`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`DELL INC. AND DELL PRODUCTS LP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW WOLFE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,372,580
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 1
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................... 6
`III.
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 7
`A.
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................... 7
`C.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................11
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS .................................................................12
`VII. Technical Background ...................................................................................12
`A. History of Touch Sensing Input ..........................................................12
`B.
`Capacitive Touch Sensing ...................................................................13
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED PATENT ...................................................................18
`IX. PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY .........................................................20
`X.
`PRIORITY DATE .........................................................................................22
`XI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................23
`XII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED PRIOR ART ..........................24
`A. US Patent Publication No. 2010/0060608 to Yousefpor
`(Yousefpor) (Ex. 1005) .......................................................................24
`US Patent No. 8,587,555 to Chang et. al. (Chang) (Ex. 1006) ...........34
`US Patent No. 9,746,967 to Krah et. al. (Krah) (Ex. 1007) ................40
`
`B.
`C.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 2
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`XIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ....................................................................................................47
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are rendered obvious by Yousefpor (Ex.
`1005) in view of Chang (Ex. 1006), and further in light of the
`knowledge of a POSITA. ....................................................................47
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Yousefpor and Chang, and would have a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. ...........................................47
`Independent Claims 1, 5, and 9. ................................................50
`2.
`Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10. .................................................91
`3.
`Dependent claims 3, 7, and 11. .................................................93
`4.
`Dependent Claims 4, 8, and 12. ................................................95
`5.
`Ground 2: Claims 1-12 are rendered obvious by Yousefpor (Ex.
`1005) in view of Krah (Ex. 1007), and further in light of the
`knowledge of a POSITA. ....................................................................96
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Yousefpor and Krah, and would have a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. ...........................................96
`Independent Claims 1, 5, and 9. ................................................98
`2.
`Dependent Claims 2, 6, and 10. ..............................................125
`3.
`Dependent Claims 3, 7, and 11. ..............................................126
`4.
`Dependent Claims 4, 8, and 12. ..............................................127
`5.
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................130
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 3
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Andrew Wolfe, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Dell Inc. and Dell Products LP (collectively,
`2.
`
`“Dell” or “Petitioner”) as an independent expert consultant in this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Dell Counsel (“Counsel”) to consider whether
`
`certain references teach or suggest the features recited in Claims 1-12 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,372,580 (“the ’580 Patent”) (Ex-1001)1. My opinions and the bases
`
`for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary consulting rate
`
`for my work, which is $600 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent
`
`on the nature of my findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the
`
`outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`All of my opinions stated in this declaration are based on my own
`5.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits that I understand are attached to the petition
`
`for IPR of the ’580 Patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 4
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, researching, and
`
`teaching the technology referenced in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of
`
`my current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and
`
`academic experience, is being submitted as Ex-1003. The following provides a
`
`brief overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in
`
`this declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I am the founder and sole employee of Wolfe Consulting. Through
`
`Wolfe Consulting, I provide technical and business analysis to businesses on
`
`processor technology, computer systems, consumer electronics, software, design
`
`tools, data security, cryptography and intellectual property issues. I have more
`
`than thirty years' experience developing products, researching, consulting, and
`
`teaching in those fields. In that time, I have worked as a computer architect,
`
`computer system designer, and as an executive in the PC and electronics business.
`
`I have also taught at some of the world's leading institutions in those fields,
`
`including Stanford University, Princeton University, Carnegie Mellon University,
`
`and Santa Clara University.
`
`8.
`
`In 1985, I earned the B.S.E.E. degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`2
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 5
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`Computer Science from The Johns Hopkins University. In 1987, I received the
`
`M.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon
`
`University and in 1992, I received the Ph.D. degree in Computer Engineering from
`
`Carnegie Mellon University. My doctoral dissertation proposed a new approach
`
`for the architecture of a computer processor.
`
`9.
`
`In 1983, I began designing touch sensors, microprocessor-based
`
`computer systems, and I/O (input/output) cards for personal computers as a senior
`
`design engineer for Touch Technology, Inc. During the course of my design
`
`projects with Touch Technology, I designed I/O cards for PC-compatible computer
`
`systems, including the IBM PC-AT, to interface with interactive touch-based
`
`computer terminals that I designed for use in public information systems. I
`
`continued designing and developing related technology as a consultant to the
`
`Carroll Touch division of AMP, Inc., where in 1986 I designed one of the first
`
`custom touch-screen integrated circuits. I designed the touch/pen input system for
`
`the Linus WriteTop, which many believe to be the first commercial tablet
`
`computer. The Linus WriteTop included handwriting recognition.
