UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington,D.C.
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TOUCH-CONTROLLED
`MOBILE DEVICES, COMPUTERS, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1162
`
`ORDERNO.15:
`
`CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`THE PATENTSAT ISSUE
`
`(November25, 2019)
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE1
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 1
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION....eeecccccccesseseseeseeseeecseeseeecsesseenceseeseesessseseessuaescssesaeseenaeseeaeeaserseacessnacasesenaees 1
`IN GENERAL...eceeeeeceseesceseeeeecesceecsceacenesesesanseceeseseeaceeeecsacsaseaeaceessansceaseaesiseateaseatensesasensess2
`
`I.
`
`III.
`
`RELEVANTLAW uuu iecccecccccsseseesceneeeeseeeneessetscesseseesseseesaaeeaceaesnssenecsessasaeeaseasenenasecenacaseresaces 2
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARYSKILL......cceeeeeeseesesessesceseensesesececeseenenecsecneaeeaseaeeasnaeeassacaserevases 7
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS...0.. ee ceeccsssssessssesscsseceseescensesescesescesenansessacsecaeeasensasenseacaceneeaes 8
`
`A.
`
`,
`
`The “173 Patent 7aceesanecaeceseersneecacersaeereneecesceesaeeesssesaeecaneeeseesneeeeseeesaeesserseaeeesseneneees 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dz.
`
`The °910 Patent 2... ceseesecsseeseseteeseesssceesnsseesseeessesesesesenseeneeeesesneeesersseveenseneceves 11
`
`The *790 Patent........cccccsssscssssessescssesscsseessssessescsscesesesssscssesssassseeeesssnasasseanasenssseason 13
`
`The “580 Patent 0.0... eeseseesecseesseseesseceesseseaeeseeeeseseeessecseesesaseseeseseaseneneeseeseseaees 14
`
`VI.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION0.sscscsoscsssssvsnsnsnsinesssssntstntnsnieecseeseesenaceeeaeeeseseeeees 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Construction of the Agreed-Upon Claim Terms..........ccccessssseesseeesneeeseeeseeeeeeeeeee 18
`
`Construction of the Disputed Claim TOP.o..cesessesseesecsesesssessecseesessesseeseeseseessessees 19
`
`‘173 Patent — “A sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`Comprises a length” 20... ec eeeeecceeeceeeeeeeeeeseeeeceseeeesesaeeaeeeeeceeseeateaeeneeeseseuee 19
`
`“173 Patent — “sensing path”... cccccseeseersseeseeeceeseseeerseeseeesesenaeenseenaees wee 20
`
`‘173 Patent — “the range of parameter values being associated with the
`length of the sensing path”..........cccccssscssecssceesessescsseeteeseessseeeaseeeeereseneees 22
`
`“173 Patent — “the sensing path comprisesa closed loop”..................::008 24
`
`“910 Patent — “the particular one of the sensing areas selected based on a
`predefined ranking schemethat prioritizes the two or more sensing areas
`based on the positions of the two or more sensing areas with the sensing
`TOQION”0... eeeeceeeceseceeceseeeseeseceeeeceeseescecsseceeecsseessescecseseseseecsaeerseceaseeeeenacereseaas 25
`
`‘790 Patent — “respective [first/second] [sensor/signal] values of [the/a]
`Plurality [Of] Keys? .......cccccssecssecssecseceseessecseesssecessseecaseseecestecseecaeeeaseeeseneees 27
`
`‘790 Patent — “[analyze/analyzing], to determine a second active key,
`respective secondsignal values ofthe plurality of keys, the analysis, to
`determine the second active key, of the respective second signal values of
`the plurality of keys being biased in favorof the first key”...........cseeeeees 28
`
`“580 Patent - “signals” 0.0... ccscssseeseceseceseesneessessecaeeceecasecsscessecesesseeaseees 30
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 2
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 2
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`9.
`
`10.
`
`‘580 Patent - “measured values corresponding to the [second/fourth] set of
`SIGNALS”0... cecseseeeeneceseeesscesnsseceeseeeeaeeessesesserseesesscesessuenaceseseseneceseraneraseutees 32
`
`“580 Patent- “adjusting the second set of measured values corresponding to
`the secondset of signals with the fourth set of measured values
`correspondingto the fourth set of signals”.........cccceseesetsesseesereeeeeseseeeees 34
`
`il
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 3
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 3
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Investigation was instituted by the Commission on June 24, 2019 to determine whether
`
`there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States,
`
`the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of touch-controlled
`
`mobile devices, including smartphoneandtablet devices, computers, including notebook and laptop
`
`computers, and associated components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims
`1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 ("the ‘173 patent"); claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,791,910
`
`("the *910 patent"); claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790("the *790 patent");
`and claims 1-12 ofU.S. Patent No. 9,372,580 ("the “580 patent"). See 84 Fed. Reg. 29545 (June 24,
`
`2019). The Complainant is Neodron Ltd. (“Neodron”). The Respondents are Amazon.com,Inc.
`
`(“Amazon”), Dell Technologies, Inc. (“Dell”), Lenovo Group Ltd. (“Lenovo”), Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC (“Motorola”), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), HP Inc. (“HP”), and Samsung Electronics,
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) (together, “the Respondents”).
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 6, a Markman hearing was held October 22, 2019. Prior to the
`
`hearing, the Parties filed joint proposed claim construction charts setting forth a limited set of terms
`
`to be construed, and after the hearing, the Parties filed an updated joint claim construction chart.
`
`The Parties also filed initial and reply claim construction briefs, wherein each party offered its
`
`construction for the claim termsin dispute, along with support for its proposed interpretation. |
`
`' For convenience, the briefs and amended chart submitted by the Parties are referred to hereafter
`as:
`
`CIMB
`CRMB
`RIMB
`RRMB
`JC
`
`Complainant’s Initial Markman Brief
`Complainant’s Reply Markman Brief
`Respondents’ Initial Markman Brief
`Respondents’ Reply Markman Brief
`Updated Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`Hr’g Tr.
`
`.
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 4
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 4
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`I.
`
`IN GENERAL
`
`The claim terms are construed for the purposes of this section 337 Investigation. Those
`
`termsnotin dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int'l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the administrative law judge need only
`construe disputed claim terms).
`
`ii.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
`
`scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
`construed claims to the device accused ofinfringing.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)(internal citations omitted),aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Jd. at 970-71. “The construction
`
`of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim languagein order to understand
`
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`|
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006); see also Markman, 52
`
`F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these
`components to determine the “ordinary and customary meaning of aclaim term” as understood by
`a person of ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic
`
`evidenceis the most significant sourceofthe legally operative meaning ofdisputed claim language.”
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)(quoting Vitronic Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 5
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 5
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`“It isa ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`whichthe patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure
`Water. Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “Quite apart
`from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial
`guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Jd. at 1314; see also Interactive Gift
