UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CRESWELL HOLDINGS LLC
`patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. _________
`
`Patent No. 6,340,803
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ...................................... 5
`
`III. Citation of Prior Art ......................................................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Statement of the precise relief requested ......................................................... 7
`
`Overview of the ’803 patent ............................................................................ 8
`A.
`Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter .............................................. 8
`Prosecution History of the ’803 patent ................................................ 10
`B.
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 12
`
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 12
`
`VIII. There is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable ................................................................................................... 13
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin
`’194 and AAPA .................................................................................... 13
`1.
`Overview of Lin ’194 ................................................................ 13
`2.
`Overview of Applicant Admitted Prior Art ............................... 15
`3.
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lin
`’194 and AAPA ......................................................................... 17
`The Combination of Lin ’194 and AAPA Render Claim 1
`Obvious ..................................................................................... 21
`Ground 2: Claim 1 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Su
`and Tsai ’468 ....................................................................................... 31
`1.
`Overview of Su ......................................................................... 31
`2.
`Overview of Tsai ’468 ............................................................... 34
`3.
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Su
`and Tsai ’468 ............................................................................. 35
`The Combination of Su and Tsai ’468 Render Claim 1
`Obvious ..................................................................................... 40
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`4.
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Creswell Holdings LLC v. Hewlett Packard Co.,
`Case. No. 4:15-cv-00807 ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Creswell Holdings LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
`Case No. 15-cv-00407-ALM ................................................................................ 6
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 17, 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) ................................................................................... 17, 32
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 7, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 8, 13, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b) ................................................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. patent No. 6,340,803
`
`Declaration of Ted Selker
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Ted Selker
`
`U.S. patent No. 5,898,145 (“Su”)
`
`U.S. patent No. 5,850,194 (“Lin ’194”)
`
`U.S. patent No. 5,767,468 (“Tsai ’468”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/768,307 File History
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-
`
`.123, inter partes review (“IPR”) is respectfully requested of claim 1 of United
`
`States patent No. 6,340,803, titled “Computer Keyswitch” (“the ’803 patent”),
`
`assigned to Creswell Holdings LLC (“Creswell” or “patent Owner”). (Ex. 1001).
`
`The ’803 patent is related to a reduced height computer keyswitch that “has
`
`lower height but with same level mechanism height and structural strength” as
`
`prior art keyswitches. (Id. 1:41-43). The point of novelty is that the bottom plate 60
`
`placed under the base 50 has a thickness that is less than the base 50, and that the
`
`pivotal shafts 33/43 are disposed in the through holes of the bottom plate and
`
`retained by the clamping plates 63/64 in order to reduce the overall height of the
`
`key. (Id. at 2:40-41 and 3:19-26).
`
`The admitted prior art discloses a keyswitch with a base that is thicker than
`
`the bottom plate. (Id. at 1:32-34, Fig. 1). Further, the admitted prior art teaches that
`
`the pivotal shafts 17a/18a are disposed in the through holes of the bottom plate.
`
`The main difference between the admitted prior art and the claims of the ’803
`
`patent is that in the admitted prior art, the clamping plates extend up from the base,
`
`whereas in the claims of the ’803 patent the clamping plates extend up from the
`
`bottom plate. But this configuration was well known in the prior art, as shown by
`
`the references cited in this petition.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)): Real parties-in-
`
`interest for Petitioner are Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company
`
`Inc., and Lenovo Group Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): The ’803 patent is being
`
`asserted in two lawsuits that may affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding: Creswell Holdings LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 15-
`
`cv-00407-ALM, and Creswell Holdings LLC v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case. No.
`
`4:15-cv-00807, both currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Concurrently, Petitioner is filing two other inter partes review petitions,
`
`challenging certain claims of U.S. patent No. 6,318,695 and U.S. patent No.
`
`6,194,677, which are: (1) subject to additional prior art references; and (2) may
`
`affect, or be affected by, decision(s) in this proceeding. The ’677 and ’695 patents
`
`are also being asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b) (3) and 42.10(a)):
`
`Petitioner designates the following: Lead Counsel is Eric J. Klein (Reg. No.
`
`51,888) of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.; Back-up Counsel is Todd E.
`
`Landis of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information: Petitioner consents to service by email at:
`
`LenovoServiceCreswell@akingump.com.
