Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Nathan R. Speed (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 8,749,507
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`STANDING CERTIFICATION ...................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ................................................................ 2
`IV.
`’507 PATENT .................................................................................................. 3
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Claim language ........................................................................... 8
`Specification ................................................................................ 9
`a.
`Fig. 2 Embodiment .......................................................... 9
`(1)
`First Tick Count................................................... 10
`(2) Release Tick Count ............................................. 11
`Fig. 3 Embodiment ........................................................ 12
`
`b.
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 15
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Astala......................................................................................... 15
`Shahoian .................................................................................... 17
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 17
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 20
`a.
`1[PRE]: “A method comprising:” ................................. 20
`b.
`[1A]: “receiving contact data from an input
`device” ........................................................................... 20
`(1) Claim Terms ........................................................ 20
`(i) “input device” ............................................................. 20
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`g.
`
`h.
`
`(ii) “contact data” ............................................................. 21
`(2) Astala+Shahoian meets [1A]. .............................. 21
`[1B]: “determining an interaction with a displayed
`object on a screen based on the contact data” ............... 22
`[1C]: “responsive to determining the interaction,
`determining a gesture based on the contact data
`comprising” .................................................................... 23
`[1D]: “determining a pressure and a change in
`pressure based on the contact data” ............................... 24
`(1)
`“determining a pressure” ..................................... 24
`(2)
`“determining… a change in pressure” ................ 24
`[1E]: “determining a press if” ........................................ 25
`[1E1]: “the pressure is greater than a pressure
`threshold” ....................................................................... 25
`[1E2]: “the change in pressure is greater than a
`change in pressure threshold” ........................................ 26
`(1) Astala+Shahoian Determining Whether a
`Pressure Reduction Exceeds a Threshold
`Meets [1E2] ......................................................... 26
`(2) Obvious To Add A Pressure-Change
`Determination to Astala’s Step 710. ................... 28
`[1E3]: “a first interval has elapsed” ............................... 29
`(1) Astala+Shahoian Meets [1E3] Under the
`Proper Construction. ............................................ 29
`(2) An Obvious Modification of
`Astala+Shahoian Meets The IPR2016-01777
`Construction ........................................................ 30
`[1F]: “responsive to determining the gesture,
`outputting a haptic effect.” ............................................ 31
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 31
`a.
`Pseudo pressure ............................................................. 31
`b.
`Actual pressure .............................................................. 32
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 33
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 33
`7.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 33
`8.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 34
`9.
`10. Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 35
`a.
`Preamble ........................................................................ 35
`b.
`Limitation [7A] .............................................................. 35
`c.
`Limitation [7B] .............................................................. 36
`d.
`Limitation [7C] .............................................................. 37
`11. Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 37
`12. Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 38
`a.
`Astala+Shahoian Uses Non-Transitory CRM With
`Program Code Executed by a Processor. ....................... 38
`Astala+Shahoia’s Program Code Causes a
`Processor to Perform [9A]-[9F]’s Method Steps .......... 39
`13. Claims 10-13. ............................................................................ 40
`14. Claim 14. ................................................................................... 40
`a.
`Astala+Shahoian’s System Has a Processor and
`CRM .............................................................................. 40
`Astala+Shahoia’s Processor is Configured to
`Perform [14C]-[14H] ..................................................... 41
`15. Claims 15-18. ............................................................................ 42
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Keely ......................................................................................... 42
`Kolmykov-Zotov ....................................................................... 43
`Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov ........................................................... 44
`a.
`Reasons to combine ....................................................... 44
`b.
`Reasonable expectation of success ................................ 46
`c.
`Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov ............................................... 47
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 47
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`a.
`b.
`c.
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`h.
`i.