`Express, Inc. vy. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In construing claims, the
`
`analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves,forit is
`
`that languagethat the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the
`
`subject matter which the patentee regards as hisinvention.”). The context in whicha term is used
`
`in an asserted claim can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other
`claims in the samepatent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide guidanceas to the meaning ofa
`
`claim term. Jd. “Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the
`
`patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The specification “is alwayshighly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is
`dispositive: it is the single best guide to the meaning ofa disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1315
`
`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`“[T]he
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term bythepatentee thatdiffers from
`
`the meaning it would otherwise possess.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`“In other cases, the
`
`specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.”
`
`Id. As a general rule, however,
`
`the particular examples or embodiments discussed in the
`
`specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations.
`
`Jd. at 1323.
`
`In the end, “[t]he
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturallyaligns with the patent’s
`
`description ofthe invention will be ... the correct construction.” Jd. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC
`
`v. MarpossSocieta' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`;
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 6
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 6
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`In addition to the claimsand the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
`
`if in evidence.
`
`Jd. at 1317 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 (1966)); see Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can
`
`“often inform the meaning ofthe claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
`
`invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the
`
`claim scope narrowerthan it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see Chimie v. PPG
`
`Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution
`
`history in construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during
`
`prosecution.”’).
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence(i. e., all evidence externalto the patent and the prosecution history, including dictionaries,
`
`inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317. Extrinsic evidence generally is viewed as less reliable than the patent itself and its -
`
`prosecution history in determining howto define claim terms. /d. “The court mayreceive extrinsic
`
`evidenceto educateitself about the invention and the relevanttechnology, but the court may not use
`
`extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction
`
`mandated bythe intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed.Cir.
`
`1999)(cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1066 (2000)).
`
`If, after a review ofthe intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim term remains ambiguous,
`
`the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Claims,
`
`however, cannot be judicially rewritten in order to fulfill the axiom of preserving their validity.
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, “if the only claim construction
`
`that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description renders the claim invalid,
`
`then the axiom doesnot apply andthe claim is simply invalid.” Id.
`
`4
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 7
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 7
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`The construction of a claim term is generally guided by its ordinary meaning. However,
`
`courts may deviate from the ordinary meaning when: (1) “the intrinsic evidence shows that the
`
`patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly
`
`disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention;” or .
`(2) “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed .
`
`claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
`
`Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750
`F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”); Omega,Eng’g, Inc. v.
`
`Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed: Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the patentee has unequivocally
`
`disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches
`
`and narrowsthe ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.”); Rheox,
`
`Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(quoting Southwall Techs., v. Cardinal IG
`
`Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The prosecutionhistory limits the interpretation ofclaim
`
`terms so as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”). Nevertheless,
`there is a “heavy ptesumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The
`
`standard for deviating from the plain and ordinary meaning is “exacting” and requires “a clear and
`
`unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); see Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(requiring “expressions of manifest exclusionor restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim
`scope” to deviate from the ordinary meaning) (citation omitted). As the Federal Circuithas
`explained, “[w]e do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine
`
`words. Only the patentee can do that.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366.
`
`5
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 8
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 8
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`A claim must also be definite. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: “The
`
`specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regardsas his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112,42. In
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), the Supreme Court held that § 112,
`{ 2 requires “that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history
`
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonablecertainty.” Jd. at
`
`910. A claim is required to “provide objective boundaries for those ofskill in the art,” and a claim
`
`term is indefiniteif it “might mean several different things and no informed and confidentchoice is
`
`among the contending definitions.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014)(cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 59 (2015)). A patent claim that is indefinite is invalid. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b)(3)(A).
`
`Courts are not required to construe every claim limitation of an asserted patent. See O2
`
`Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(citations omitted). Rather, “claim construction is a matter ofresolution ofdisputed meanings and
`technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims,
`for use in the determination of infringement.” Jd. at 1362 (quoting U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
`
`Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also Embrex, 216 F.3d at 1347 (“The construction
`
`of claimsis simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language []} in order to understand
`
`and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.”) (citation omitted).
`
`In addition, “[a]
`
`determination that a claim term ‘needsnoconstruction’orhas the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may
`be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term's
`
`‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361. Claim
`
`construction, however, is not an “obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d
`
`at 1568.
`
`“[Mlerely rephrasing or paraphrasing the plain language of a claim by substituting
`
`6
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 9
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 9
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 9
`
`

