UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TONY GIVARGIS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,425
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`
`I, Tony Givargis, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I, Tony Givargis, have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as a
`
`technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regard to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,821,425 (the “’425 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims
`
`1-40. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I am
`
`being compensated at an hourly rate of $500 for my analysis and testimony in this
`
`case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Exhibit 1001 - U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425 (“the ’425 Patent”)
`
`• Exhibit 1002 - The ’425 Patent File History
`
`• Exhibit 1004 - Provisional Application No. 60/395,368, filed July
`12, 2002
`
`• Exhibit 1005 - Provisional Patent No. 60/597,851, filed December
`21, 2005
`
`• Exhibit 1006 - Updated Joint Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`• Exhibit 1007 - U.S. Patent No. 5,525,980 to Jahier et al. (“Jahier”)
`
`2
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`• Exhibit 1008 - Quantum Technologies Research Group QT60161
`Datasheet
`
`• Exhibit 1009 - U.S. Patent No. 6,696,985 to Houston (“Houston”)
`
`• Exhibit 1010 - U.S. Patent No. 5,760,715 to Senk (“Senk”)
`
`• Exhibit 1011 - U.S. Patent No. 5,831,597 to West et al. (“West”)
`
`• Exhibit 1012 - Affidavit from Chris Butler at the Internet Archive
`
`• Exhibit 1013 - U.S. Patent No. 5,841,078 to Miller et al. (“Miller”)
`
`• Exhibit 1014 - U.S. Patent No. 6,452,514 to Philipp (“Philipp”)
`
`• Exhibit 1015 - PCT WO99/35745 to Gomes (“Gomes”)
`
`• Exhibit 1016 - U.S. Patent No. 5,572,573 to Sylvan et al (“Sylvan”)
`
`• Exhibit 1017 - U.S. Patent No. 6,727,892 to Murphy (“Murphy”)
`
`• Exhibit 1018 - Japanese Patent No. 2,666,900 to Yasuhiro et al.
`(“Yasuhiro”)
`
`• Exhibit 1019 - U.S. Patent No. 4,353,552 to Pepper, Jr. (“Pepper”)
`A. Background and Qualifications
`4.
`I am a Professor in the department of Computer Science at the
`
`University of California, Irvine (UCI) since July of 2001. I served as the Associate
`
`Dean in the School of Information and Computer Sciences at UCI from 2011 to
`
`2016. I am currently, serving as the Vice Chair of the department of Computer
`
`Science at UCI. I graduated Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science in Computer
`
`Science in 1997 and PhD in Computer Science in 2001 from the University of
`
`California, Riverside. My PhD thesis was entitled “System-Level Exploration for
`
`3
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`Pareto-Optimal Configurations in Parameterized System-on-a-Chip.” It received
`
`the School’s Best Thesis Award that year.
`
`5. My research interests are generally directed at various aspects of the
`
`design of Embedded Systems. Embedded Systems are computing devices that
`
`operate within a larger system and include things such as consumer electronics,
`
`handheld devices, office equipment, industrial equipment, medical devices,
`
`autonomous and self-driving vehicles, and many other types of systems. Embedded
`
`systems are characterized as having rich sensing capabilities (e.g., keypads and touch
`
`sensitive input devices, heat/pressure sensors, etc.), actuation capabilities (e.g.,
`
`displays, robotic arms, etc.) and heavy control logic (e.g., programmable embedded
`
`processors, dedicated processing elements and extensive software logic). More
`
`specifically, my research focuses on software for Embedded Systems, real-time
`
`systems, Internet of Things devices, mobile and handheld devices, ML/AI control
`
`algorithms for Cyber Physical Systems, compilers for embedded software and code
`
`transformations techniques for efficient software to hardware migration.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to research, I exclusively teach the embedded systems
`
`courses at UCI both at the undergraduate as well as the graduate courses. My upper
`
`division Embedded Systems courses (CS 145 and CS 145L) are immensely popular
`
`with yearly enrollments exceeding 350 students. In these courses, students build a
`
`number of Embedded Systems from ground up out of components, including
`
`4
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`keypads and touch sensitive input devices. Additionally, they program the compute
`
`elements of their systems with various algorithms and application logic in order to
`
`solve a problem. I also teach the graduate embedded software course (CS245) that
`
`covers more advanced topics related to Embedded Systems design, including
`
`modeling, design and validation of complex devices.
`
`7.