`
`10. From 1986 through 1987, I designed and built a high-performance
`
`computer system as a student at Carnegie Mellon University. From 1986 through
`
`early 1988, I also developed curriculum, and supervised the teaching laboratory,
`
`for processor design courses.
`
`3
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 6
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`In the latter part of 1989, I worked as a senior design engineer for
`
`11.
`
`ESL-TRW Advanced Technology Division. While at ESL-TRW, I designed and
`
`built a bus interface and memory controller for a workstation-based computer
`
`system, and also worked on the design of a multiprocessor system.
`
`12. At the end of 1989, I (along with some partners) reacquired the rights
`
`to the technology I had developed at Touch Technology and at AMP, and founded
`
`The Graphics Technology Company. Over the next seven years, as an officer and
`
`a consultant for The Graphics Technology Company, I managed the company's
`
`engineering development activities and personally developed dozens of touch
`
`screen sensors, controllers, and interactive touch-based computer systems.
`
`13.
`
`I have consulted, formally and informally, for a number of fabless
`
`semiconductor companies. In particular, I have served on the technical advisory
`
`boards for two processor design companies: BOPS, Inc., where I chaired the board,
`
`and Siroyan Ltd., where I served in a similar role for three networking chip
`
`companies—Intellon, Inc., Comsilica, Inc., and Entridia, Inc.—and one 3D game
`
`accelerator company, Ageia, Inc.
`
`14.
`
`I have also served as a technology advisor to Motorola and to several
`
`venture capital funds in the U.S. and Europe. Currently, I am a director of Turtle
`
`Beach Corporation, providing guidance in its development of premium audio
`
`peripheral devices for a variety of commercial electronic products.
`
`4
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 7
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`15. From 1991 through 1997, I served on the Faculty of Princeton
`
`University as an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering. At Princeton, I
`
`taught undergraduate and graduate-level courses in Computer Architecture,
`
`Advanced Computer Architecture, Display Technology, and Microprocessor
`
`Systems, and conducted sponsored research in the area of computer systems and
`
`related topics. From 1999 through 2002, I taught the Computer Architecture
`
`course to both undergraduate and graduate students at Stanford University multiple
`
`times as a Consulting Professor. At Princeton, I received several teaching awards,
`
`both from students and from the School of Engineering. I have also taught
`
`advanced microprocessor architecture to industry professionals in IEEE and ACM
`
`sponsored seminars. I am currently a lecturer at Santa Clara University teaching
`
`courses on Computer Organization and Architecture and Mechatronics.
`
`16. From 1997 through 2002, I held a variety of executive positions at a
`
`publicly held fabless semiconductor company originally called S3, Inc. and later
`
`called Sonicblue Inc. I held the positions of Chief Technology Officer, Vice
`
`President of Systems Integration Products, Senior Vice President of Business
`
`Development, and Director of Technology, among others. During my time at
`
`SonicBlue, we launched more than 30 new consumer electronics products.
`
`17.
`
`I served as a board member and technical advisor at KBGear Inc.
`
`from 1999-2001. KBGear Inc. designed and produced digital cameras and music
`
`5
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 8
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`players.
`
`18.
`
`I have published more than fifty peer-reviewed papers in computer
`
`architecture and computer systems design. I have also chaired IEEE and ACM
`
`conferences in microarchitecture and integrated circuit design. I am a named
`
`inventor on at least 56 U.S. patents and 30 foreign patents.
`
`19.
`
`I have been the invited keynote speaker at the ACM/IEEE
`
`International Symposium on Microarchitecture and at the International Conference
`
`on Multimedia. I have also been an invited speaker on various aspects of
`
`technology or the PC industry at numerous industry events including the Intel
`
`Developer's Forum, Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering Conference,
`
`Microprocessor Forum, Embedded Systems Conference, Comdex, and Consumer
`
`Electronics Show as well as at the Harvard Business School and the University of
`
`Illinois Law School. I have been interviewed on subjects related to technology and
`
`the electronics industry by publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York
`
`Times, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, Forbes, and Fortune as well as CNN, NPR,
`
`and the BBC. I have also spoken at dozens of universities including MIT,
`
`Stanford, University of Texas, Carnegie Mellon, UCLA, University of Michigan,
`
`Rice, and Duke.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`In preparation for this declaration, I have considered the materials
`20.
`
`6
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 9
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`discussed in this declaration, including, for example, the ’580 Patent, the
`
`references cited by the ’580 Patent, the prosecution history of the ’580 Patent
`
`(including the references cited therein), various background references, articles and
`
`materials referenced in this declaration, and the prior art references identified in
`
`this declaration. In addition, my opinions are further based on my education,
`
`training, experience, and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. For the purposes of
`21.
