PTAB

IPR2015-01173

Apple Inc v. Global Touch Solutions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Touch Sensor And Location Indicator Circuits
  • Brief Description: The ’970 patent describes an electronic module, such as an intelligent battery, for use with a product like a flashlight. The module uses a microchip-controlled switch (e.g., a touch sensor) that operates on a low-current signal and does not form a serial link in the main power circuit, thereby avoiding the wear and high-current failures associated with conventional mechanical switches. The microchip also enables intelligent features like providing battery status via a visible indicator and automatic shut-off.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-12, 14, 19, 48, and 49 are obvious over Beard in view of Rathmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beard (Patent 5,898,290) and Rathmann (Patent 5,955,869).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beard taught the core elements of independent claim 1. Beard disclosed an intelligent battery pack with a microchip, a touch-sensor switch that serves as a user interface but is not in the main power path to the load, and a microchip-controlled luminous indicator (LEDs) to show battery status. The indicator could be activated even when the battery was not in the host device, meaning the load was not activated. Rathmann was argued to provide further detail on the software and algorithms for controlling such a smart battery system, specifically its disclosure of the "Duracell Battery Operating System" (DBOS).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Beard and Rathmann because both patents addressed the same problem: enabling a user to check the charge status of a battery pack for a portable device. Beard provided the essential hardware concepts, while Rathmann provided complementary and more detailed software implementation using the same type of microcontroller disclosed in Beard. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the detailed software routines from Rathmann on the hardware system of Beard to achieve a more robust and feature-complete product with an efficient development process.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the references disclosed compatible technologies, including the same type of 8-bit RISC microcontroller, and were directed to solving the same technical problem.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 13, 51, and 52 are obvious over Beard in view of Rathmann and Danielson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beard (Patent 5,898,290), Rathmann (Patent 5,955,869), and Danielson (Patent 5,710,728).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Danielson to the combination of Beard and Rathmann to teach limitations related to the host device. Danielson, which shares an inventor with Beard, disclosed a portable data terminal (the host device) designed to be powered by the battery pack of Beard. Petitioner argued Danielson taught the additional limitations of a user interface with "multiple switches and/or buttons" (e.g., a keyboard) for claim 4, and the presence of "radio frequency (RF) circuitry" for claims 13 and 51. For method claim 52, Danielson was argued to provide specific details on how the microchip controls the connection of power to the load, particularly in low-battery situations, complementing the disclosures of Beard and Rathmann.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Beard and Rathmann to create an intelligent battery pack, would naturally look to Danielson to understand its implementation and interaction with a compatible host device. Because Danielson was created by the same company (Norand), shared a common inventor (Mr. Beard), and described a device specifically designed for use with the Beard battery pack, it provided a real-world, compatible example. This combination would allow a POSITA to implement a complete, functional system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be a predictable integration of complementary technologies. The battery pack from Beard and Rathmann was designed for a host device like that in Danielson, ensuring a high degree of compatibility and a clear expectation of successful integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "energy consuming load": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: "any part of the product that consumes energy when the product is used." This construction is supported by the specification's examples (e.g., a flashlight bulb) and contemporaneous dictionary definitions.
  • "mains": Petitioner asserted this term, used in the limitation "the product is not connected to a mains supply," should be construed as "a power source provided by a main distribution network, such as a utility." This construction distinguishes from a battery and is based on the specification's distinction between battery-operated flashlights and wall switches, as well as dictionary definitions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 10-14, 19, 48, 49, 51, and 52 of the ’970 patent as unpatentable.