`
`Preamble ........................................................................ 47
`Limitation [1A] .............................................................. 47
`Limitation [1B] .............................................................. 49
`Limitation [1C] .............................................................. 50
`Limitation [1D] .............................................................. 51
`Limitation [1E] .............................................................. 53
`Limitations [1E1]-[1E2] ................................................ 53
`Limitation [1E3] ............................................................ 55
`Determining a Press ([1E]-[1E3]) ................................. 56
`(1) Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov Meets the Proper
`Construction ........................................................ 56
`(2) Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov Meets a Narrower
`Construction ........................................................ 57
`Limitation [1F] ............................................................... 58
`j.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 59
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 60
`a.
`Preamble ........................................................................ 60
`b.
`Limitation [7A] .............................................................. 61
`c.
`Limitations [7B]-[7C] .................................................... 62
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 63
`a.
`“filter” ............................................................................ 63
`b.
`Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov meets claim 8. ....................... 63
`Claims 9 and 13 ......................................................................... 64
`Claims 14 and 18....................................................................... 65
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 67
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 67
`Claims 4-5 ................................................................................. 68
`Claims 10-12, 15-17 .................................................................. 69
`
`– iv –
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`

`

`VII. NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ........................................... 70
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Stay Potential ............................................................................ 70
`Trial Timing .............................................................................. 70
`Litigation Investment ................................................................ 70
`Issue Overlap ............................................................................. 71
`Litigation Defendants ................................................................ 71
`Other Considerations ................................................................ 71
`Compelling Evidence ................................................................ 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Petition Advances Art and Arguments
`Not Previously Considered. ...................................................... 74
`Step Two: The Office Erred Materially .................................... 75
`a.
`BD factor (c) .................................................................. 75
`b.
`BD factor (e) .................................................................. 76
`c.
`BD factor (f) ................................................................... 77
`Appendix A: U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 Claim List ................................................ 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) ........................ 74, 75, 77
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) ............................ 70, 71
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2016-01777, Paper 1 (Sep. 12, 2016) .............................................................. 6
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 (Mar. 23, 2017) ............................................. 6, 8, 57, 76
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2017-01310, Paper 1 (Apr. 21, 2017) .............................................................. 6
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2017-01310, Paper 7 (Aug. 9, 2017) ......................................................... 8, 27
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2017-01310, Paper 8 (Nov. 2, 2017) ................................................................ 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`IPR2022-00457, Paper 7 (Sep. 21, 2022) ............................................................. 77
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 73
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017)
`(precedential as to §III.C.5, first paragraph) ..................................... 74, 75, 76, 77
`
`Code 200, UAB et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00861, Paper 18 (Dir. Aug. 23, 2022) (precedential) ........................... 73
`
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00353, Paper 8 (July 1, 2022) ............................................................... 76
`
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (Dir. Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) ............................ 71
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00138, Paper 12 (May 11, 2022) .......................................................... 71
`
`Ebates Performance Marketing v. IBM Corp.,
`IPR2022-00646, Paper 10 (Oct. 25, 2022) .................................................... 72, 73
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sep. 6, 2017)
`(precedential as to §II.B.4.i) ...................................................................... 7, 72, 73
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 46
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 18, 29, 46
`
`Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00679, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2022) ............................................................. 71
`
`Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01090, Paper 9 (Jan. 12, 2023) ............................................................. 73