`
`this Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law that are
`
`relevant to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`I have been informed and understand that in an IPR proceeding,
`22.
`
`claims are to be interpreted according to the Phillips claim construction standard. I
`
`have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`B.
`23.
`
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is to be understood
`
`from the perspective of a hypothetical “person of ordinary skill in the art”
`
`(“POSITA”). Such an individual is considered to possess normal skills and
`
`7
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 10
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`knowledge in a particular technical field (as opposed to being a genius). I
`
`understand that in considering what the claims of a patent require, what was known
`
`prior to that patent, what a prior art reference discloses, and whether an invention
`
`is obvious or not, one must use the perspective of such a POSITA.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious
`24.
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and therefore invalid, if the claimed subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the priority date of the patent
`
`based on one or more prior art references and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art,
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations,
`
`if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected results, commercial success, long-
`
`felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying by others, and skepticism of
`
`experts).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I
`
`understand that a reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA, and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple references. I
`
`further understand that a POSITA is presumed to know the relevant prior art. I
`
`8
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 11
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`understand that the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a POSITA would employ.
`
`27.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference would have been
`
`combined with other prior art or other information known to a POSITA, I
`
`understand that the following principles may be considered:
`
`a. whether the references to be combined involve non-analogous art;
`
`b. whether the references to be combined are in different fields of
`
`endeavor than the alleged invention in the Patent;
`
`c. whether the references to be combined are reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problems to which the inventions of the Patent are directed;
`
`d. whether the combination is of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods that yields predictable results;
`
`e. whether a combination involves the substitution of one known
`
`element for another that yields predictable results;
`
`f. whether the combination involves the use of a known technique to
`
`improve similar items or methods in the same way that yields
`
`predictable results;
`
`g. whether the combination involves the application of a known
`
`technique to a prior art reference that is ready for improvement, to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`9
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 12
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`h. whether the combination is “obvious to try”;
`
`i. whether the combination involves the known work in one field of
`
`endeavor prompting variations of it for use in either the same field or
`
`a different one based on design incentives or other market forces,
`
`where the variations are predictable to a POSITA;
`
`j. whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention;
`
`k. whether the combination requires modifications that render the prior
`
`art unsatisfactory for its intended use;
`
`l. whether the combination requires modifications that change the
`
`principle of operation of the reference;
`
`m. whether the combination is reasonably expected to be a success; and
`
`n. whether the combination possesses the requisite degree of
`
`predictability at the time the invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in determining whether a combination of prior art
`
`references renders a claim obvious, it is helpful to consider whether there is some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that a teaching,
`
`10
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 13
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine is not required.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that in the co-pending 1162 ITC Investigation, the
`29.
`
`Administrative Law Judge found, with respect to the ’580 Patent, that “one of
`
`ordinary 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 of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing
`
`of touch sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or graphical user
`
`interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional
`
`education substituting for experience and vice versa.” I agree with this statement of
`
`the level of skill in the art and have applied it herein.
`
`30.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, I considered, for
`
`example, the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`31.
`
`I met the definition of a POSITA in 2011. I also had greater
`
`knowledge and experience than a POSITA. I worked with POSITAs in 2011, and I
`
`am able to render opinions from the perspective of a POSITA based on my
`
`knowledge and experience. My opinions concerning the ’580 Patent claims and
`
`the prior art are from the perspective of a POSITA, as set forth above.
`
`11
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 14
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`I have been asked to consider whether the claims of the ’580 Patent
`32.
`
`are obvious over certain prior art references. As explained in detail in this
`
`declaration, it is my opinion that:
`
`•
`
`Claims 1-12 are rendered obvious by US Patent Publication No.
`2010/0060608 to Yousefpor (Yousefpor, Ex-1005) in view of US
`Patent No. 8,587,555 to Chang et. al. (Chang, Ex-1006), and further in
`light of the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`•
`
`Claims 1-12 are rendered obvious by Yousefpor in view of US Patent
`No. 9,746,967 to Krah et. al. (Krah, Ex-1007), and further in light of
`the knowledge of a POSITA.
`VII. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A. History of Touch Sensing Input
`33. Touch sensing technology has existed for many decades. Broadly
`
`speaking, touch sensing for flat panels can be divided into a few main categories
`
`based on the physics of sensing the touch. These include resistive touch sensors,
`
`surface acoustics wave (SAW) touch sensors, infrared / optically-based touch
`
`sensors, and capacitive touch sensors. There are several other types of touch
`
`sensor technologies as well (see, for example, Walker, Geoff. “A review of
`
`technologies for sensing contact location on the surface of a display,” Journal of
`
`the Society for Information Display 20, no. 8 (2012), Ex-1020: pp. 413-440.)
