UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00856
`Patent No. 5,910,797
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,910,797
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 2
`A.
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ............................................................ 2
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ........................................................................ 2
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ............. 3
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................... 4
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING ............................................................... 4
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 5
`1.
`Claims Challenged ..................................................................... 5
`2.
`The Prior Art .............................................................................. 5
`3.
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge ............. 5
`4.
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles .......... 5
`5.
`Claim Construction .................................................................... 6
`6.
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds ........ 7
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 797 PATENT ............................................................. 7
`A.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 797 PATENT ......................................... 7
`B.
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE
`797 PATENT ........................................................................................ 7
`SUMMARY OF THE 797 PATENT ................................................. 14
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY......................... 17
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 23
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 23
`1.
` “data processing means” (Claims 1, 11) ................................. 24
`2.
` “screen means” (Claims 1, 4, 6) ............................................ 25
`3.
` “programmed calculating means” (Claims 1, 11) ................... 26
`4.
` “sensing means” (Claim 1) .................................................... 27
`5.
`“inclination vector” (Claim 4) ................................................ 28
`6.
`“linewise” (Claim 4) ............................................................... 28
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 797 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 29
`A.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 29
`1.
`Tsukamoto (Ex. 1005) ............................................................. 29
`2.
`Onozawa (Ex. 1007) ................................................................ 29
`3.
`LaBiche (Ex. 1006) .................................................................. 30
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 30
`B.
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 6-9, 11 OF THE 797
`PATENT ....................................................................................................... 30
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 6, 8-9, AND 11 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER TSUKAMOTO .................................................... 30
`1.
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto ............................ 31
`2.
`Claim 6 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto ............................ 40
`3.
`Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto ............................ 43
`4.
`Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto ............................ 44
`5.
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto .......................... 44
`B. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1, 6, 8-9, AND 11 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER TSUKAMOTO IN VIEW OF LABICHE ........... 50
`1.
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto in view of
`LaBiche .................................................................................... 52
`Claim 6 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto in view of
`LaBiche .................................................................................... 55
`Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto in view of
`LaBiche .................................................................................... 55
`Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto in view of
`LaBiche .................................................................................... 56
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Tsukamoto in view of
`LaBiche .................................................................................... 56
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`C. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 4, 6-7, AND 11 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER ONOZAWA ........................................................ 57
`1.
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Onozawa ............................... 57
`2.
`Claim 4 is rendered obvious by Onozawa ............................... 66
`3.
`Claim 6 is rendered obvious by Onozawa ............................... 67
`4.
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Onozawa ............................... 67
`5.
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Onozawa ............................. 67
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797 to Buek et al. (“797 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797 (“797 File History”)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Kenneth A. Parulski (“Parulski Decl.”)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Meghan Bright (“Bright Declaration”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H6-4208 to
`Tsukamoto et al. and Certified Translation (“Tsukamoto”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,839,838 to LaBiche et al. (“LaBiche”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H6-289802
`to Onozawa et al. and Certified Translation (“Onozawa”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Definition of “-wise,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1358
`(10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1009 Definition of “data processing,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary 293 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1010 Definition of “screen,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`1049 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1011 Definition of “programmed,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary 931 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1012 Definition of “calculating,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`161 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1013 Definition of “sensing,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`1066 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1014 Definition of “stationary,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`1149 (10th ed. 1994)
`
`Ex. 1015 Definition of “non-,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 788
`(10th ed. 1994)
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`Ex. 1016 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive a Service of a Summons and
`Waiver of the Service of Summons for HTC Corporation, filed in
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 1:15-cv-01126-
`GMS, No. 7 (Feb. 11, 2016) (CM/ECF for the U.S. Court for the
`District of Delaware)
`
`Ex. 1017 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive a Service of a Summons and
`Waiver of the Service of Summons for HTC America, Inc., filed in
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 1:15-cv-01126-
`GMS, No. 8 (Feb. 11, 2016) (CM/ECF for the U.S. Court for the
`District of Delaware)
`
`Ex. 1018 Civil Docket for Case 1:15-cv-01126-GMS for the case captioned
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 1:15-cv-01126-
`GMS (Dec. 7, 2015), printed on Feb. 9, 2017, available at
`https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, HTC Corporation and
`
`HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”) petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,910,797 (“the 797 Patent,” Ex. 1001),
`
`5
`
`originally assigned to U.S. Philips Corporation.