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Nokia of Am. Corp. v. TQ Delta,
`IPR2022-00471, Paper 11 (Aug. 18, 2022) .......................................................... 71
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..........................................................8, 9
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Manufacturing Res. Int’l,
`IPR2023-00254, Paper 11 (June 20, 2023) .......................................................... 76
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00063, Paper 13 (May 5, 2022) ..................................................... 70, 74
`Sand Revolution II v. Continental Intermodal Group–Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) (informative) ............................. 70, 71
`
`Scientific Design Co., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`IPR2021-01537, Paper 7 (Mar. 18, 2022) ............................................................ 77
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Quantum Imaging LLC,
`IPR2023-00954, Paper 11 (Dec. 11, 2023) .......................................................... 70
`
`STMicroelecs., Inc. v. The Trustees of Purdue University,
`IPR2022-00309, Paper 14 (July 6, 2022) ............................................................. 76
`Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread v. United States,
`593 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) ..................................... 72
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 9
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 14
`
`Yita LLC et al. v. MacNeil IP LLC,
`IPR2023-00172, Paper 12 (June 13, 2023) ................................................... 75, 77
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................... 70
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................ 75, 77
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`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) ........................................................................................................ 7
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`– viii –
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507
`1003 Declaration of Jean Renard Ward
`1004 CV of Jean Renard Ward
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,590,568, “Touch Screen Drag And Drop Input
`Technique” (“Astala”)
`1006 U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2002/0033795, “Haptic Interface For Laptop
`Computers And Other Portable Devices” (“Shahoian”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0057263, “Simulating Gestures of A Pointing
`Device Using A Stylus And Providing Feedback Thereto” (“Keely”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,256,773, “Detection of A Dwell Gesture By
`Examining Parameters Associated With Pen Motion” (“Kolmykov-
`Zotov” or “KZ”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,943,044, “Force Sensing Semiconductive Touchpad”
`(“Martinelli”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373, “Method And Apparatus For Controlling
`Force Feedback Interface Systems Utilizing A Host Computer”
`(“Rosenberg”)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,791,536, “Simulating Gestures of A Pointing Device
`Using A Stylus And Providing Feedback Thereto” (“Keely-536”)
`1012 U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/247,841, “High Level Active Pen Matrix”
`(“Keely-841”)
`1013 U.S. Prov. App. No. 60/247,400, “System and Method For Accepting
`Disparate Types Of User Input” ( “Keely-400”)
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,880,411, “Object Position Detector With Edge Motion
`Feature And Gesture Recognition” (“Gillespie”)
`
`– ix –
`
`

`

`1016
`
`1021
`1022
`
`Exhibit Description
`1015 Order 27, Construing the Terms of the Asserted Claims of the Patent At
`Issue, In the Matter of Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices
`Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and
`Components Thereof, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1004, 337-TA-990 (Feb. 2,
`2017)
`S.K. Lee et al., “A Multi-Touch Three Dimensional Touch-Sensitive
`Tablet,” ACM Sigchi Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 21-25 (1985) (“Lee85”)
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford University Press 2001)
`1017
`1018 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1019 Chart comparing ’507 patent claim language
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 8,164,573, “Systems And Methods For Adaptive
`Interpretations Of Input From A Touch-Sensitive Input Device”
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,164,573
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016-01777, Paper 1 (Sep. 12,
`2016)
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 (Mar. 23, 2017)
`1023
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2017-01310, Paper 1 (Apr. 21, 2017)
`1024
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2017-01310, Paper 7 (Aug. 9, 2017)
`1025
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2017-01310, Paper 8 (Nov., 2, 2017)
`1026
`1027 U.S. Patent Pub. No. U.S. 2004/0150631, “Method Of Triggering
`Functions In A Computer Application Using A Digitizer Having A
`Stylus And A Digitizer System” (“Fleck”)
`Ex parte DaCosta, No. 2009-015440 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2011)
`1028
`Federal Court Management Statistics (September 2023)
`1029
`1030 Davis, “The RAND Tablet: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication
`Device” in Proceedings-Fall Joint Computer Conference (1964)
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 3,482,241
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,708,460
`1033 U.S. Patent No. 6,492,979
`
`– x –
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,510,813
`1035 Buxton, “Touch Gesture and Marking,” ch. 7 in Baecker, ed., Readings
`in Human-Computer Interaction (1995)
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 6,160,489
`1037
`Strong, “An Electrotactile Display,” IEEE, Trans. On Man-Machine
`Sys., mms-11:1 (Mar. 1970)
`1038 Massie, “Initial Haptic Explorations with the Phantom: Virtual Touch
`Through Point Interaction” MIT Thesis (1996)
`1039 Bliss, “Optical-to-Tactile Image Conversion for the Blind,” IEEE, Trans.
