Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: April 10, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`____________
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: April 10, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`____________
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner” or “Microsoft”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,690,387 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’387 patent”). We initially instituted an inter partes review as to
`claims 9, 11, and 12 based on two of the six grounds presented in the
`Petition. Paper 7, 5, 47 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”); see
`35 U.S.C. § 314. After institution of trial, in light of the Supreme Court’s
`decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), we modified
`our Institution Decision to include review of all the challenged claims and
`all the grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 10.
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 15, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17,
`“Pet. Reply”). With our authorization, Patent Owner subsequently filed a
`Sur-Reply (Paper 20, “PO Sur-Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 23), which we address below.
`On December 20, 2018, we conducted an oral hearing. A copy of the
`transcript (Paper 30, “Tr.”) is included in the record.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–12 of the ’387 patent are unpatentable. This final
`written decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several related district court cases. Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`B. The ’387 Patent
`The ’387 patent describes a touchscreen system where an image, such
`as a list, displayed on a screen begins to scroll when a user applies a
`sweeping motion of his finger along the screen. Ex. 1001, 1:8–12, 1:53–57,
`1:65–2:1. The speed and direction of the finger along the screen determines
`the initial speed and direction of the list. Id. at 1:58–60. After the finger
`separates from the screen, the list continues to scroll in the same direction at
`a gradually decreasing speed until scrolling is stopped by the user touching
`the screen without moving his finger along the screen, or when the speed
`decreases to zero or to a predetermined minimum speed, or when the list
`reaches its end. Id. at 1:60–65. The user may continue scrolling by
`repeating the sweeping motion of his finger along the screen, and he may
`control the speed of scrolling with the speed of the sweeping motion. Id. at
`1:65–2:1, 2:8–12.
`In addition to scrolling, the user may also select or drag an item on the
`list by touching the screen, depending on the duration of the touch and any
`movement of the finger accompanying the touch. Id. at 2:4–8, 3:24–4:3.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`scrolling
`
`system,
`
`touch-screen
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–12 of the ’387 patent. Claims 1 and 7–
`9 are independent. Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative of the claims under
`challenge:
`improved
`1. An
`comprising:
`an electronic image display screen;
`a microprocessor coupled to said display screen to display
`information thereon and to receive interactive signals
`therefrom;
`timer means associated with said microprocessor to provide
`timing capacity therefor;
`a source of scroll format data capable of display on said
`display screen;
`a keyboard coupled to said microprocessor to provide input
`control signals thereto;
`finger touch program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for sensing the speed, direction and time
`duration of a finger touch contact with said display screen;
`scrolling motion program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor responsive to said duration of said finger
`touch contact such that, when said duration exceeds a first
`given preset minimum time and is accompanied by motion
`along the surface of said screen followed by separation of
`said finger touch from said screen, a scroll format display
`on said screen is caused to begin to scroll in said sensed
`direction and at said sensed initial speed;
`time decay program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for reducing
`the rate of scrolling
`displacement on said display screen at a given rate until
`motion is terminated;
`stopping motion program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for terminating scrolling displacement of
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`image
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`the image on said screen upon first occurrence of any
`signal in the group of signals comprising:
`(a) a substantially stationary finger touch on the screen
`enduring for a period longer than a preset minimum
`time, and
`(b) an end-of-scroll signal received from said scroll
`format data source.
`9. An improved method of controlling the scroll-like display of
`data on an electronic display screen, said method comprising the
`steps of:
`sensing the duration of finger touch contact time with an
`electronic display screen having scrollable data displayed
`thereon;
`sensing the speed and direction of motion of said finger touch
`contact with said display screen;
`initiating scrolling motion of said scrollable data on said
`display screen in said sensed direction and at said sensed
`speed;
`slowing the speed of said scrolling motion from the initiated
`speed thereof, at a predetermined rate; and
`terminating said scrolling motion when one of the conditions
`comprising the following group of conditions is sensed:
`(a) a substantially stationary finger touch having a finite
`duration is sensed;
`(b) an end-of-scroll signal is sensed.