`

`synonymsdoes not represent genuine claim construction.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`
`388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARYSKILL
`
`In its opening brief, Neodron’s expert stated that for all asserted patents:
`
`A person ofordinary skill in the art of the patented technologyat the
`time of the invention of the asserted patents would have a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`the
`equivalent and 1-2 years of field, lab or other work experience in
`research, design, development, and/or testing of electronic sensors,
`controllers, human-machine interfaces, and related firmware and
`software, or the equivalent..
`
`CIMBExpert Declaration of Dr. Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D. at 5, § 17.
`
`In their opening brief, the Respondents contended:
`
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the *910, °790,
`and ’173 Patents would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Physics,
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science or the equivalent plus at
`least two years of experience in the field of touch sensors, signal
`processing, human-computerinteraction, graphical user interfaces, or
`a related field.
`.
`.
`.. Respondents contend that a person of ordinary
`skill in the*art with respect to the *580 Patent would have had a
`Bachelor’s Degree in Physics, Electrical Engineering or Computer
`Science or the equivalent plus at least two years of experience in the
`field of touch sensors, signal processing, or a related field... .. For
`all patents, additional education could substitute for work experience
`and vice versa.
`
`RIMBat 3.
`
`These proposed levels of skill are very similar. A degree in physics, however, would not be
`
`as helpful as one in electrical engineering or computer science, which are more directly related to
`
`the art, and a degree in computer engineering, which is largely a hybrid of electrical engineering
`
`and computer science, would likely be very helpful. As for experience, electronic sensors,
`
`| controllers, and signal processing are too broad to be directly qualifying, although they may be
`
`considered “related fields.” And the °580 patentis not so far afield from the other three patents that
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 10
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 10
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 10
`
`