`
`E. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)): Petitioner certifies
`
`that the ’803 patent is available for IPR, and that it is not barred or estopped from
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`requesting IPR of any claim of the ’803 patent. A Power of Attorney and Exhibit
`
`List under § 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e), respectively are filed herewith.
`
`F.
`
`Fees: The required filing fees are to be withdrawn from to Deposit
`
`Account 50-2310. The Office is authorized to charge fee deficiencies or credit
`
`overpayments to Deposit Account 50-2310.
`
`III. CITATION OF PRIOR ART
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability, Petitioner cites the following
`
`prior art references.U.S. patent No. 5,898,145 to Su, titled “Computer Key” was
`
`filed on January 6, 1998 and published on April 27, 1999. Su is a continuation-in-
`
`part and claims priority to an abandoned application filed August 28, 1997. Su is as
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) and was cited and considered by
`
`the examiner during the prosecution of the ’803 patent.
`
`U.S. patent No. 5,850,194 to Lin, titled “Computer Key” was filed on
`
`December 22, 1997 and issued on December 15, 1998, more than a year before the
`
`filing date of the ’803 patent. Lin ’194 is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`U.S. patent No. 5,767,468 to Tsai, titled “Key Switch Assembly for a
`
`Computer Keyboard” was filed on May 9, 1997 and issued on June 16, 1998, more
`
`than a year before the filing date of the ’803 patent. As a result, Tsai ’468 is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petition respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`Claim 1 of Ex. 1001, the ’803 patent, which issued on January 22, 2002. The
`
`challenged claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior identified
`
`and applied in this Petition:
`
`Ground 1. Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin ’194 in
`
`view of the applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”).
`
`Ground 2. Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tsai ’468 in
`
`view of Su.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’803 PATENT
`Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter
`A.
`The ’803 patent describes that conventional computer keyswitches suffer
`
`from having a top layer base 15a that has sufficient “thickness” to ensure
`
`“structural strength,” while also achieving the results of a minimal height key,
`
`namely because the clamping plates extend up from the base “to a considerable
`
`height.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:28-37). The trade-off between these two attributes—
`
`structural strength and height—are just some of the design choices faced by
`
`engineers when designing computer keyswitches. (See Selker Decl. ¶ 60).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1 above, the alleged problem of having a top plate
`
`that is too thick stems from the placement of the clamping plates 19a and 20a,
`
`which are formed on the topside of the base 15a (highlighted in yellow). (Id. at
`
`1:28-37). Reducing the height of the overall key is limited in part by the height of
`
`the clamping plates 19a and 20a, which are thick if the base itself is thick, making
`
`it more difficult to reduce the height of the keyswitch.
`
`The ’803 patent addresses this issue by providing a keyswitch with clamping
`
`plates 19a and 20a that extend up from the bottom plate 60 (highlighted in green),
`
`which is made of thinner material than the base 50. Fig. 4 of the ’803 patent
`
`illustrates the computer keyswitch of the alleged invention:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`As shown above, the alleged invention is minimally distinct from the admitted
`
`prior art. Figure 4, like prior art Fig. 1, shows a computer switch that includes a key
`
`cap 10, a resilient body 20, a first lever 30, a second lever 40, a base 50
`
`(highlighted in yellow), a bottom plate 60 (highlighted in green), and a membrane
`
`circuit 70. (Id. at 2:5-8). The main difference between the alleged invention (Figure
`
`4) and the prior art (Figure 1) is that in Figure 4, the bottom plate 60—instead of
`
`the base—is used to provide a plurality of clamping plates 63 and 64 that extend
`
`over a plurality of through holes 61 and 62. (Id. at 2:47-50).
`
`Prosecution History of the ’803 patent
`
`B.
`The application that led to the ’803 patent was filed on June 25, 2001. (Ex.
`
`1007 at p. 1). On May 23, 2001, the examiner issued a Non-Final Office Action
`
`rejecting all claims as being (1) indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph, and (2) anticipated by Su under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Id. at pp. 28-29).
`
`According to the examiner:
`
`Su discloses in figures 3-8 a computer key switch including a keycap
`7 with mounting surfaces 72 and 73; a resilient body 4 arranged below
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`the keycap; a base 5 arranged below the key cap; first and second
`levers forming a frame member 6 with the top ends of the levers
`assembled with the keycap mounting surfaces; and a bottom plate 3
`arranged below the base and having a plurality of through holes 31
`with clamping plates 31A atop the through holes with the bottom ends
`of the levers attached thereto. The clamping plates have a reversed-L
`shape.