`
`
`
`D. The Instituted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts in its Petition six grounds based on obviousness
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 5, 22–65. Although we initially instituted inter
`partes review on fewer than all claims challenged in the Petition, we
`subsequently modified our Institution Decision to include review of all the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 5–7, and 9
`1, 5–7, and 9
`2, 3, 8, 11, and 12
`2, 3, 8, 11, and 12
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`challenged claims and all the grounds presented in the Petition. Inst. Dec. 2;
`Paper 10, 2. The instituted grounds are as follows.
`References
`Basis
`Anwar1 and Narutaka2
`§103
`Anwar, Narutaka, and Westerman3
`§103
`Anwar, Narutaka, and Astala4
`§103
`Anwar, Narutaka, Westerman, and
`§103
`Astala
`Anwar, Narutaka, and Korhonen5
`Anwar, Narutaka, Westerman, and
`Korhonen
`In support of the instituted grounds, Petitioner relies on a declaration of
`Dr. Loren Terveen (Exhibit 1004). With its Response, Patent Owner
`submits a declaration of Dr. Adam Porter (Exhibit 2010). The transcripts for
`the depositions of Dr. Terveen and Dr. Porter are entered in the record as
`Exhibits 2011 and 1027, respectively.
`
`
`§103
`§103
`
`4 and 10
`4 and 10
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The claim construction standard applicable to this inter partes review
`proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`
`
`1 Anwar, U.S. Patent No. 7,450,114 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2008 (Ex. 1005).
`2 Narutaka, Japanese Pub. No. H06-309138, published Nov. 4, 1994
`(Ex. 1006).
`3 Westerman, Int’l Pub. No. WO 99/38149, published July 29, 1999
`(Ex. 1007).
`4 Astala, U.S. Patent No. 6,943,778 B1, issued Sept. 13, 2005 (Ex. 1008).
`5 Korhonen, EP 0 880 091 A2, published Nov. 25, 1998 (Ex. 1009).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation standard).6 Under this standard, claim terms
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In our Institution Decision, we construed two claim terms: “stopping
`motion program instructions” and “terminating said scrolling motion.” Inst.
`Dec. 6–10. The first claim term, “stopping motion program instructions,”
`appears in independent claims 1, 7,7 and 8 as follows:
`stopping motion program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for terminating scrolling displacement of the
`image on said screen upon first occurrence of any signal in the
`group of signals comprising:
`(a) a substantially stationary finger touch on the screen
`enduring for a period longer than a preset minimum time,
`and
`(b) an end-of-scroll signal received from said scroll format data
`source.
`Because claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to systems, we construed this claim
`term as requiring sensing for each of the signals in the recited group and
`terminating scrolling upon whichever signal is sensed first. Id. at 7–8.
`
`
`6 The revised claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter
`partes review proceedings as set forth in the final rule published October 11,
`2018, does not apply to this proceeding because the new “rule is effective on
`November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM petitions filed on
`or after the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R.
`pt. 42).
`7 Claim 7 recites “computer apparatus” instead of “microprocessor.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`The second claim term, “terminating said scrolling motion,” appears
`in independent method claim 9 as follows:
`terminating said scrolling motion when one of the conditions
`comprising the following group of conditions is sensed:
`(a) a substantially stationary finger touch having a finite
`duration is sensed;
`(b) an end-of-scroll signal is sensed.
`Unlike claims 1, 7, and 8, which are directed to systems, claim 9 is directed
`to a method. As such, we construed this claim term as encompassing
`sensing for just one of the conditions in the recited group and terminating
`scrolling upon sensing that one condition. Id. at 10.
`Neither party challenges these constructions. Tr. 5:21–24, 23:21–
`24:7; PO Resp. 12; see generally Pet. Reply. Based on the complete record
`now before us, we maintain our prior constructions.
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Anwar and Narutaka
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5–7, and 9 of the ’387 patent would
`have been obvious over Anwar and Narutaka. Pet. 22–52. Patent Owner
`responds that Petitioner’s rationale for combining the references is
`insufficient with respect to two limitations: the “finger touch program
`instructions” and the “stopping motion program instructions.” PO Resp. 17–
`18, 32–56. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5–7, and
`9 would have been obvious over Anwar and Narutaka.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`1. Anwar
`Anwar describes a system and method for viewing and manipulating a
`display of digital documents, where the display may be a touch screen
`display on a handheld computer. Ex. 1005, 1:16–18, 5:53–56. Figure 3 of
`Anwar, which is reproduced below, illustrates an example of a display.