`
`I have co-authored two textbooks on Embedded Systems design that
`
`are widely used in academia. In 2011, I received the prestigious ASEE’s Frederick
`
`Emmons Terman Award for having authored these textbooks and advanced higher
`
`education in the areas of Embedded Systems. I have published over 100 peer-
`
`reviewed and archived conference and journal papers. I have 13 issued US Patents
`
`to my name. I have advised and graduated eight accomplished PhD students that are
`
`currently professors, research scientists, software engineers and technical leaders in
`
`their respective fields. Over the years, as a consultant, I have designed a number of
`
`embedded system products and served as technical expert and consultant for
`
`numerous corporations in the technology sector. I am currently serving on a number
`
`of Technical Program Committees of conferences related to Embedded Systems. I
`
`am an Associate Editor of the Computer Science & Engineering section of
`
`Electronics Journal. For additional relevant background, I direct your attention to
`
`my Curriculum Vitae attached as Appendix A.
`
`5
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`8.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`now applies the claim construction standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the
`
`Phillips standard) regardless of whether a patent has expired. I have been informed
`
`that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are to be given the meaning they would
`
`have to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into consideration the patent, its file history, and, secondarily, any applicable
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions). I have reviewed the constructions of
`
`“key” and the “controller” limitations discussed in the Petition and have applied
`
`these constructions below where applicable.
`
`10.
`
`I have also been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art.
`
`I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`6
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`11.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`“analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or
`
`(2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even
`
`if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a
`
`reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have
`
`7
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In
`
`determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the
`
`specification. I believe that all of the references that my opinions in this IPR are
`
`based upon are well within the range of references a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would consult to address the type of problems described in the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`8
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`(F) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`or (G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`9
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`14.
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior art considered
`
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard, common
`
`sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`15.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`10
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field at
`
`the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`11
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include:
`
`(a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`12
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`20. The ’425 Patent relates to well-known touch sensor technology for
`
`determining which key a user intended to select based on a capacitive change
`
`generated as a result of the user’s finger touching (or being brought in proximity
`
`with) one or more touch sensors. However, touch sensor technology capable of
`
`measuring capacitive input to determine a key selection has long been known in the
`
`art. The following discussion focuses on the subject matter of distinct claim
`
`limitations directed at well-known concepts commonly employed in the field of
`
`capacitive devices well-before the filing date of the ’425 Patent.
`
`i.
`
`Capacitive sensors were widely used to detect proximity of a
`user and output signals responsive to this proximity.
`21. Touch devices employing capacitive sensors to output sensor values in
`
`response to a key selection on a capacitive device have long been used in electronic
`
`devices. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,841,078 to Miller et al. (“Miller”) (filed in 1996,
`
`issued in 1998). Miller teaches a sensor array that translates capacitance changes
`
`between conductors into a set of voltages. The voltages are then processed to develop
`
`electrical signals representative of the proximity of a user to the sensor array in the
`
`X and Y dimensions as well as touch pressure information in the Z dimension:
`
`13
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`A proximity sensor system includes a sensor matrix array having a
`characteristic capacitance between horizontal and vertical conductors
`connected to sensor pads. The capacitance changes as a function of the
`proximity of an object or objects to the sensor matrix. The change in
`capacitance of each node in both the X and Y directions of the matrix
`due to the approach of an object is converted to a set of voltages in the
`X and Y directions. These voltages are processed by analog circuitry to
`develop electrical signals representative of the centroid of the profile of
`the object, i.e, its position in the X and Y dimensions. The profile of
`position may also be integrated to provide Z-axis (pressure)
`information.
`Miller at Abstract; see also id. at 2:5-13 (“The present invention comprises a
`
`position-sensing technology particularly useful for applications where finger
`
`position information is needed, such as in computer ‘mouse’ or trackball
`
`environments. However the position-sensing technology of the present invention has
`
`much more general application than a computer mouse, because its sensor can detect
`
`and report if one or more points are being touched”). Accordingly, capacitive devices
`
`have long employed capacitive sensors to output sensor values in response to a key
`
`selection.
`
`ii.
`
`Detection integration was a common concept used to control
`key sensitivity.
`It was known in the art to adjust detection integrator counter values to
`
`22.
`
`control key sensitivity, as disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,452,514 to Philipp
`
`(“Philipp”) (a prior patent sharing the same inventor as the ’425 Patent, filed on
`
`January 26, 2000). Philipp teaches keys such as those used in keyboards for data
`
`entry:
`
`14
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`In the present invention two or more electrodes are arranged to create
`an electric field transmitted through an adjacent dielectric which can be
`disturbed by the proximity of an object. A charge transfer measurement
`circuit is connected to one of the electrodes. Because one of the major
`anticipated applications of the invention is in keyboards used in data
`entry, the sensing elements are sometimes hereinafter referred to as
`‘keys’. It will be understood that this is done to simplify the
`presentation and to avoid reciting lists of known sensing or switching
`products that could employ the invention, and that ‘key’, when so used,
`represents a proximity detection zone for any possible application.