`

`it should be considered separately from them. Therefore, one ofordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related field, and at least two years ofexperience in the research, design, development, and/ortesting
`
`of touch sensors, human-machineinteraction and interfaces, and/or graphical user interfaces, and
`
`related firmware and software, or the equivalent, ‘with additional education substituting for
`
`experience and vice versa.
`
`V.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`The °173 Patent
`
`The ‘173 patent, entitled “Capacitive Position Sensor,” issued on April 30, 2013 to Harald
`
`Philipp.. The “173 patentis assigned onits face to Atmel Corporation. Neodron ownsby assignment
`
`all rights, title, and interest in the °173 Patent. Amended Complaint at § 47. The ‘173 patent
`
`generally provides “an improved capacitive position sensor for an electrical appliance in which a
`
`desired parameter value can be more efficiently and accurately selected.” *173 patent at 2:62-65.
`
`In particular:
`
`In one embodiment, a methodincludes receiving one or morefirst signals indicating
`one or more first capacitive couplings of an object with a sensing elementthat
`comprises a sensing path that comprises a length. The first capacitive couplings
`correspondto the object coming into proximity with the sensing elementata first
`position along the sensing path of the sensing element. The method includes
`determining based on one or moreofthe first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path and setting a parameter to an initial value based on thefirst
`position of the object along the sensing path. Theinitial value includes a particular
`parameter value and is associated with a range of parameter values. The range of
`parameter valuesis associated with the length of the sensing path.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`The “173 patent has 19 claims. As ofthe date of this order, all claims are asserted in various
`
`combinationsagainst the various respondents. The claims in whichthere are disputed termsread as
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE11
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 11
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 11
`
`

`

`follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms in italics and thefirst instance of the
`
`disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`1.
`
`A method comprising:
`
`receiving one or morefirst signals indicating one or morefirst capacitive couplings
`of an object with a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`comprises a length,the first capacitive couplings correspondingto the object
`coming into proximity with the sensing elementatafirst position along the
`sensing path of the sensing element
`
`determining based on one or moreofthefirst signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`setting a parameterto an initial value based onthe first position of the object along
`the sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`
`receiving one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from the first position; and
`
`determining based on one or more of the second signals the displacement of the
`object along the sensing path; and
`
`adjusting the parameter within the range of parameter values based on the
`displacementof the object along the sensing path.
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the sensing path comprises a closed loop.
`
`One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that is
`- operable when executedto:
`
`receive one or morefirst signals indicating one or morefirst capacitive couplings of
`an object with a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that
`comprisesa length,the first capacitive couplings correspondingto the object
`coming into proximity with the sensing elementat a first position along the
`sensing path of the sensing element
`
`determine based on one or more ofthe first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`set a parameterto an initial value based onthefirst position of the object along the
`sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`
`9
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 12
`
`2.
`
`10.
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 12
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 12
`
`

`

`11.
`
`19.
`
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`
`receive one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from the first position; and
`
`determine based on one or more of the second signals the displacementof the object
`along the sensing path; and
`
`adjust the parameter within range of parameter values based on the displacement of
`the object along the sensing path.
`
`The media of claim 10, wherein the sensing path comprises a closed loop.
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that comprises a length; and
`one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that
`
`is operable when executedto:
`
`receive one or morefirst signals indicating one or morefirst capacitive couplings of
`an object with the sensing element,
`the first capacitive couplings
`corresponding to the object coming into proximity with the sensing element
`at a first position along the sensing path of the sensing element
`
`determine based on one or moreofthe first signals the first position of the object
`along the sensing path;
`
`set a parameterto an initial value based on the first position of the object along the
`sensing path, the initial value comprising a particular parameter value and
`being associated with a range of parameter values, the range of parameter
`values being associated with the length of the sensing path;
`
`receive one or more second signals indicating one or more second capacitive
`couplings of the object with the sensing element, the second capacitive
`couplings corresponding to a displacement of the object along the sensing
`path from thefirst position; and
`
`determine based on one or more of the second signals the displacement of the object
`along the sensing path; and adjust the parameter within range of parameter
`values based on the displacementof the object along the sensing path.
`
`10
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 13
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 13
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 13
`
`