`On Man-Machine Sys., mms-11:1 (Mar. 1970)
`1040 European Patent Publication No. EP0265011A1
`1041 U.S. Patent No. 5,388,992
`1042
`IBM, “Mouse Ball-Actuating Device with Force and Tactile Feedback,”
`IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 32:9B (Feb. 1990)
`Fukumoto, “Active Click Tactile Feedback for Touch Panels,” CHI
`2001 Interactive Posters (2001)
`PCT Publication No. WO9200559A1
`1044
`1045 Massie, “The Phantom Haptic Interface—A Device for Probing Virtual
`Objects” in ASME, Dynamic Systems and Control (1994)
`1046 U.S. Patent No. 5,982,352
`1047 U.S. Patent No. 6,131,097
`1048 U.S. Patent No. 6,337,678
`1049 U.S. Patent No. 6,219,034
`1050 U.S. Patent No. 6,219,032
`1051 U.S. Patent No. 4,885,565
`1052 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,333
`1053 Negroponte, “HUNCH An Experiment in Sketch Recognition” in
`UCLA, Environmental Design: Research and Practice, Proceedings of
`the EDRA 3/ar 8 Conference (1972)
`
`1043
`
`– xi –
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`1054
`Foley, Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics (1982)
`(excerpts)
`1055 Buxton, “There’s More to Interaction than Meets the Eye” in Norman,
`ed., User Centered Systems Design (1986)
`1056 Rosch, “Alterative Input-Digitizing Tablets-Pointing the Way to Easier
`Input,” PC Magazine, p. 227 (Nov. 28, 1989)
`1057 U.S. Patent No. 5,491,495
`1058 Buxton, “Issues and Techniques in Touch-Sensitive Tablet Input,”
`SIGGRAPH ‘85, 19:3, 215 (1985)
`1059 U.S. Patent No. 4,202,041
`1060 U.S. Patent No. 494,562
`1061 U.S. Patent No. 5,673,066
`1062 U.S. Patent No. 5,680,126 (“Kikinis”)
`1063 U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 (“Martin”)
`1064
`J. R. Ward and M. J. Phillips, “Digitizer Technology: Performance
`Characteristics and the Effects on the User Interface,” in IEEE
`Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 31-44, April
`1987.
`1065 U.S. Patent No. 5,734,373 (“Rosenberg-373”)
`1066 U.S. Patent No. 5,053,757 (“Meadows”)
`1067
`James R. Taggart, M.S. Thesis. “Reading a Sketch by Hunch” (MIT,
`1973).
`1068 U.S. Patent No. 5,245,139 (“Protheroe”)
`1069 U.S. Patent No. 5,543,591 (“Gillespie-591”)
`1070 G.P. Kurtenbach, Dissertation. “The Design and Evaluation of Marking
`Menus,” University of Toronto, 1993.
`1071 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0162411 (“VanBerkel”)
`1072 U.S. Patent No. 5,231,381 (“Duwaer”)
`1073 U.S. Patent No. 5,117,071 (“Greanias”)
`
`– xii –
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`1074 U.S. Patent No. 6,128,007 (“Seybold”)
`1075 U.S. Patent No. 5,365,461 (“Stein”)
`1076 U.S. Patent No. 6,762,752 (“Perski”)
`1077 Dkt. 46, Order, Immersion v. Valve, No. 2:23-cv-712 (W.D. Wash.)
`1078
`Immersion infringement contentions in Immersion v. Valve, No. 2:23-
`cv-712 (W.D. Wash.)
`Exhibit B to Immersion infringement contentions in Immersion v. Valve,
`No. 2:23-cv-712 (W.D. Wash.)
`1080 Dkt. 15, Proof of Service, Immersion v. Valve, No. 2:23-cv-712 (W.D.
`Wash.)
`
`1079
`
`
`
`
`
`– xiii –
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest – §42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner Valve Corporation (“Valve” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters – §42.8(b)(2)
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,749,507 (“the ’507 patent”) was filed on April 6, 2012 as
`
`Application No. 13/441,108. The ’507 patent claims priority to Application No.