`
`
`
`
`
`In particular, Figure 3 shows screen display 26, which includes a screen
`document with sub document 44 and thumbnail documents 60–72. Id. at
`10:3–6. Center document 60 is the largest thumbnail document and
`represents document 44, which takes up most of the viewing area of the
`display. Id. at 10:6–8, 10:31–32. As the thumbnail documents increase in
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`distance from center document 60, they decrease in size. Id. at 10:15–17.
`The measure in distance from center document 60 may represent the
`distance in pages from document 44, the amount of time that has passed
`since the document was last viewed, or the difference in some other
`characteristic. Id. at 10:17–23. The user may select a new document to
`appear within the viewing area by touching the respective thumbnail
`document. Id. at 10:41–45.
`The user may also click and drag a document to cause page movement
`within the viewing area. Id. at 14:3–6. During a document drag operation, a
`page velocity determination is made. Id. at 14:6–9. Such determination
`allows the user interface to present a more natural way of moving documents
`through a viewing space. Id. at 14:10–12. For example, a user may drag a
`document at a certain speed and then release the stylus or other input device
`from the document. Id. at 14:15–18. Upon release, the document may stop
`moving, or it may continue to move in the established direction until the user
`stops the motion by clicking on the document. Id. at 14:18–22. For multi-
`page documents, the user may scroll different pages across the screen at a
`rate according to the page velocity determination. Id. at 14:22–26. The
`velocity may decrease by a constant page inertia until it reaches zero and
`page scrolling ceases. Id. at 14:26–28.
`
`
`2. Narutaka
`Narutaka describes a system where a user can initiate scrolling of a
`screen by touching the display screen with his finger. Ex. 1006, at [57]
`(Abstract). The system checks whether touch location data are continuously
`output, interpreting data that are output for a fixed amount of time or longer
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`as a scrolling instruction and data that are not output for the fixed amount of
`time as some other instruction. Id. ¶¶ 18–20. The direction and amount of
`scrolling are computed according to changes in the touch location data.
`Id. ¶ 14. That is, the screen is scrolled according to how much the user’s
`finger moves. Id. ¶ 51. Narutaka teaches that the screen may start to scroll
`when the user’s finger separates from the screen. Id. ¶ 26, Fig. 2.
`Alternatively, the screen may start to scroll when the user touches the screen
`and moves his finger over the screen without lifting it off the screen.
`Id. ¶ 26, Fig. 5.
`
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 9
`Independent claim 1 is a system claim that is directed to “[a]n
`improved touch-screen image scrolling system.” Independent claim 9 is the
`corresponding method claim and recites limitations similar to those in
`claim 1. Petitioner relies on its arguments with respect to claim 1 for its
`analysis of claim 9. Pet. 51–52. Accordingly, our discussion below
`regarding claim 1 also applies to claim 9.
`
`
`a. “electronic image display screen”
`Claim 1 recites “an electronic image display screen.” For this
`limitation, Petitioner directs us to where Anwar teaches providing “hand
`held computer systems that include touch screen displays.” Pet. 27 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 5:55–56). Petitioner also directs us to Figure 1 of Anwar, which is
`reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Anwar is a block diagram of system 10, a computer device that
`includes a processor, a memory, and a display. Ex. 1005, 5:17–18, 5:63–66.
`Petitioner points us to Anwar’s teaching that video display 26 in particular
`“can present the images of a plurality of different documents.” Pet. 27
`(quoting Ex. 1005, 6:9–10).
`Patent Owner does not address this limitation in its Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Anwar’s video display 26 teaches the recited “electronic image display
`screen.”
`
`
`b. “microprocessor”
`Claim 1 further recites “a microprocessor coupled to said display
`screen to display information thereon and to receive interactive signals
`therefrom.” For this limitation, Petitioner directs us to where Anwar
`describes computer process 8, which “generates a single output display that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`includes within that display one or more of the documents.” Pet. 28 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:19–21). Anwar teaches that these documents are “displayed
`within the program window generated by the computer process 8,” and that
`the program window may “include a set of icons representative of tools
`provided with the graphical user interface and capable of allowing a user to
`control the operation, in this case the display, of the documents appearing in
`the program window.” Ex. 1005, 6:21–28 (cited by Pet. 28–29). As
`discussed above, video display 26 presents the images of the documents.