`
`(Id. at pp. 29). On August 16, 2001, in response to the Office Action, the Applicant
`
`canceled all claims and added one new claim. (Id. at pp. 32-33). In traversing the
`
`examiner’s rejections, the Applicant argued that “[i]n prior art systems, wherein the
`
`base plate is formed by a single member, the clamping plates are formed with a
`
`thickness which equals that of the base plate. In order to provide sufficient support,
`
`the base plate is relatively thick, and therefore the clamping plates are relatively
`
`thick.” (Id. at p. 35). The Applicant argued that the claimed invention “provides a
`
`bottom plate and base plate in combination to provide the structural support
`
`necessary for the switch, yet dividing the typical thickness of a base plate between
`
`two members, the bottom plate 60 and the base 50. Thus, the bottom plate is
`
`formed of a reduced thickness, thereby reducing the thickness of the clamping
`
`plates and thus lowering the supporting structure location for the first and second
`
`levers.” (Id. at pp. 35-36). “The saved space provided by the thinner clamping
`
`plates can be utilized to lower the overall operating height of the switch, or
`
`alternatively, provide for an increase in downward motion of the keycap.” (Id. at p.
`
`36). The Applicant further argued that the Su reference “fails to disclose or suggest
`
`the foil sheet member, which the Examiner equates to Applicant's base, as having a
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`thickness greater than the predetermined thickness of the bottom plate, as now
`
`claimed.” (Id.).
`
`On September 10, 2001, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. (Id. at
`
`pp. 39-40).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the ’803 patent
`
`would have at least 18 months of hands-on keyboard design experience or
`
`mentorship from a keyboard designer, and would likely have an undergraduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, or
`
`manufacturing design, or an equivalent engineering degree. (Decl. of Ted Selker
`
`(“Selker Decl.”) at ¶ _).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim are given their plain
`
`meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art unless that meaning
`
`is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). Petitioner submits, for the purposes of inter partes review only, that the
`
`claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
`of the specification of the ’803 patent.
`
`A.
`
`“base” (claim 1)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`The term “base” should be construed to mean “plate that is placed below the
`
`keycap.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:32-39, 3:7-19; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5; Ex. 1007 at p. 32-37 (Aug.
`
`17, 2001 Amendment and Remarks)).
`
`Petitioner does not believe any other terms require construction.
`
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`VIII. THERE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5), claim 1 of the ’803 patent is
`
`unpatentable for the reasons set forth in detail below.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin
`’194 and AAPA
`1. Overview of Lin ’194
`Lin ’194 is directed to a computer key that includes a push button 60, a
`
`frame assembly 50, and a three-layered key structure including a base plate 20, a
`
`membrane circuit 30 on the base plate 20, and a flexible sheet member 40 on the
`
`membrane circuit 30. (Ex. 1005 at 4:6-11). Like the ’803 patent, Lin ’194 describes
`
`a similar key structure as illustrated in Fig. 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`As with the ’803 patent, Lin ’194 also discloses a keyswitch with supporting
`
`levers arranged in a scissors-type fashion. (Id. at Fig. 5). The base plate 20 includes
`
`left and right slidably retaining guideways 21. (Id. at 4:12-13). “The left and right
`
`slideably retaining guideways 21 are respectively formed by punching the bsae
`
`plate 20 so as to have left and right retaining portions 221, 221’ which extend
`
`uprightly from an upper surface of the base plate 20.” (Id. at 4:15-20).
`
`As depicted in Figure 5, the first linking frame 51 includes a first transverse
`
`axle 516 with a middle segment 517 that is slidably insertable under the blocking
`
`portion 220’. (Id. at 4:58-63). The second linking frame 52 includes a second
`
`transverse axle 525 with a middle segment 527 that is slidably insertable under the
`
`blocking portion 220. (Id. at 5:9-14). Figures 5 of Lin ’194 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`As Figure 5 illustrates, the first middle segment 517 of first transverse axle
`
`516 is contained in between front and rear segments 518, where front and rear
`
`segments 518 contain a cut-out of the upper surface 518A. (Id. at 4:58-5:4).