`
`34. Resistive-based touch sensors were offered for commercial use many
`
`decades ago. For example, a transparent resistive touch panel was developed by
`
`12
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 15
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`
`ELO TouchSystems in 1977.
`
`35. SAW-based touch sensors use ultrasonic waves that are propagated
`
`over the surface of the touch panel. When touched, some of the wave energy is
`
`absorbed, altering the propagation of the wave. This is detected to sense the touch.
`
`36.
`
`In optically-based sensors, light emitters and detectors are typically
`
`located along the edges of the panel. When the panel is touched, certain light paths
`
`are blocked, and this information can be used to sense the touch location.
`
`37.
`
`In capacitive touch sensors, capacitance changes due to the presence
`
`of a touch are detected and form the basis of sensing. Capacitive touch sensing
`
`itself is not new. For example, an early touch display using capacitive sensing was
`
`described in 1967 in “Touch Displays: A Programmed Man-Machine Interface” in
`
`the journal Ergonomics. Capacitive touch sensing technology was commercially
`
`available decades ago as well. For example, Micro Touch Systems offered surface
`
`capacitance-based touch sensors as early as 1985. The field expanded dramatically
`
`over the succeeding decades, as various classes of capacitive touch sensing
`
`systems were developed. Over the last decade or more, capacitive touch sensors
`
`have become the dominant touch sensing technology, particularly for flat panels
`
`such as those used in tablets, computers, and phones.
`
`B. Capacitive Touch Sensing
`38. Capacitive touch sensing systems are often categorized into self and
`
`13
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 16
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`mutual capacitance systems. In self capacitance systems, the touching object (e.g.,
`
`a finger) acts as one plate of a capacitor. The other plate is provided by an
`
`electrode on the sensors. Since the touching object acts to couple signals to
`
`ground, there is a capacitive path formed between the touch sensor and ground at
`
`the location of the touch, which can be detected using appropriate capacitance
`
`sensing circuitry. In a mutual capacitance detection system, on the other hand, the
`
`capacitance of the touch alters the capacitive coupling between two electrodes on
`
`the sensor. Again, this change in effective capacitance can be detected using
`
`appropriate sensing circuitry. Examples of these two approaches are shown
`
`schematically in the figure below (from Walker):
`
`39.
`
`In recent decades, mutual capacitance systems have become
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 17
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`increasingly prevalent, since they allow a relatively convenient sensor platform for
`
`detection of multiple touches. It should be noted that multi-touch can also be
`
`implemented in self capacitance-only systems as well.
`
`40. By the time the application leading to the ’580 Patent was filed, it was
`
`common knowledge to use both mutual capacitance and self capacitance
`
`measurements in capacitive touch sensors. The use of both measurement
`
`techniques allowed for devices to use the benefits of both self and mutual
`
`measurements to achieve more accurate and/or better touch results.
`
`41. For example, US Patent 8,659,566, Ex-1021, filed on October 14,
`
`2010 and assigned to Himax on issuance, discusses several techniques using both
`
`self and mutual capacitance measurements to improve touch detection accuracy.
