PTAB

IPR2017-01371

Apple Inc v. Immersion Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Method and Apparatus For Providing Tactile Sensations
Brief Description: The ’488 patent discloses methods and systems for providing haptic feedback on an electronic device. The haptic effects are generated based on the amount of pressure a user applies to an input device or the position of the user’s input.

Prior Art Relied Upon: JP725 (Japanese Published Application No. H11-212725).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that JP725 discloses all elements of the challenged claims. JP725 describes an information display system, such as for an ATM or PDA, with a touch panel that provides haptic feedback (vibrations) using piezoelectric elements. Its control circuit detects both the location and the force of a touch, compares the force against multiple pre-set thresholds (e.g., Fh1, Fh2, Fh3), and selects a specific haptic effect from a lookup table based on the determined force range. For example, a pressure below threshold Fh2 triggers a first haptic effect (S11), while a pressure between Fh2 and Fh3 triggers a second, different haptic effect (S12). This system directly maps to the core limitations of the independent claims requiring a processor, a sensor, an actuator, and the generation of different haptic effects based on pressure relative to at least two thresholds.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground. Petitioner asserted JP725 alone renders the claims obvious.

Prior Art Relied Upon: JP725, Roysden (Patent 5,575,576).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims reciting a "standard 101-key keyboard" configuration. Petitioner asserted that JP725 teaches displaying a plurality of softkeys (e.g., a numeric keypad for an ATM). Roysden teaches the known desirability of using the standard 101-key IBM keyboard layout for user familiarity and efficiency.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to improve the usability of JP725’s system for applications requiring alphanumeric entry. Implementing the softkeys of JP725 with the standard 101-key layout taught by Roysden was a predictable design choice to leverage user familiarity with standard PC keyboards.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as it involved programming a known, standardized key layout onto the configurable software-driven display of JP725.

Prior Art Relied Upon: JP725, Gettemy (Patent 9,489,018).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted apparatus claims requiring an input device that is "moveable to the first position upon application of a first pressure... and moveable to the second position upon application of a second pressure." Petitioner argued for modifying JP725’s device with the screen configuration taught by Gettemy. Gettemy discloses placing a touch sensor beneath the display panel, rather than on top of it. JP725 discloses using piezoelectric films mounted on elastic bodies (e.g., springs) beneath its touch panel. When modifying JP725 with Gettemy's superior display-on-top configuration, these elastic bodies would support the entire display assembly, causing it to physically move to different positions proportional to the applied pressure.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to adopt Gettemy's configuration to solve known optical problems inherent in JP725’s design, such as parallax distortion and reduced brightness, which Gettemy explicitly addresses.
- Expectation of Success: Success was expected, as the combination involved integrating two known types of display/sensor technologies to achieve the predictable benefit of improved display quality.

Prior Art Relied Upon: JP725, Gettemy, and Westerman (Patent 6,323,846).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built on the JP725/Gettemy combination to further address limitations requiring a "pressure calculator to calculate an amount of pressure based upon an amount of area of the interface object in contact with the display panel." Westerman discloses a capacitive multi-touch sensor that calculates pressure based on the area of contact.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Gettemy expressly teaches using a "commercially available" capacitive sensor from FingerWorks, Inc., the assignee of the Westerman patent. A POSITA seeking to implement Gettemy’s suggestion would have been directly led to Westerman’s teachings to understand the sensor’s functionality, including its ability to calculate pressure based on contact area.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in using the functionalities (area-based pressure calculation) of a specifically recommended component (the FingerWorks sensor) within the combined JP725/Gettemy system.

"single interaction": Petitioner argued that the claims do not contain a "single interaction" limitation. The claims do not require multiple distinct haptic effects to be generated during one continuous user touch, and should be construed more broadly to cover haptic effects generated over separate interactions.
"cause a first haptic effect if the pressure is less than a first pressure threshold": Petitioner contended this limitation only requires that a haptic effect is caused for at least one pressure value below the threshold. A construction requiring the effect for all pressures below the threshold would illogically include zero pressure and would improperly read out a preferred embodiment from the patent’s specification.
"input device moveable to the first position...": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of this term to encompass microscopic deflections of a touchscreen surface upon the application of pressure, consistent with the Patent Owner’s own infringement theories in co-pending litigation.

Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued that claims 25-28 were not entitled to the provisional application’s priority date of November 1, 2001. Petitioner asserted the provisional application lacked written description support for key limitations in these claims, such as a processor configured for specific signal processing and a display panel configured to receive tactile sensations. This contention, if successful, establishes Gettemy as §102(e) prior art to these claims.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §315(d) or §325(d) would be improper. This petition was only the second filed against the ’488 patent and addressed new claims not previously challenged. Therefore, it did not overwhelm the Patent Owner, and the Board had previously permitted second petitions under similar circumstances.

Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-28 of the ’488 patent as unpatentable.