`Ex. 1005, 6:9–10, Fig. 1.
`Patent Owner does not address this limitation in its Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Anwar’s computer process 8 teaches the recited “microprocessor.”
`
`
`c. “timer means”
`Claim 1 further recites “timer means associated with said
`microprocessor to provide timing capacity therefor.” For this limitation,
`Petitioner directs us to where Anwar teaches measuring “the amount of time
`that has passed since [a] document was last viewed,” as well as tracking “the
`time at which the graphical interface tool acts on the rendered content” to
`determine “[t]he contextual relationship between the graphical interface tool
`and the rendered content.” Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:62–66, 10:20–22).
`Petitioner contends that “[t]his functionality necessarily requires a timer to
`provide ‘timing capacity’ for the microprocessor.” Id. In addition,
`Petitioner notes that “the ’387 patent discloses that timers were ‘inherent’ in
`computers as of the priority date.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–35).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner does not address this limitation in its Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Anwar teaches the recited “timer means.”
`
`
`d. “source of scroll format data”
`Claim 1 further recites “a source of scroll format data capable of
`display on said display screen.” For this limitation, Petitioner directs us to
`where Anwar teaches that document agent 12 of computer process 8 creates
`internal representation 14 of a source document, where the internal
`representation includes information about the content of the source
`document and the page layout. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:57–65); see also
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Petitioner also directs us to where Anwar teaches that
`parser/renderer 18 of computer process 8 receives internal representation 14
`and generates a view of the documents represented by the internal
`representation based on control inputs that define the viewing context and
`any related temporal parameters of the specific document view to be
`generated. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:32–34, 7:36–39, 7:42–46). This
`information may relate to zooming, panning, or scrolling. Ex. 1005, 7:39–
`42 (cited by Pet. 31–32). Petitioner contends that “the stored internal
`representation 14 of the source document—which includes scrollable data
`that can be displayed—is ‘a source of scroll format data capable of display
`on said display screen.’” Pet. 32.
`Patent Owner does not address this limitation in its Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Anwar teaches the recited “source of scroll format data.”
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`e. “keyboard”
`Claim 1 further recites “a keyboard coupled to said microprocessor to
`provide input control signals thereto.” For this limitation, Petitioner directs
`us to where Anwar teaches providing the user of its system with a keyboard
`to control the viewing area. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:45–49); see also
`Ex. 1005, 15:53–56 (“[T]he systems described herein may be practiced with
`any suitable interface devices, including touch-sensitive screens and pads,
`mouse input devices, [and] keyboards and keypads.”) (cited by Pet. 32).
`Patent Owner does not address this limitation in its Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Anwar teaches the recited “keyboard.”
`
`
`f. “finger touch program instructions”
`Claim 1 further recites “finger touch program instructions associated
`with said microprocessor for sensing the speed, direction and time duration
`of a finger touch contact with said display screen.” Thus, the recited “finger
`touch program instructions” must sense the speed and direction of the finger
`touch contact as well as the time duration of the finger touch contact.
`With respect to sensing the speed and direction of the finger touch
`contact, Petitioner directs us to where Anwar teaches using a command
`stroke to move one or more pages of a document within a viewing area.
`Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:3–6). Petitioner also directs us to where Anwar
`teaches that “a velocity detector process takes position readings
`periodically” to make a page velocity determination that can be used “to
`direct the parser/render[er] 18 [of computer process 8] to redraw the
`document in a series of pictures that will portray the document as moving
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`across the screen.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 14:7–15). For instance, “a user may
`drag a document at a certain speed and then release the stylus, mouse or
`other input device from the document,” and “the page may continue to move
`in the established direction until the user indicates that the document is to
`stop moving.” Ex. 1005, 14:16–21 (cited by Pet. 338).
`Petitioner notes that Anwar teaches using various input devices with
`video display 26, such as a stylus, but that “Anwar does not expressly
`disclose using a finger touch as input.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:39–42).