`
`The ’566 patent discusses what it refers to as “the hollow effect.” The ’566 patent
`
`explains:
`
`However, for some applications, undesired issues may happen in touch
`devices. For example, the touch devices may have an undesired hollow
`effect under a low ground state. FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the
`hollow effect in the related art. Referring to FIG. 1, the low ground state
`means that a touch device does not have a reference ground. That is to say,
`the touch device is put on a car holder or a table without connecting to a
`power core. When the touch panel 11 of the touch device is under the low
`ground state, the touch sensing controller (not shown) may report two error
`points P1 and P2 whereas the users’ gesture simply touches the touch panel
`11 with a big area 20 which should correspond to a single point. This
`phenomenon is called the hollow effect. The hollow effect detaches a single
`touch point from several touch points. Accordingly, how to prevent the
`
`15
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 18
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`touch sensing controller from reporting error points is one of the important
`issues at present. Ex-1021, 1:32-49
`
`
`42. The ’566 patent explains that this “hollow effect” error can be
`
`corrected by using both self and mutual capacitance data. “In summary, in the
`
`exemplary embodiments of the invention, the touch sensing method combines the
`
`self capacitance mode and the mutual capacitance mode during each sensing
`
`frame. Under the low ground state, the touch controller determines the touch
`
`location associated with user’s gestures at least based on self-mode data obtained
`
`in the self capacitance mode to prevent from reporting error touch locations due to
`
`the hollow effect.” The ’566 patent includes several flow charts describing how
`16
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 19
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`both measurements are used to determine the correct touch points, such as, e.g.,
`
`Figure 7:
`
`
`43. Additionally, at least the following references explain common
`
`knowledge and the state of the prior art with respect to using self capacitance
`
`measurements to compensate for shortcomings in mutual capacitance
`
`measurements, and vice versa: US 6,730,863 (Ex-1022); US 9,069,405 (Ex-1023);
`
`US 9,804,213 (Ex-1024); US 8,319,505 (Ex-1025); US 8,462,135 (Ex-1026); US
`
`8,482,544 (Ex-1016); US 8,542,202 (Ex-1027); US 8,546,705 (Ex-1028); US
`
`17
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 20
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`8,624,870 (Ex-1029); US 8,659,566 (Ex-1030); US 8,933,907 (Ex-1031); US
`
`8,749,512 (Ex-1032); US 9,069,405 (Ex-1033); US 9,104,277 (Ex-1034); US
`
`8,692,795 (Ex-1035); US 8,587,555 (Ex-1036); 8,773,146 (Ex-1018); US Pub.
`
`2010/0007631 (Ex-1037); US Pub. 2009/0284495A1 (Ex-1038); US Pub.
`
`2010/0328262 (Ex-1039); US Pub. 2011/0216033 (Ex-1040); US Pub.
`
`2010/149110 (Ex-1041); US Pub. 2010/0144391 (Ex-1042); US Pub.
`
`2011/0175835 (Ex-1043); US Pub. 2011/0148801 (Ex-1044); Product Pamphlet
`
`TB3064 (Ex-1017).
`
`44. Additionally, at the time of the ’580 patent application, it also was
`
`well known in the art to distinguish real touches from phantom touches and to
`
`subtract stray and optionally palm touches. For example, US Patent Publication
`
`2009/0284495, published on November 19, 2009, discloses ways to distinguish
`
`real and phantom touches and to subtract stray and optionally palm touches. See,
`
`e.g., FIGS. 2, 3A, 3B through 5A, 5B, paragraphs [0056] – [0064], Algorithm 1,
`
`and the “Described Algorithm, in Psuedo-Code” at [0099] (line 3 in each
`
`algorithm). See Ex-1049.
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`45. The ’580 Patent is focused on a specific alleged improvement to the
`
`accuracy of a touch sensor: reducing inaccurate touch results by using signal
`
`values from one kind of touch sensing (self or cross capacitance) to adjust the
`
`18
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 21
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`signal values from another kind of touch sensing (mutual capacitance). As
`
`described in the ’580 Patent, a touch sensor can contain a grid or mesh of
`
`electrically conductive lines called “electrodes,” four of which are shown in Fig.
`
`1B, below, as X1, X4, Y1, Y5. Ex-1001, 2:26-45.
`
`
`46. Because a touch by a user will generally impact the capacitance of the
`
`electrodes, the location of the touch can be determined by sending and receiving
`
`signals over the electrodes. The ’580 Patent explains the capacitance measurement
`
`technique of sending a signal over one set of electrodes (e.g., vertical or “Y”
`
`electrode lines) and measuring the resulting signals on those same electrodes. Id.
`
`at 4:9-22. This is understood by those of skill in the art as a “self capacitance”
`
`measurement. Additionally, the ’580 patent explains the capacitance measurement
`
`technique of measuring the resulting signals on the electrode lines perpendicular to
`
`the ones on which the signal was sent. Id. at 3:55-4:8. This is understood by those
`
`of skill in the art as a “mutual capacitance” measurement. In both cases, the
`19
`
`
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 22
`
`DELL EXHIBIT 1002 PAGE 22
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580
`location of the touch can be determined by analyzing the capacitance values
`
`measured from such signals.
`
`47. The ’580 Patent purports to address a problem in which the signals
`
`received on some of the electrodes are unexpected due to, for example, a person’s
`
`hand touching the screen at two locations. As shown in Figure 1B, some of the
`
`effect of the drive signal may be transmitted through the person’s hand (dotted
`
`lines) directly from one electrode node to another. This is what the patent refers to
`
`as “retransmission,” and it may lead to the potential failure to detect or
`
`misidentification of certain touches. Id. at 1:26-41. The ’580 Patent purports to
`
`address this “retransmission” problem by “compensating” one set of received
`
`signals with a