`
`This Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 challenged under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a). Specifically, Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`based on specific grounds listed below.
`
`Grounds
`
`References
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Pre-AIA
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`1, 6, 8-9, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Application Publication No. H6-4208 to
`
`Tsukamoto et al. (“Tsukamoto”)
`
`Pre-AIA
`
`Tsukamoto in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`1, 6, 8-9, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`4,839,838 to LaBiche et al. (“LaBiche”)
`
`Pre-AIA
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`1, 4, 6-7, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Application Publication No. H6-289802
`
`
`
`to Onozawa et al. (“Onozawa”)
`
`10
`
`Petitioners respectfully request the Board to institute a trial for IPR and to
`
`cancel Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), all real parties
`
`in interest in filing of this IPR petition are Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC
`
`5
`
`America, Inc.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`The 797 Patent (and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,522,695, 6,690,387, 6,772,114,
`
`7,184,064, 7,529,806, 8,543,819, 9,436,809, RE 43,564, RE 44,006, and RE
`
`44,913) are being asserted against Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC America,
`
`10
`
`Inc. in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent Owner in
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 1:15-cv-01126-GMS filed in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on December 7, 2015.
`
`The 797 Patent is being asserted in the following proceedings in addition to
`
`the aforementioned proceeding against HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`15
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., No. 1-15-cv-01125
`
`(D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Visual Land Inc., No. 1-15-cv-01127 (D. Del.
`
`Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., No. 1-15-cv-01128
`
`20
`
`(D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Digital Products International, Inc., No. 1-15-
`
`cv-01129 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Double Power Technology, Inc., No. 1-15-
`
`cv-01130 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`5
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Yifang USA Inc. d/b/a E-Fun, Inc., No. 1-15-
`
`cv-01131 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015)
`
`• Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Acer Inc., No. 1-15-cv-01170 (D. Del. Dec.
`
`18, 2015)
`
`In addition, Petitioners are pursuing IPR petitions on U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`10
`
`6,522,695 and RE 44,006 asserted in the above litigations.
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioners
`
`appoint Bing Ai (Reg. No. 43,312) as its lead counsel, and John Schnurer (Reg. No.
`
`52,196), and Kevin Patariu (Reg. No. 63,210) as its back-up counsel. The above
`
`15
`
`attorneys are all at the mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino
`
`Real, Suite 350, San Diego, CA 92130, contact numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone)
`
`and 858-720-5799 (fax), and the following email for service and all
`
`communications:
`
`PerkinsServicePhilipsIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`20
`
`Petitioners hereby consent to electronic service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e).
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Power of Attorney documents executed by
`
`
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. for appointing the above designated
`
`counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition is complete, complies with all requirements including those
`
`5
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §312(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42. 8, 42.15, 42.104 and 42.105, and
`
`thus should be accorded a filing date as the date of filing of this Petition under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.106. In particular, this Petition is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`on February 10, 2017 because Patent Owner filed a waiver of service for both
`
`10
`
`Petitioners on February 11, 2016 in the lawsuit asserting the ’797 Patent against
`
`Petitioners (Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC Corp. et al., 1:15-cv-01126-
`
`GMS). See Ex. 1016-18.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1018 at 4-5. “[I]n the situation where the petitioner waives service of a
`
`summons, the one-year time period [under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)] begins on the date
`
`on which such a waiver is filed.” IPR2013-00010, Paper 20, at 6 (PTAB Jan. 30,
`
`2013); see also IPR2015-00056, Paper 10, at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2015).
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the 797 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`challenging claims of the 797 Patent on the grounds identified herein. This IPR is
`
`timely filed.