`
`10/723,778, which was filed on November 26, 2003 and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,164,573 on April 24, 2012. The ’507 patent expired on November 26, 2023.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`The ’507 patent was the subject of petitions in Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`
`IPR2016-01777 and Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2017-01310.
`
`3. District Court Matters
`
`a. Western District of Washington
`
`The ’507 patent is asserted in Immersion Corp. v. Valve Corp., 2:23-cv-
`
`00712-TL (W.D. Wash.) (“the Litigation”). Valve was served with the complaint
`
`on May 18, 2023.
`
`– xiv –
`
`

`

`b. District of Delaware
`
`The ’507 patent was asserted in Immersion Corp. v. Apple Inc., AT&T Inc.,
`
`and AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:16-cv-325 (D. Del.). The court dismissed the action
`
`in its entirety with prejudice on February 7, 2018.
`
`4.
`
`International Trade Commission
`
`The ’507 patent was at issue In the Matter of Certain Mobile and Portable
`
`Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops)
`
`and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1004, on the basis of a complaint filed
`
`May 5, 2016 on behalf of Immersion concerning the ’507 patent and four other
`
`Immersion patents. The Chief ALJ consolidated the investigation with No. 337-TA-
`
`990, previously instituted against Apple and others concerning three other
`
`Immersion patents, and recaptioned the matter as Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1004, 337-TA-
`
`990 (consolidated). The ALJ granted a joint motion to terminate on the basis of
`
`settlement agreement on February 16, 2018 (Order No. 75). See generally 83 Fed.
`
`Reg. 12405 (Mar. 21, 2018) (describing consolidated investigations and settlement).
`
`
`
`
`
`– xv –
`
`

`

`C. Counsel and Service Information – §§42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Nathan R. Speed (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`rgiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Service Information E-Mail:
`
`awichman-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`617-646-8000
`617-646-8646
`
`Post & Hand-
`Delivery:
`
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`– xvi –
`
`

`

`Petitioner requests inter partes review of ’507 patent claims 1-18 (“challenged
`
`claims”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’507 patent claims providing haptic feedback responsive to determining
`
`a user’s gesture on a touch-sensitive input device like a touchpad or touchscreen.
`
`The gesture may be, e.g., a press or tap, and can simulate a mouse button click.
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner (“Immersion”) overcame claim rejections by
`
`adding limitations reciting specific criteria to determine the gesture. But
`
`Immersion’s gesture-recognition techniques were well-known.
`
`Ground 1 (Astala+Shahoian). Astala (EX1005) discloses the claimed
`
`gesture determination techniques. Astala’s system does not provide haptic feedback,
`
`but that was known. Shahoian (EX1006)—an Immersion application—published
`
`more than a year before Immersion filed the ’507 patent, making it indisputable prior
`
`art. Shahoian discloses haptic feedback for touchpads and touchscreens, and the
`
`pressure-sensing components recited in various dependent claims. Astala+Shahoian
`
`renders claims 1-18 obvious.
`
`Ground 2
`
`(Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov). Keely
`
`(EX1007) describes
`
`determining a press-and-hold gesture on a touchpad and providing haptic feedback.
`
`Kolmykov-Zotov
`
`(EX1008)
`
`improves Keely’s press-and-hold determining
`
`techniques. Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov renders claims 1, 6-9, 13-14, and 18 obvious.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Ground 3 (Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov+Shahoian). Keely and Kolmykov-
`
`Zotov do not describe implementation details recited in certain dependent claims
`
`relating to known pressure sensors.
`
` Shahoian does.
`
` Keely+Kolmykov-
`
`Zotov+Shahoian renders claims 2-5, 10-12, and 15-17 obvious.
`
`II.
`
`STANDING CERTIFICATION
`
`The ’507 patent is available for IPR. Petitioners are neither barred nor
`
`estopped from requesting IPR. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a).