`According to Petitioner, however, it would have been obvious to modify
`Anwar to include a finger touch as input in order to avoid the burden of
`having to “keep track of a separate stylus or other input device,” and thereby
`“offer[] users increased simplicity and flexibility.” Id. at 35–36. Petitioner
`relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Terveen. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 1299); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 126 (citing “[a] number of earlier patents and
`articles [that] discuss touchscreen systems that accepted finger touch
`inputs”) (cited by Pet. 35); Ex. 1013, 196 (describing a “program [that]
`tracks the motion of a finger (or stylus) on the screen and paints wherever
`the finger moves”) (cited by Pet. 35).
`Petitioner alternatively relies on Narutaka for teaching the finger
`touch aspect of the limitation. In particular, Petitioner directs us to where
`Narutaka teaches operating a control system by “touching a screen 8 on the
`CRT 1 using a finger 7,” where “the screen 8 displayed on the CRT 1 is
`
`
`8 Petitioner cites lines 16 through 19 at column 14 of Anwar, but the relevant
`teaching appears at lines 16 through 21.
`9 Petitioner cites paragraph 129 of Dr. Terveen’s Declaration, but the
`relevant testimony appears at paragraph 128.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`scrolled by the CPU 5 in accordance with the direction and amount of
`movement of the finger 7.” Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 10). Petitioner
`contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have seen the value in
`incorporating Narutaka’s disclosure of using a finger touch as input because
`this would have expanded the options presented to the user, allowing him to
`use whatever type of input he found most convenient.” Id. at 38.
`With respect to sensing the time duration of the finger touch contact,
`Petitioner points out that “velocity is a measure of distance over time,” and
`contends that “the ability of Anwar’s system to calculate touch velocity
`necessarily indicates that Anwar includes program instructions for ‘sensing
`the . . . time duration’ of a touch contact with the display screen.” Pet. 39.
`Alternatively, Petitioner relies on Narutaka for teaching this aspect of
`the limitation. Specifically, Petitioner directs us to where Narutaka
`describes detecting finger touch contact with a touch panel and checking
`whether the touch location data are continuously output for a fixed amount
`of time. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 18). Narutaka teaches that touch location
`data that are output for the fixed amount of time or longer are interpreted as
`a scroll instruction, while touch location data that are not output for the fixed
`amount of time are interpreted as some other instruction. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 19–20
`(cited by Pet. 39). Petitioner contends that it would have been “obvious to
`incorporate Narutaka’s teaching of sensing the time duration of a user’s
`touch into Anwar’s system” in order to “allow[] the system to discern the
`user’s intended operation: the system can distinguish between touches
`intended to be input and those intended to be a scroll command.” Pet. 40.
`Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would also have
`found it straightforward to incorporate the act of sensing duration of a touch
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`into Anwar’s system” because Anwar’s system includes a velocity detector
`process that takes position readings periodically, indicating that the system
`already includes the ability to sense duration of a touch. Id. Petitioner relies
`on the declaration testimony of Dr. Terveen. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 135).
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the recited
`“finger touch program instructions” would have been obvious based on
`Anwar alone. As discussed above, Anwar teaches program instructions
`associated with computer process 8 (i.e., the recited “microprocessor”) for
`sensing the velocity and direction of a touch contact of an input device, such
`as a stylus, with video display 26 (i.e., the recited “display screen”). We
`agree with Petitioner that Anwar also teaches program instructions for
`sensing the time duration of the touch contact of the stylus with video
`display 26 because velocity is a measure of distance over time.
`Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for
`modifying Anwar to include a finger touch as input, namely, to offer users
`increased simplicity and flexibility, is sufficient to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.
`We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative theory that the
`combination of Anwar and Narutaka teaches the recited “finger touch
`program instructions.” As discussed above, Narutaka teaches operating a
`control system using a finger touch as input and checking whether the touch
`location data are continuously output for a fixed amount of time. We are
`further persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for combining Anwar
`and Narutaka is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In
`particular, we are persuaded that modifying Anwar to incorporate
`Narutaka’s use of a finger touch as input would have provided users with
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`expanded input options and increased flexibility. In addition, we are
`persuaded that modifying Anwar to include Narutaka’s check on whether the
`touch location data are continuously output for a fixed amount of time would
`have allowed Anwar to distinguish between a touch intended to be a
`scrolling command and a touch intended to be some other command.