`
`5
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`1.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested is
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 of the 797 Patent
`
`and cancel Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 because they are invalid on the presented
`
`10
`
`grounds and evidence.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`2.
`The prior art references relied upon are prior art discussed or referred in the
`
`papers filed with Petition. See the Exhibit List and Parulski Declaration (Ex. 1003).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge
`
`3.
`The supporting evidence includes the Declaration of Kenneth A. Parulski
`
`15
`
`(Ex. 1003 or “Parulski Decl.”), the Declaration of Meghan Bright (Ex. 1004)
`
`regarding collection of Exhibits and Appendices, and other supporting evidence in
`
`the Exhibit List or referred in the papers filed with this Petition.
`
`4.
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2), the review of the challenged claims is
`
`governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319
`
`and 325(d).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`5.
`The 797 Patent expired on February 13, 2016. The Board’s review of the
`
`5
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In re
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The principle set forth by the
`
`court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words
`
`of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as
`
`10
`
`understood by a POSITA in question at the time of the invention, construing to
`
`preserve validity in case of ambiguity) should be applied since the expired claims
`
`are not subject to amendment. Chi Mei Innolux v. SEL, IPR2013-00065, Decision
`
`to Institute at 10 (PTAB April 30, 2013) , paper 11.
`
`The use of the word "means" in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`
`15
`
`presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.
`
`3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “In deciding whether [the]
`
`presumption has been rebutted, the focus remains on whether the claim as properly
`
`construed recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid the ambit of § 112, ¶6.”
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed.
`
`20
`
`Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Where the claim to be construed contains a means-
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`plus-function or step-plus-function limitation, the construction of the claim must
`
`identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure,
`
`material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3).
`
`6. How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4), Section VI provides an explanation of
`
`5
`
`how Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 are unpatentable 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, including
`
`the identification of where each claim element is found in the cited prior art.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 797 PATENT
`The 797 Patent was filed at the USPTO on February 13, 1996, claiming
`
`10
`
`priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to EP Application Serial No. 95200338.2, filed on
`
`February 13, 1995, and issued on June 8, 1999. The 797 Patent was assigned to
`
`U.S. Philips Corporation in an assignment recorded on February 13, 1996 at
`
`Reel/Frame 007900/0377. The 797 Patent has not been subject to any reexam,
`
`reissue, interference, supplemental exam or PTAB trial proceeding. No certificate
`
`15
`
`of correction has been issued for the 797 Patent.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE 797 PATENT
`
`A.
`As explained above, the 797 Patent’s claimed priority date is February 13,
`
`1995. As explained in Section IV.C the applicant substantively amended the
`
`specification in several places on May 18, 1998.
`
`20
`
`B.
`PATENT
`
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE 797
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`Devices where gravity affects the motion of an object in a gaming area, such
`
`as the maze game disclosed in the preferred embodiment of the 797 Patent, have
`
`been known in the art for decades, before the advent of handheld computers.
`
`Parulski Decl. ¶¶39-41, 42. For example, the Brio Labyrinth is a game introduced
`
`5
`
`in 1946, where a displayed maze area could be tilted by the user. Parulski Decl.
`
`¶¶43-44. Tilting of the displayed maze area would cause a ball in the maze area to
`
`move in a direction and rate based on the force of gravity applied to the ball, an
`
`intuitive result supported by basic physics. Parulski Decl. ¶¶43-48.
`
`
`Figure 1: Top View of Brio Labrinth Figure 2: Tilted Maze Board
`
`
`
`10
`
`Computerized handheld maze games emulating the operation of maze games
`
`like the Brio Labyrinth were known in the art before the priority date of the 797
`
`Patent. Parulski Decl. ¶¶49-52, 282, 245-309. For example, Japanese Unexamined
`
`Patent Application Publication No. H6-289802 to Onozawa was filed on March 31,
`
`15
`
`1993 and published on October 18, 1994. Onozawa at 1. Onozawa was assigned
`
`to Casio Computer Company, a well-known manufacturer and innovator of
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`handheld devices. Onozawa at 1; Parulski Decl. ¶¶245, 33-34, 38. Onozawa
`
`discloses an electronic maze game, where a maze and a ball are displayed on the
`
`LCD display of the handheld device. Onozawa ¶16, Figs. 1,4; Parulski Decl.