`
`Additionally, first middle segment 517 is recessed below front and rear segments
`
`518 so that first middle segment 517 extends into slidably retaining guideway 21
`
`below right blocking portion 220’ to allow for smoother movement of first
`
`transverse axle 516 within slidably retaining guideway 21. (Id. at 4:58-5:8, 6:15-
`
`23). Similarly, second middle segment 527 of second transverse axle 525 is
`
`contained in between front and rear segments 528, where front and rear segments
`
`528 contain a cut-out of the upper surface 528A. (Id. at 5:10-23). Additionally, the
`
`second middle segment 527 is recessed below front and rear segments 528 so that
`
`second middle segment 527 extends into slidably retaining guideway 21 below left
`
`blocking portion 220 to allow for smoother movement of second transverse axle
`
`525 within slidably retaining guidway 21. (Id. at 5:10-23, 6:15-23).
`
`2. Overview of Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`The Applicant Admitted Prior Art shows a configuration very similar to the
`
`claimed embodiment of the ’803 patent. It discloses a prior art computer keyswitch
`
`10a, which comprises a keycap 11a, a resilient body 12a, a first lever 13a, a second
`
`lever 14a, a base 15a, and a bottom plate 16a. (Ex. 1001 at 1:10-12). AAPA
`
`employs a three layer solution with a base 15a, membrane circuit 21a, and bottom
`
`plate 16a. (Id. at Fig. 1). The first lever 13a and the second lever 14a are in scissors
`
`arrangement and have pivotal shafts 17a/18a pivotally retained below clamping
`
`plates 19a/20a formed on topside of the base 15a. (Id. at 1:14-17). When the
`
`keycap 11a is guided by the level mechanism composed of the first lever 13a and
`
`the second lever 14a to move downward or upward, the resilient body 12a below
`
`the keycap 11a presses on a membrane circuit 21a to perform on and off operation
`
`of the membrane circuit 21a. (Id. at 1:22-28). The base 15a has considerable
`
`thickness and the thickness thereof is much larger than that of the bottom plate 16a.
`
`(Id. at 1:32-34). The prior art Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lin ’194
`and AAPA
`
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine AAPA with Lin. The AAPA and
`
`Lin ’194 both address inadequacies with prior art keyswitch configurations that
`
`increased key height. (Ex. 1001 at 1:34-37; Ex. 1005 at 2:18-19). Combining
`
`AAPA with Lin ’194 would be the “[u]se of [a] known technique to improve
`
`similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way,” “[a]pplying a known
`
`technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results,” and was “[o]bvious to try.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`
`127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007); see also M.P.E.P. § 2141.III. Additionally, AAPA
`
`solves a similar problem as Lin ’194 in a similar way, and so a POSITA would have
`
`looked to Lin ’194 for other beneficial features. See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH &
`
`Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`For instance, it would have been obvious to a POSITA whose design choices
`
`called for a thicker top layer and thinner bottom base plate as taught by AAPA to
`
`combine AAPA with another reference such as Lin ’194 to achieve the desired
`
`reduction in overall keyswitch height. As noted above, like AAPA, Lin ’194 also
`
`provides a three-layered key structure that includes a sheet member 40 at the top, a
`
`membrane circuit 30 in the middle, and a bottom base plate 20. A POSITA would
`
`look to Lin ’194 for modifications of AAPA’s key structure.
`
`The combination of Lin ’194 and AAPA is the application of a known
`
`technique, to a device ready for improvement, to yield a predictable result. (Selker
`
`Decl. ¶63). For example, a POSITA would have known to apply Lin’s use of
`
`retaining portions 221/221'/220/221' extending up from the bottom base plate,
`
`instead of the base (known technique) in order to provide AAPA’s computer key
`
`(known device ready for improvement) with reduced height while maintaining
`
`structural strength (predictable results). (Selker Decl. ¶64).
`
`By utilizing a top layer that is thicker than the bottom base plate as taught by
`
`the AAPA, a POSITA would expect to arrive at a computer key with enhanced
`
`structural strength. (Selker Decl. ¶63). But the AAPA utilized clamping plates
`
`originating at the thick base, which increased key height. (See Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1;
`
`1:15-17). Lin ’194 addresses the overall height of conventional computer keys.
`
`(Ex. 1005, at 2:18-19). To reduce the overall height of a computer key, Lin ’194
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`employs blocking and retaining portions 220/220'/221/221' akin to AAPA’s
`
`clamping plates. (Id. at 4:15-24).