`Indeed, Anwar teaches various touch commands, such as dragging and
`scrolling. Ex. 1005, 14:3–6, 14:15–22.
`Patent Owner makes several arguments.10 With respect to Petitioner’s
`reliance on Anwar for teaching “sensing . . . time duration of a . . . touch
`contact,” Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner[’s] inherency-based reasoning
`would render the claimed requirement of sensing touch duration to be
`superfluous in light of the existing step of sensing the speed of touch
`motion.” PO Resp. 35–36. Patent Owner further asserts that we “rejected
`[Petitioner’s] reasoning under the reasonable likelihood standard for the
`same reason” on the preliminary record. Id. at 36 (citing Inst. Dec. 23 n.11).
`On the full record before us now, however, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing that Anwar teaches sensing touch duration because velocity is a
`function of distance over time. Patent Owner’s argument does not
`adequately rebut Petitioner’s showing that Anwar teaches sensing time
`duration of a touch contact.
`
`
`10 Patent Owner’s arguments are presented with respect to claim 9, which
`recites “sensing the duration of finger touch contact time with an electronic
`display screen having scrollable data displayed thereon” and “sensing the
`speed and direction of motion of said finger touch contact with said display
`screen.” Because these limitations are similar to the recited “finger touch
`program instructions” in claim 1, we address Patent Owner’s arguments in
`our discussion of claim 1 (which also applies to claim 9).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s alternative theory that the combination of
`Anwar and Narutaka teaches “sensing . . . time duration of a . . . touch
`contact,” Patent Owner further argues that “Anwar already contains
`functionality (e.g., click, click-and-drag, double-click) to distinguish
`between commands such as selection and scrolling.” Id.; see also id. at 20
`(“In Figs. 12A–12G, Anwar illustrates various click-and-drag gestures
`corresponding to various operations.”). To illustrate, Patent Owner asserts
`that in Anwar “a click (e.g., for selecting a screen object) is already
`distinguishable from a click-and-drag (e.g., for initiating page velocity
`scrolling), in that a click involves the initial touch contact position and the
`touch release position being the same, while a click-and-drag involves these
`two positions being different.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner contends that
`“Anwar provides numerous options for distinguishing between different
`functions,” and an ordinarily skilled artisan “would, therefore, have had no
`reason to seek additional options.” Id. Patent Owner additionally contends
`that “if . . . there was some need to further ‘distinguish’ between different
`inputs in Anwar, . . . [the skilled artisan] would simply have expanded on
`Anwar’s existing differentiating criteria—using different numbers of clicks
`(e.g., adding a ‘triple-click-and-drag’ input), presence or absence of drag,
`and/or different gesture motions—to accomplish such objective, and would
`not have considered Narutaka.” Id. at 38–39. According to Patent Owner,
`“[t]he Petition fails not only because it does not give a reason to reach for
`options beyond Anwar, but also fails to provide a reason to select one
`particular option from one particular reference—Narutaka—to the exclusion
`of all other possible options.” Id. at 39; see also id. at 40 (“Petitioner[] ha[s]
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00023
`Patent 6,690,387 B2
`
`failed to provide a valid reason to combine two particular features in a
`particular manner.”).
`In its Reply, Petitioner responds that “Anwar’s system interprets
`gestures differently depending on context,” and that “Anwar does not
`suggest that the velocity determination process includes any intent-
`differentiating techniques from other embodiments, nor does it teach that the
`system would know how to interpret gestures regardless of context.”
`Pet. Reply 4; see also Ex. 1005, 3:10–17 (disclosing embodiments of
`computer devices that allow for scrolling as well as navigating through a
`collection of documents). To illustrate, Petitioner relies on Dr. Porter’s
`deposition testimony regarding Figures 12F and 13B of Anwar, which are
`reproduced below. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1027, 277:9–278:6).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 12F depicts a command stroke that can be used to move to the next
`document. Ex. 1005, 13:52–54. Figure 13B depicts a command stroke that
`can be used to initiate page scrolling within a document. Id. at 14:3–6,
`14:15–22.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