`
`¶¶251-255. Just like the Brio Labyrinth game from the 1940’s, a user of the
`
`5
`
`Onozawa device would tilt the device to direct the motion of the ball in the desired
`
`direction. Parulski Decl. ¶¶245-247. In Onozawa, a sensor 29 in the device
`
`detects the direction and acceleration due to the force of gravity, and thus, the
`
`direction to move the displayed ball in the maze displayed on LCD 22. Onozawa
`
`¶¶14-15; Figs. 2-3; Parulski Decl. ¶¶246-47.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Figure 3: Figs. 2 and 4 of Onozawa
`
`
`
`Specifically, when the sensor 29 is tilted, a spherical electrode 33 in sensor
`
`29 rolls in a direction corresponding to acceleration caused by the force of gravity
`
`to contact the electrode 31 in the lowest position in the sensor 29. Onozawa ¶¶14-
`
`15
`
`15, Figs. 2-3; Parulski Decl. ¶¶257-265-. An electrical contact between the
`
`conductive base 32 and electrode 31 through the spherical electrode 33 provides
`
`information to a controlling circuit 25, which moves the ball in the direction
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`corresponding to the acceleration of gravity acting on the tilted device, unless
`
`impeded by a displayed wall in the maze. Onozawa ¶¶16-17, Fig. 5; Parulski Decl.
`
`¶¶267-275.
`
`
`
`Other publications describe the use of measurements from integrated
`
`5
`
`accelerometers to manipulate graphical, image, and text objects in the user
`
`interface of handheld devices. For example, Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. H6-4208 to Tsukamoto was filed on June 19, 1992
`
`and published on January 14, 1994. Tsukamoto at 1. Tsukamoto was assigned to
`
`Sharp Corporation, another well-known manufacturer and innovator of handheld
`
`10
`
`devices. Tsukamoto 1; Parulski Decl. ¶¶36, 108. Tsukomoto discloses a hand-
`
`held device where user manipulation of the device is used to move displayed text, a
`
`cursor, or other objects on the integrated display. Tsukamoto ¶19, Figs. 1-2, 16;
`
`Parulski Decl. ¶¶ 109-110. The hand-held display device in Tsukomoto has an
`
`integrated acceleration sensor. Tsukamoto ¶¶22, 64; Parulski Decl. ¶110. A user
`
`15
`
`manipulates the device to move a cursor or displayed object, scroll text, or change
`
`the viewing perspective of an object, as shown in the Figures below. Tsukamoto
`
`¶21, 30, 43, 49; Parulski Decl. ¶¶111.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`
`Figure 4: Figs. 2 (moving object) and 16 (moving cursor) in Tsukamoto
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5: Figs. 12 (changing perspective) and 8 (scrolling text) in Tsukamoto
`
`5
`
`Such user manipulations cause the device to accelerate, and the acceleration sensor
`
`measures the acceleration and provides this data to a processor. Tsukamoto ¶22;
`
`Parulski Decl. ¶115, 121-124. The processor integrates the acceleration data (via
`
`time-based summation) to determine velocity of the device, and integrates the
`
`velocity data (via time-based summation) to determine the position change of the
`
`10
`
`device. The change in position of the device resulting from the measured
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`acceleration is used to determine how to move a cursor or other object, scroll text,
`
`or change the viewing perspective of the object on the integrated display.
`
`Tsukamoto ¶¶26-31, Figs. 2, 6-7; Parulski Decl. ¶¶123-124.