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to apply a thicker top layer as in the
`
`AAPA with Lin’s computer key to provide enhanced structural strength to counter
`
`any structural vulnerability. (Selker Decl. ¶63). This combination would yield a
`
`predictable result of maintaining structural strength as described in the AAPA while
`
`also reducing key height by utilizing clamping plates from the bottom plate, as
`
`motivated by Lin. See M.P.E.P. § 2141.III.
`
`Also, a POSITA would have every reason to look to the AAPA; it shares the
`
`same U.S. (e.g., ‘200/344”) and International (e.g., “H01H”) class and subclass
`
`with Lin. (Selker Decl. ¶66).
`
`Even further, AAPA is in the same field of endeavor as Lin ’194 (computer
`
`key switch), and thus both devices are similar. (Selker Decl. ¶64). Additionally,
`
`both references deal with the same problem (excessive height of the key switch)
`
`and solve it in similar ways. For example, Lin ’194 reduces the height of the
`
`computer key by retaining the first and second transverse axle 516/525 below the
`
`retaining portions 221/221'/220/220' and inside the retaining guideways 21 in the
`
`base plate 20. (Ex. 1005 at 6:5-14). In the same manner, AAPA discloses retaining
`
`the 17a/18a below the clamping plates 19a/20a and inside the through holes in the
`
`bottom plate 16a. (Ex. 1001, at Fig. 1; 1:15-17; Selker Decl. ¶64). Only, that the
`
`AAPA has the clamping plates extending up from the base 20a instead of the
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`bottom plate 16a. Lin ’194 discloses reducing the overall height of a computer key
`
`by moving clamping plates 221/221’/220/220’ down to the one-piece base plate 10
`
`thereby improving the prior art. (Ex. 1005 at 2:10-19, 2:25-33). Given the
`
`teachings of Lin, a POSITA would have been motived to change the location of the
`
`clamping plates in AAPA and move them down to the bottom plate in order to
`
`reduce overall key height. (Selker Decl.¶64). Further, because of the thickness of
`
`the base in AAPA, a POSITA would understand that sufficient strength could be
`
`maintained even if the thickness of the bottom plate was reduced. (Selker Decl.
`
`¶64).
`
`And a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`
`combining AAPA and Lin, because there are a finite number of ways in which
`
`these components could have been configured to achieve a reduction in key height.
`
`(Selker Decl. ¶65; see M.P.E.P. § 2141.III). Differences in the various key
`
`configurations are merely design choices between well-known concepts depending
`
`on the exact keyswitch’s use, specification, or desired cost. (Selker Decl. ¶65). For
`
`example, a particular design for a key with an extremely low height may be
`
`prohibitively expensive to manufacture or difficult to assemble. (See Selker Decl.
`
`¶60). Lin ’194 discusses the choice between having smooth or rough edges for the
`
`retaining member, and that “[a]lthough the rough edges 101, 102 of the retaining
`
`member 10B can be smoothed manually or with the use of a machine, such action
`
`will prolong the assembly time and result in increased production costs.” (Ex. 1005
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`at 2:5-9). Thus, when considering different variations of scissor switch designs for
`
`keys, a POSITA would understand the different mechanical features that can reduce
`
`the height of a scissor switch, but a skilled artisan’s design choice would also be
`
`driven by manufacturing costs, the type of assembly desired, and other practical
`
`considerations. (Selker Decl. ¶60). These practical considerations, not the
`
`discovery of the novel aspect that the ’803 patent purports to disclose, are what
`
`drive a skilled artisan’s design choices.
`
`Because Lin ’194 and AAPA both deal with the same issue in a similar way,
`
`a POSITA would have been motivated to look to Lin ’194 for additional techniques
`
`to improve the functionality and capabilities of AAPA’s computer key switch.
`
`(Selker Decl. ¶¶ 60-67). Additionally, because Lin ’194 and AAPA are both in the
`
`same field of endeavor and their devices are similar, a POSITA would have looked
`
`to the known techniques of Lin ’194 to provide the same benefit to the device of
`
`AAPA enjoyed by the similar device of Lin. See MPEP § 2141.III; see also Selker
`
`Decl. ¶ 64. Thus a POSITA would have been motivated to combine AAPA with
`
`Lin.
`
`4.