`Thus, one aspect of the invention is the provision of apparatus and
`method for detecting proximity to an electrode pair to form a key.
`Another aspect of the invention is the provision of apparatus and
`method for detecting proximity to one or more of a matrix of electrodes
`so as to form a keypad, keyboard, slider switch analog, or level sensor.
`Philipp at 1:31-2:10.
`
`23. Philipp teaches detection integration, which is “the use of a counter to
`
`totalize an interval over which a threshold is exceeded, thus acting to filter out
`
`transient detection.” In one example, Philipp teaches utilizing detection integration
`
`for suppressing certain detections based on factors such as short touch duration.
`
`‘Detection integration’, that is, the use of a counter to totalize an
`interval over which a threshold is exceeded, thus acting to filter out
`transient detection, is a useful tool in preventing detection caused by
`rapid events that are judged too quick to be ‘real’. For example, a very
`rapid finger touch to a key panel could cause a detection, but that
`detection could be suppressed in some cases (for example, for safety
`reasons) in view of its short duration Such integration can be
`accomplished by integrating time, by integrating burst interval counts,
`or other similar means.
`Philipp at 17:32-18:4. Accordingly, using detection integration counter values to
`
`control key sensitivity was known in the art before the ’425 Patent.
`
`15
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`iii. Physical guarding structures, such as guard rings, have long
`been used in capacitive devices to prevent erroneous key
`touches.
`It was well-known in the art to implement a guard ring structure to
`
`24.
`
`prevent inadvertent activation of touch sensitive areas of a touch screen. One
`
`example is PCT WO99/35745 to Gomes (“Gomes”) (published in 1999). Gomes
`
`teaches a key pad using a rigid monolithic plate to “discriminate between adjacent
`
`transducers”:
`
`One example of the two dimensional application is as a key pad. The
`sensing device is able to discriminate between adjacent transducers
`through a structurally rigid monolithic plate (in the key pad example).
`Gomes at 2:18-20. Gomes discloses that “[c]onventional touch sensing technology”
`
`has long used insulated areas or physical barriers to “prevent such undesired
`
`activation.” Gomes at 1:9-12 (“Conventional touch sensitive technology is limited
`
`to highly electrically insulated areas of sensitivity between adjacent touch sensitive
`
`areas. These insulated areas are required to prevent touch sensitive areas from being
`
`activated from an area adjacent to that area being touched”); see also id. at 1:14-18
`
`(“[I]n conventional user interfaces (touch pads) used in automatic teller machines,
`
`the touch pad is fabricated by providing a number of layers of plastic in
`
`predetermined areas. This arrangement of layers ensures that adjacent touch
`
`sensitive areas are not inadvertently activated”).
`
`16
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`25. Gomes goes on to state that “physical barriers have been introduced to
`
`prevent such undesired activation.” Gomes at 1:19-24 (explaining that “[t]hese are
`
`usually in the form of a rigid metal or rigid plastic stencil which overlays the touch
`
`sensitive areas and has openings which align with each individual touch sensitive
`
`area. Therefore, the stencil provides a rigid barrier between these areas. Another
`
`alternative which has been used is to provide a semi-rigid form of stencil under the
`
`outer touch pad”).
`
`26. Another example of a guard ring structure to prevent inadvertent
`
`activation of touch sensitive areas of a touch screen is taught by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,572,573 to Sylvan et al (“Sylvan”) (filed in 1994, issued in 1996). Sylvan teaches
`
`a “user interface” that incorporates a raised overlay to divide the touch display into
`
`regions to “guide the user to the appropriate region for direct user manipulated
`
`activation”:
`
`The present invention relates to an improved user interface directed for
`use in interactive electronic devices which incorporate a physical
`overlay for precise disambiguation of touch screen input.
`Sylvan at Abstract.
`
`27.
`
`Sylvan teaches that the user interface incorporates a physical overlay
`
`such as a rigid plastic card 38 that has a plurality of voids or openings 40 to
`
`correspond to predetermined touch screen areas:
`
`With reference now to FIGS. 4-6 of the drawings, the improved user
`interface incorporating the novel interactive touch screen interface of
`
`17
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`the present invention will be described in further detail. As shown, the
`interface of the present invention which is shown, by way of example,
`in a hand portable communications device such as a mobile telephone
`hand-set or Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) is designated generally by
`reference numeral 36. The interface necessarily incorporates physical
`overlay means such as substantially rigid plastic card 38. Card 38 is
`punched or stamped to define a plurality of voids or openings 40, which
`are of predetermined size, shape and location within card 38 and
`correspond to predetermined touch screen function labels.