`
`Further technical details about the capabilities of accelerometers and the
`
`5
`
`processing of accelerometer data were known prior to the earliest priority date of
`
`the 797 Patent. For example, decades before the earliest priority date, it was well
`
`known that accelerometers measure both acceleration due to the force of gravity
`
`and acceleration due to user manipulation of the object. Parulski Decl. ¶¶59, 60,
`
`127. U.S. Patent No. 4,839,838 to LaBiche, issued June 13, 1989, discloses “a
`
`10
`
`three-dimensional spatial input apparatus including a series of coplanar, single axis
`
`accelerometers configured to provide information on translation along and rotation
`
`around a set of orthogonal axes.” LaBiche Abstract; see also LaBiche 3:40-7:2,
`
`Fig. 1 Ref. H, Figs. 2-4. “A preprocessing computer determines the acceleration
`
`values output by the accelerometers and converts these values into a series of
`
`15
`
`acceleration, velocity and position values in relation to the axis system, with
`
`corrections based on a change in the influence of gravity on the device as it rotates.”
`
`LaBiche Abstract. Specifically, a gravity vector is determined, acceleration due to
`
`gravity is subtracted from the measured acceleration “to determine the actual
`
`acceleration signals developed by the user” manipulation of the device. LaBiche
`
`20
`
`8:14-60, Fig. 7. Acceleration measurements are integrated to calculate the velocity
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`of the device, and the calculated velocity is integrated to determine a displacement.
`
`LaBiche 8:43-46, Fig. 7, Ref. 112. Time based summation is used for the
`
`integration, where the “time intervals used in the integration process need not be
`
`uniform, just determinable.” LaBiche 8:43-46. The acceleration, velocity and
`
`5
`
`position data are provided to an “object control computer which takes appropriate
`
`action, including moving a cursor, rotating a displayed object.” LaBiche Abstract.
`
` LaBiche also teaches how “relationship between the various [measured]
`
`accelerations can be used to determine the initial orientation of the handheld
`
`module” so that “baseline data from which the determination of the changes in
`
`10
`
`position, accelerations and velocities of the apparatus S can 45 be made, taking
`
`into account the effects of the gravitational field of the earth.” LaBiche 4:53-5:47,
`
`Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the background section of specification of the 797 Patent
`
`indicates that “[i]t has been known to sense the spatial orientation of a display
`
`15
`
`apparatus, for example a television monitor, and control the orientation of the
`
`image in such a way that the image is always oriented vertically and with the right
`
`side up.” Ex. 1001 1:13-17. Thus, the background of the invention acknowledges
`
`that it was known to detect the direction of gravity (to determine the spatial
`
`orientation of the device) and thus the direction of acceleration caused by gravity,
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`and manipulate an image to display it upright, even if the orientation of the device
`
`is changed. Parulski Decl. ¶62.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 797 PATENT
`
`C.
`The 797 Patent describes a “housing 20, data microprocessor 22, display
`
`5
`
`screen 24,” a “confguration can operate in a way that has been widely practised
`
`for handheld calculators, handheld game-oriented devices, or so-called Personal
`
`Digital Assistants.” Ex. 1001 2:42-53. The display 24 “may be based on standard
`
`LCD technology.” Ex. 1001 2:55-56. “[T]he apparatus has gravitation-controlled
`
`detectors 34, 36, 38, 40 that singly or collectively measure a spatial orientation
`
`10
`
`around an axis that is perpendicular to the plane of the Figure. A similar
`
`arrangement may be provided for measuring the spatial orientation around an axis
`
`that is horizontal in the plane of the Figure.” Ex. 1001 2:57-63. “The technology
`
`of the determination may be based on the weight of an element internal to the
`
`detector, such as a drop of mercury that does or does not wet a particular electrical
`
`15
`
`contact.” Ex. 1001 2:63-65. In another implementation, a sensor “measures
`
`gravitation force in a direction perpendicular to the display surface, such as being
`
`based on piezoelectricity or strain gauges. Two other such sensors each measure
`
`the gravitation force in one of two mutually perpendicular directions within the
`
`plane of the display.” Ex. 1001 3:1-6.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`“FIG. 2 shows various sensor characteristics for use with the invention.
`
`Generally, there are two distinct classes of response as a function of the inclination
`
`angle α [of the device]. Curve A gives an analog or gradual response … Curve B
`
`gives a step response: depending on whether the inclination is positive or negative,
`
`5
`
`the signal may have a first or rather a second value.” Ex. 1001 3:12-22.