`
`The Combination of Lin ’194 and AAPA Render Claim 1 Obvious
`
`Lin, alone or in combination with AAPA, discloses and/or renders obvious
`
`each and every element of claim 1 of the ’803 patent. (See Selker Decl. ¶¶ 68-90).
`
`Claims
`
`Disclosure
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`Claims
`1. A computer keyswitch,
`comprising:
`
`(a) a bottom plate having a
`plurality of through holes
`formed therein, said bottom
`plate
`having
`a
`predetermined thickness and
`a plurality of clamping
`plates extending upwardly
`therefrom and respectively
`across
`said plurality of
`through holes;
`
`
`
`Disclosure
`
`AAPA
`
`“FIG. 1 shows a prior art computer keyswitch
`10a, which comprises a keycap 11a, a resilient
`body 12a, a first lever 13a, a second lever 14a, a
`base 15a and a bottom plate 16a. The first lever
`13 a and the second lever 14a are in scissors
`arrangement and have pivotal shafts 17a and 18a
`on bottom ends thereof. The pivotal shafts 17a
`and 18a are pivotally retained below clamping
`plates 19a and 20a formed on topside of the base
`15a. The top ends of the first lever 13a and the
`second lever 14a are connected to the bottom side
`of the keycap 11a. The first lever 13a and the
`second lever 14a form the level mechanism of the
`keyswitch and the resilient body 12a is placed
`within
`the movement stroke of
`the
`level
`mechanism. When the keycap 11a is guided by
`the level mechanism composed of the first lever
`13a and the second lever 14a to move downward
`or upward, the resilient body 12a below the
`keycap 11a presses on a membrane circuit 21a or
`leaves the membrane circuit 21a to perform on
`and off operation of the membrane circuit 21a.
`computer
`above-mentioned
`However,
`in
`keyswitch 10a, the pi pivotal shafts 17a and 18a
`of the first lever 13a and the second lever 14a
`should have sufficient thickness to ensure enough
`structural strength. The base 1a should have
`considerable thickness and the thickness thereof is
`much larger than that of the bottom plate 16a.”
`(See ’803 patent at 1:10-35, Fig. 1).
`
`Lin
`
`“the base plate 20 includes left and right slidably
`retaining guideways 21 spaced apart from each
`other in a longitudinal direction of the base
`plate20 to define an actuation area therebetween.
`The left and right slidably retaining guideways 21
`22
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,340,803
`
`Claims
`
`circuit
`a membrane
`(b)
`overlaying said bottom plate
`and having a plurality of
`apertures formed therein in
`respective
`aligned
`with
`relationship
`said
`plurality of through holes
`and
`through which said
`plurality of clamping plates
`respectively extend;
`
`
`
`Disclosure
`are respectively formed by punching the base
`plate 20 so as to have left and right retaining
`portions 221, 221' which extend uprightly from an
`upper surface of the base plate 20” 4:12-20.
`
`“FIG. 7 illustrates the positions of the pin
`members 522 in the elongated slots 512 when the
`push button 60 is compressed. Note that the pin
`members 522 are moved to the middle position in
`the elongated slots 512, while the cut-out upper
`surfaces 518, 528A are spaced relative to the right
`and left blocking portions 220', 220 respectively,
`thereby permitting smooth movement of the first
`and second transverse axles 516, 525 in the right
`and left retaining guideways 21.” 6:15-23.
`
`Fig. 4.
`
`AAPA
`
`“FIG. 1 shows a prior art computer keyswitch
`10a, which comprises a keycap 11a, a resilient
`body 12a, a first lever 13a, a second lever 14a, a
`base 15a and a bottom plate 16a. The first lever
`13 a and the second lever 14a are in scissors
`arrangement and have pivotal shafts 17a and 18a
`on bottom ends thereof. The pivotal shafts 17a
`and 18a are pivotally retained below clamping
`plates 19a and 20a formed on topside of the base
`15a. The top ends of the first lever 13a and the
`second lever 14a are connected to the bottom side
`of the keycap 11a. The first lever 13a and the
`second lever 14a form the level mechanism of the
`keyswitch and the resilient body 12a is placed
`within
`the movement stroke of
`the
`level
`mechanism. When the keycap 11a is guided by
`the level mechanism composed of the first lever
`13a and the second lever 14a to move downward
`or upward, the resilient body 12a below the
`keycap 11a presses on a membrane circuit