`Sylvan at 4:42-55; see also id. at 5:32-42 (“As readily seen, the user interface of the
`
`present invention which incorporates a touch screen combined with a physical
`
`overlay serves to delineate regions of the touch screen that are both programmable,
`
`yet easily recognizable and simple to identify and activate. The raised overlay 38
`
`guides the user's fingers to the appropriate soft key region, thus reducing ambiguity
`
`and error while preserving programmable flexibility”); id. at Figs. 5 and 6:
`
`
`Accordingly, guard rings to prevent inadvertent activation of touch sensitive areas
`
`of a touch screen were known in the art.
`
`18
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`iv. Applying weighting to intended versus non-intended areas of
`a touch screen was a well-known concept employed by
`capacitive devices.
`It was known in the art that certain areas of a touch screen can be
`
`28.
`
`weighted higher than others. One example is U.S. Patent No. 6,727,892 to Murphy
`
`(“Murphy”) (filed in 1999). Murphy teaches “a method of allowing relatively small
`
`features displayed on the touch screen, particularly at the edges of the screen, to be
`
`selected more easily.” In this respect, Murphy discloses a “hot spot,” which is
`
`“normally centered in an area of contact between a user’s finger and a touch screen
`
`to position the hot spot on an icon or other feature thereby selecting a program or
`
`function corresponding to the icon or feature.” Murphy at Abstract. Murphy teaches
`
`weighting certain areas of a touch screen so that the “hot spot” is offset from the
`
`center of where the user’s finger contacts the touch screen:
`
`A method of facilitating the use of touch screen alters the operation of
`the touch screen when an area of contact is within a predetermined
`distance of an edge of the touch screen. The position of the contact area
`on the touch screen is first determined. If the contact area is at a first
`location on the touch screen, such as within a predetermined distance
`of an edge of the screen, a user input is registered at a first position
`relative to the contact area. Otherwise, user input is registered at a
`second position relative to the contact area. The first position is
`preferably offset from the second position toward an edge adjacent the
`contact area. The registered user input may be, for example, a hot spot
`positioned within the contact area or a cursor displayed at a location
`offset from the contact area. The operation of the touch screen is
`preferably altered adjacent the bottom edge of the screen. The user
`input may be registered at a location offset to either side of the contact
`area. Alternatively, the touch sensitive portion of the screen may be
`extended beneath a display area of the screen so that a user input may
`
`19
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`be registered adjacent the bottom edge of the display area by a contact
`area positioned below the lower edge of the display area.
`Murphy at 3:5-25.
`
`29. Murphy explains the operation of its weighting with respect to the
`
`figures below:
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 5A, “a touch screen 50 has a left edge 52, a top edge 54, a right
`
`edge 56, and a bottom edge 58. A finger FA is in contact with the screen 50 over an
`
`area AA. As in the conventional display 12 shown in FIG. 4, the computer 10
`
`calculates a hot spot H (FIG. 3), HA (FIG. 5A) at the center of the area of contact A
`
`(FIG. 3), AA (FIG. 5A). Icons and features positioned at the hot spot HA are selected
`
`in the same manner as with the conventional computer touch screen 12 explained
`
`above.” Id. at 4:1-9.
`
`30. Murphy further explains that with “reference to FIG. 5B, a finger FB is
`
`shown attempting to select an icon 60 B by placing the finger FB adjacent the right
`
`edge 56 of the screen 50 in contact with the screen 50 over an area AB. Using the
`
`20
`
`Samsung EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Tony Givargis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425
`conventional approach, the computer would calculate the position of a hot spot HB,
`
`at the center of the area of contact AB, which would fail to select the icon 60 B. In
`
`accordance with one embodiment of the invention, the computer calculates a hot
`
`spot HB that is offset toward the edge 56 of the screen whenever the area of contact
`
`AB is near the edge 56. As a result, the hot spot HB is substantially centered beneath
`
`the finger FB rather than centered in the area of contact AB. The finger FB is thus
`
`able to select the icon 60 B even though the icon 60 B is positioned along an edge
`
`of the screen 50.” Id. at 4:13-26; see also id. at 4:27-36 (discussing how Figure 5C
`
`operates similarly). Accordingly, it was known in the art that certain areas of a touch