`

`B. The ‘910 Patent
`
`The “910 patent, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard With Position-Dependent Reduced Keying
`
`Ambiguity,” issued on July 29, 2014 to Harald Philipp. The “910 patent is assigned onits face to
`
`Atmel Corporation. Neodron ownsby assignmentall rights, title, and interest in the °910 Patent.
`
`Amended Complaint at | 53 The ‘910 patent generally relates to “touch sensitive user interfaces
`
`having an array of sensing elements and methods for determining whichofa plurality of sensing
`
`elements in simultaneous detection is intended by a user for selection.” “910 Patent at 1:20-23. In
`
`particular:
`
`"
`
`In one embodiment, a method includes receiving two or more output
`signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings. Each of the
`capacitive couplings has occurred between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, and each ofthe
`sensing areas has a position within the sensing region. The method
`includes, if two or more of the output signals each have an output-
`signal level that exceeds a predefined activation level, then selecting
`a particular one of the sensing areas with out-put-signal
`levels
`exceeding the predefined activation level as an intended one of the
`sensing areas based on a predefined ranking schemethat takes into
`accountthe positions of the sensing areas within the sensing region.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`The ‘910 patent has 37 claims. As of the date of this order, all claims are asserted in various
`
`combinationsagainst the various respondents (with the exception of Amazon). The claims in which
`
`there are disputed termsread as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upontermsin italics
`
`andthefirst instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`l.
`
`A method comprising,:by one or more computing devices:
`
`receiving two or more outputsignals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`each of the capacitive couplings occurring betweena pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, each of the sensing
`areas having a position within the sensing region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefined activation level, then selecting a particular oneofthe sensing areas
`
`11
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 14
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 14
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 14
`
`

`

`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking schemethat prioritizes the two
`or more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing
`areas within the sensing region.
`
`13.
`
`One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying logic that
`is operable when executedto:
`
`receive two or more output signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`each of the capacitive couplings occurring between a pointing object and one
`‘of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region, each of the sensing
`areas having a position within the sensing region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefined activation level, then select a particular one of the sensing areas
`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking schemethat prioritizes the two or
`more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing areas
`within the sensing region.
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`a touch-sensitive user interface; and
`
`one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the touch-
`sensitive user interface that embody logic operable when executedto:
`
`receive two or more output signals responsive to two or more capacitive couplings,
`_ each ofthe capacitive couplings occurring between a pointing object and one
`of two or more sensing areas within a sensing region of the touch-sensitive
`user interface, each of the sensing areas having a position within the sensing
`region; and
`
`if two or more of the output signals each have an output signal level that exceeds a
`predefinedactivation level, then select a particular one of the sensing areas
`with output-signal levels exceeding the predefined activation level as an
`intended one of the sensing areas, the particular one of the sensing areas
`selected based on a predefined ranking schemethat prioritizes the two
`or moresensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing
`areas within the sensing region.
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 15
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 15
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1008 PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Cc.
`
`The *790 Patent
`
`The ‘790 patent, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity,”
`
`issued on May 5, 2015 to Harald Philipp. The ‘790 patent is assigned on its face to Atmel
`
`Corporation. Neodron ownsby assignmentallrights,title, and interest in the °790 Patent. Amended
`
`Complaint at § 59. The *790 patent generally relates to “method and apparatus for controlling an
`
`array of non-bistable keys, such as capacitive position sensors, and, more specifically for preventing
`
`accidental false inputs from keys adjacent to a selected key ina capacitive keyboard.” ‘790 Patent
`
`at 1:21-25. In particular:
`
`Keyboards, keypads and other data entry devices can suffer from a keying ambiguity
`problem.In a small keyboard, for example, a user's fingeris likely to overlap from a
`desired key.to onto adjacent ones. An iterative method ofremoving keying ambiguity
`from a keyboard comprising an array of capacitive keys involves measuring a signal
`strength associated with each key in the array, comparing the measured signal
`strengths to find a maximum,determining that the key having the maximum signal
`strength is the unique user-selected key, and maintaining that selection until either
`the initially selected key’s signal strength drops below somethreshold level or a
`second key’s signal strength exceedsthe first key’s signal strength.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`The ‘790 patent has 24 claims. As of the date of this order, all claims are asserted against
`
`all the respondents (with the exception of Amazon and Motorola). The claims in whichthere are
`
`disputed terms read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upontermsinitalics and the
`
`first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
`
`1,
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`plurality of keys:
`
`control logic operatively coupledto the plurality ofkeys and configuredto:
`
`analyze, to determine a first. active key,