`
` “FIG. 3 shows various motion pattern shapes realizable with the invention.”
`
`Ex. 1001 3:32-33. “The display area 88 is rectangular at a size of 8x12 centimetres.
`
`The original position of the object is at indication 90. The object may be a dot as
`
`shown … The motion may, as shown by arrows 80, 82, be restricted to the
`
`10
`
`coordinate directions… The motion may be constrained by artificial boundaries
`
`such as 86, or by a part of a maze 92.” Ex. 1001 3:33-45. “In all cases, the motion
`
`is accelaration [sic] based, such as with respect to altering the motion vector of the
`
`object with respect to speed or direction; because altering of spatial orientation of
`
`the screen effects a dynamical change of the motion pattern.” Ex. 1001 3:63-67.
`
`15
`
`“FIG. 4 shows various motion characteristics realizable with the invention.
`
`The horizontal axis gives the inclination angle α [of the device] as in FIG. 2. The
`
`vertical axis gives a pseudo force exerted on the object.” Ex. 1001 4:1-4. Figure 4
`
`illustrates a variety of force values as a function of inclination angle α of the device,
`
`including curve 60, which imparts zero force until the inclination angle α of the
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`device reaches a threshold, then stays at a constant force for greater inclination
`
`angles. Ex. 1001 4:9-10.
`
` In Figure 5, the operation of the device, such as when implementing a maze
`
`game in accordance with the claimed invention, is explained. “FIG. 5 is a flow
`
`5
`
`chart for use with the invention, such as in a manipulatory game. Block 100
`
`represents the start of the game … defining the maze … In block 102, the object to
`
`be moved is created. … In block 104, the existence of non-zero inclination is
`
`sensed, or rather a non-zero change of inclination. If yes, in block 104 the motion
`
`is amended; in this example, the motion only depends on actual inclination. If the
`
`10
`
`inclination is steady, the motion remains uniform. In block 108, occurrence of an
`
`incident is detected, such as collision with a constraint. If yes, in block 110
`
`appropriate action is taken, such as bouncing back, increase of error score,
`
`termination of the object or of the total game, and the like. Absent the incident, the
`
`process goes to block 112. Here detection of a termination situation is detected. …
`
`15
`
`If no in block 112, the system may revert to block 104 and proceed with the
`
`moving object…” Ex. 1001 4:15-36.
`
`Claim 1 corresponds to the embodiment referenced above. In the first
`
`limitation, a sensor integrated with the screen means measures the acceleration
`
`induced by user manipulation of the screen means and feeds it to the data
`
`20
`
`processing means. In the second limitation, the data processing means imparts an
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,910,797
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2017-00856
`acceleration-based motion pattern to a predetermined selection of the objects
`
`displayed on the screen. Independent Claim 11 is similar to Claim 1, but the
`
`claimed sensor measures dynamical changes of spatial orientation of the display,
`
`and the acceleration based motion pattern is also based on the dynamical changes
`
`5
`
`of spatial orientation.
`
`Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 were well known before the priority date of the 797
`
`Patent. The Office granted the 797 Patent based on the belief that the sensor in the
`
`prior art of record did not detect an acceleration of the screen, and that this
`
`limitation rendered the Claims novel and patentable. As explained above,
`
`10
`
`Tsukamoto and Onozawa have sensors which detect an acceleration of the screen,
`
`and meet all of the other limitations of the independent claims, and the challenged
`
`claims as explained below. Specifically, Onozawa teaches a hand-held
`
`computerized maze game which closely parallels the preferred embodiment of a
`
`maze game described in the 797 Patent. Tsukamoto describes a hand-held device
`
`15
`
`with integrated accelerometer, where an object on the screen is moved in a pattern
`
`based on the acceleration of the device. LaBiche provides further express
`
`disclosure that acceleration sensors measure acceleration due to gravity.
`
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`D.
`The 797 Patent was filed at the USPTO on February 13, 1996, claiming
`
`20
`
`priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to EP Application Serial No. 95200338