`
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`1
`Astala+Shahoian
`2
`Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov
`3
`Keely+Kolmykov-Zotov+Shahoian
`
`Claim(s)
`1-18
`1, 6-9, 13-14, 18
`2-5, 10-12, 15-17
`
`Basis
`§103(a)
`§103(a)
`§103(a)
`
`
`
`The above-identified references are prior art under at least pre-AIA §§102(a),
`
`(b), and/or (e) based on their filing and publication dates:
`
`Reference
`Astala
`Shahoian
`Keely
`Kolmykov-Zotov
`
`
`Filing
`2000-10-20
`2000-01-19
`2001-03-23
`2003-06-09
`
`Publication
`2003-07-08
`2002-03-21
`2002-05-16
`2007-08-14
`
`Basis
`§§102(a), 102(e)
`§102(b)
`§102(b)
`§102(e)
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`’507 PATENT1
`
`The ’507 patent is directed to interpreting inputs received from a touch-
`
`sensitive input device (1:25-27) like a touchpad, touch panel, or touchscreen (1:33-
`
`35, 2:39-41, Fig. 1). The ’507 patent describes “accurately determining [user] intent
`
`based on data [from] a touch-sensitive input device.” 2:1-3.
`
`
`Touchpad 102 senses a stylus (or finger) contacting the surface of the
`
`touchpad 102, and sends parameters indicating the X/Y position and pressure of the
`
`contact to processor 106. 2:41-45, 3:51-52. The detected pressure may be a “pseudo
`
`pressure or Z parameter” (which is “an estimation” of “vertical displacement” of the
`
`touchpad surface “based on the size” of a change in capacitance) rather than a “direct
`
`measure of pressure” or “a measure of the actual vertical displacement” on the
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, Section IV citations reference EX1001.
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`touchpad 102. 3:10-19. The pseudo pressure “may not accurately represent the
`
`amount of pressure actually exerted on the touchpad 102” because the sensed
`
`capacitance change varies based on factors other than pressure (e.g., size of the
`
`user’s finger). 3:19-39. “[O]ther embodiments” may sense “actual pressure” by
`
`using an “explicit pressure sensor.” 2:61-63.
`
`The claims determine user intent from position (X/Y) and pressure (Z)
`
`parameters reflecting the user/touchpad interaction. 4:56-58. Determining user
`
`intent means recognizing a gesture from the sensed parameters. Figure 3 shows
`
`determining particular user “gestures” (e.g., tapping 310, pressing 326) from the
`
`touchpad’s user-interaction data. Fig. 3, 7:7-32, 8:5-50.
`
` Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-18 are reproduced in the Claim List (Appendix A). Independent
`
`claim 1 is reproduced below with limitation labels added:
`
`1[PRE] A method comprising:
`
`[1A] receiving contact data from an input device;
`
`
`
`
`
`[1B] determining an interaction with a displayed object on a screen
`based on the contact data;
`
`[1C] responsive to determining the interaction, determining a gesture
`based on the contact data comprising:
`
`[1D] determining a pressure and a change in pressure based on the
`contact data, and
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`[1E] determining a press if:
`
`[1E1] the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold,
`[1E2] the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure
`threshold, and,
`[1E3] a first interval has elapsed; and,
`[1F] responsive to determining the gesture, outputting a haptic effect.
`
`Claim 9 recites a computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for implementing
`
`
`
`
`claim 1’s method. Claim 14 recites a processor communicating with a CRM and
`
`configured to perform claim 1’s method. Dependent claims add limitations on
`
`contact data (claims 2-5) and “gesture” analysis (claims 6-8). Dependent claims 10-
`
`13 (CRM) and 15-18 (system) add limitations similar to those in claims 2-4 and 6.
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’507 patent issued from Application No. 13/441,108 (EX1002, 429)—a
`
`continuation of Application No. 10/723,778 (“’778-App”), filed November 26, 2003
`
`(Id., 11).
`
`The Examiner rejected application-claim 1 as anticipated by Patent No.
`
`6,118,435 (“Fujita”). EX1002, 320. In response, Immersion added limitations [1E]
`
`and [1E1]-[1E3] (EX1002, 344) and argued that “Fujita does not disclose or suggest
`
`‘comparing a change in pressure to a change in pressure thre