Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Advanced Touchscreen Gesture Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00652
• Patent #: 8,743,076
• Filed: February 29, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Advanced Touchscreen and Gesture Technology LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4-6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Sensor Array Touchscreen Recognizing Finger Flick Gesture From Spatial Pressure Distribution Profiles
• Brief Description: The ’076 patent discloses a touchpad user interface for controlling external systems. The system uses a sensor array to recognize hand contact patterns ("postures") and sequences of postures ("gestures," such as a finger flick) derived from spatial pressure distribution profiles to generate control signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Westerman and Bach - Claims 1, 4-6 are obvious over Westerman in view of Bach.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Westerman (Patent 6,323,846) and Bach (WO 90/14604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Westerman taught a multi-touch surface apparatus capable of sensing finger configurations, tracking contacts, and recognizing gestures from motion. Specifically, Westerman disclosed detecting an "accelerating...tangential motion of the touch device before the touch device is lifted," which Petitioner equated to the claimed "finger flick" gesture. Westerman further taught deriving gesture information from a sequence of proximity images, which correspond to the claimed "spatial pressure distribution profiles." However, Petitioner asserted that Westerman's display was embedded within the sensor array, not separate from it. To supply this missing element, Petitioner cited Bach, which expressly taught a transparent pressure-sensitive sensing screen designed to be placed over a visual display unit (VDU). The combination of Westerman's gesture recognition with Bach's transparent overlay allegedly met all limitations of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bach’s transparent overlay with Westerman’s gesture recognition system to achieve the well-known benefits of compactness, flexibility (e.g., reprogrammable on-screen keyboards), and improved user experience from direct manipulation. Petitioner argued that because Westerman itself taught displaying reprogrammable keys on its surface, a POSITA would have been directly motivated to look to transparent solutions like Bach to allow a user to view an underlying display.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that the combination was a straightforward implementation choice using well-known transparent conductive materials for touch surfaces. The integration of these known elements would have yielded only predictable results and was well within the skill of a POSITA.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ure, Edwards, Harrison, and Stearns - Claims 1, 4-6 are obvious over Ure in view of Edwards, in view of Harrison, in view of Stearns.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ure (Patent 5,982,302), Edwards (Patent 5,194,862), Harrison (a Jan. 1998 article, “Squeeze me, hold me, tilt me! An exploration of manipulative user interfaces.”), and Stearns (Patent 5,225,959).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination rendered the claims obvious. Ure, which incorporated Edwards by reference, disclosed a touch-sensitive input device with a transparent touch sensor array overlaid on a display, capable of detecting the location and movement of fingers. Harrison was introduced for its explicit disclosure of interpreting a "flick" on a touch-sensitive display to control functions like turning a page. Stearns was added to supply the pressure-sensing element, as it taught a transparent capacitive tactile sensor array that provides an output corresponding to applied pressure. Petitioner argued that Stearns' pressure measurements directly corresponded to the claimed "spatial pressure distribution profiles." Together, this four-part combination allegedly taught a transparent touchpad that recognized a "flick" gesture based on pressure profiles.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ure/Edwards with Harrison to implement a known and advantageous "flick" gesture to improve the functionality of Ure's device. A POSITA would further be motivated to incorporate Stearns' pressure-sensing technology to enhance the combined Ure/Harrison device. The known benefits of adding pressure sensing included identifying errant touches, enabling response to non-conductive objects like gloved fingers, and avoiding erroneous detections from environmental factors. Petitioner noted that Patent Owner had acknowledged during prosecution that pressure sensing was a known "enhancement" to touch sensor arrays.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining these known elements—a transparent touchpad, gesture recognition, and pressure sensing—was a predictable integration of complementary technologies. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Westerman alone and the three-reference combination of Ure in view of Edwards and Harrison.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "finger flick touch gesture": Petitioner proposed this term be construed under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) as "a touch gesture that comprises movement over a surface, such as right, left, up, or down." This construction was based on the specification and the Examiner's interpretation during prosecution. Petitioner argued this construction was proper for an IPR and that, in any event, the prior art taught the gesture even under Patent Owner's narrower proposed litigation construction ("touch gesture wherein the user's finger gains speed as it reaches the end"), citing Westerman's disclosure of "accelerating...tangential motion."
• "spatial pressure distribution profile(s)": For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner's proposed litigation construction of "one or more contiguous regions of contact which can vary as a user varies pressure on the screen." Petitioner did this to demonstrate that the claims were obvious even under the Patent Owner's own interpretation of this key term.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 4-6 of Patent 8,743,076 as unpatentable.