PTAB

IPR2016-00654

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Advanced Touchscreen Gesture Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sensor Array Touchscreen Recognizing Finger Flick Gesture
  • Brief Description: The ’785 patent describes touchpad user interfaces for controlling external systems. The technology uses a pressure-sensor array to sense hand contacts, recognize contact patterns ("postures"), and identify dynamic variations among them, such as a "finger flick," to produce gestures for system control.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Westerman and Bach - Claims 1 and 5-7 are obvious over Westerman in view of Bach

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Westerman (Patent 6,323,846) and Bach (International Publication No. WO 90/14604).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Westerman taught all limitations of the challenged claims except for a transparent touchpad positioned over a separate visual display. Westerman disclosed a multi-touch surface apparatus with a sensor array capable of tracking multiple finger contacts, identifying hand contacts in a sequence of proximity images, and interpreting gestures. Specifically, Westerman taught a method for continuing cursor movement based on "accelerating ... the tangential motion of the touch device before the touch device is lifted," which Petitioner equated to the claimed "finger flick gesture." Bach was cited to remedy the transparency limitation, as it expressly taught a pressure-sensitive finger pad using capacitive sensors that could be made with transparent materials to form a "superior sensing screen over a VDU [visual display unit]."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Bach’s transparent overlay with Westerman’s gesture recognition system for several known benefits. These included: (1) compactness, by freeing desk space; (2) flexibility, particularly in light of Westerman’s suggestion that a keyboard could be "reprogrammably displayed on the surface" of its device; and (3) ease of use, by allowing direct on-screen interaction. The combination was presented as a predictable solution to a known design challenge.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining a transparent touch surface with a display was a well-known technique, and using transparent conductive materials to implement Westerman's capacitive sensors was a straightforward application of existing technology.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ure, Edwards, and Harrison - Claims 1 and 5-7 are obvious over Ure in view of Edwards in view of Harrison

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ure (Patent 5,982,302), Edwards (Patent 5,194,862), and Harrison (a January 1998 article titled “Squeeze me, hold me, tilt me! An exploration of manipulative user interfaces.”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Ure, which expressly incorporated Edwards by reference, taught a transparent touch sensor array overlaid on a display window. This system could detect the location of single or multiple finger touches, create a bit-mapped image of the contact, and track movement by repeatedly scanning the array and "computing the average X and Y values." The difference between successive average values was used to generate a position-related signal for cursor movement. To supply the specific "finger flick gesture" interpretation, Petitioner cited Harrison, which taught a touch-sensitive display where a "flick" on a corner could be used to execute a page turn, explicitly disclosing the detection of a finger press, stroke direction, and release of pressure.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the Ure/Edwards system with Harrison's teachings to implement an advantageous and intuitive command gesture. Since Ure's device already tracked finger movement across a screen, applying Harrison's specific interpretation of a "flick" gesture was an obvious way to add functionality. Harrison provided the missing link of interpreting the tracked motion and liftoff (disclosed by Ure) as a specific, named command gesture that was known in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Implementing Harrison's gesture logic into Ure's touch-tracking system was presented as a routine design choice that would have yielded predictable results without undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "finger flick gesture" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to mean "a touch gesture that comprises movement over a surface, such as right, left, up, or down." This construction, based on the term's use in the prior art and the examiner's understanding during prosecution, was argued to be broader than a narrower construction requiring acceleration proposed by the Patent Owner in related litigation. Petitioner asserted the prior art met even the narrower construction but argued for the broader one under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard.
  • "contiguous region" / "contiguous region of contact" (Claims 1, 5, 6): For the purposes of the inter partes review (IPR), Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed litigation construction of "connected region." Petitioner argued this construction was met by the prior art, which disclosed methods for identifying groups of activated sensors corresponding to a single area of contact.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1 and 5-7 of Patent 8,866,785 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.