry
`
`requirement for the ’828 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Bisset ’352 Does Not Anticipate the ’828 Patent under Any Claim
`Construction
`
`The final issue that Motorola raises regarding the ’828 Patent is a contingent petition that,
`
`under Apple’s proposed construction for “mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse,”1 Bisset ’352”
`
`would anticipate claims 1 and 10 of the ’828 Patent. See RPet. at 16-20. Motorola’s petition
`
`mischaracterizes the prosecution history and misinterprets the Bisset ’352 reference, however.
`
`
`1 As set forth in Apple’s Petition for Review, the Commission should review the ALJ’s
`construction for mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse.” CPet. at 8-17.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Since Bisset ’352 was explicitly considered by the PTO during prosecution, the burden of
`
`overcoming the presumption of validity by clear and convincing evidence is especially heavy.
`
`See Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(“particularly heavy”); Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“even heavier burden”); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
`
`909 F.2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“this burden is especially difficult”). As discussed in
`
`detail below, Motorola has failed to meet its burden with respect to at least three elements of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’828 Patent: the “segmenting” limitation of claims 1 and 10, the
`
`“mathematically fit(ting) an ellipse” limitation of claims 1 and 10, and the “contact tracking and
`
`identification module” of claim 10. See CPHB at 80-82; CRPHB at 25-27; RPet. at 16-17.2
`
`Bisset ’352 describes a device that relies on “finger profiles” that is very different from the
`
`invention claimed in the ’828 Patent. See CX-568C.140 [Balakrihsnan RWS] at Q.506.
`
`1.
`
`Motorola Improperly Relies on the Prosecution History
`
`Motorola’s contention that Bisset ’352 meets the “segmenting” and “contract tracking
`
`and identification module” limitations relies on the fact that Apple did not contest the disclosure
`
`of these elements by Bisset during the prosecution of the ’828 Patent. See RPet. at 17-18.
`
`Motorola cites no law in support of its argument, however, and the Federal Circuit has expressly
`
`rejected such attempts to assert invalidity by acquiescence during prosecution. A patent
`
`examiner’s treatment of prior art is not directly applicable to a court proceeding, because the
`
`PTO and the courts “take different approaches in determining validity.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d
`
`1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`The fact that Apple did not contest certain limitations during prosecution is not an admission that
`
`
`2 Motorola’s Petition does not contest the validity of claim 24 and its dependent claims.
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bisset ’352 anticipates these limitations. “A patentee is not required to fight tooth and nail every
`
`possibly adverse thought an examiner commits to paper, nor to advance redundant arguments for
`
`patentability.” TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). The prosecution history may be relevant to claim construction, “[b]ut these
`
`principles do not suggest that a patentee may advance during litigation only those arguments in
`
`support of patentability that were made before the Patent Office.” Id. The Commission
`
`therefore should not interpret the applicant’s silence regarding the “segmenting” and “contact
`
`tracking and identification” limitations as admissions of what Bisset ’352 discloses.
`
`A more detailed reading of the prosecution history reveals further weaknesses in
`
`Motorola’s argument. In the office action upon which Motorola relies, see RPet. at 17, the
`
`examiner cites Figure 7B of Bisset ’352 for a disclosure of “segmenting each proximity image
`
`into one or more pixel groups.”