PTAB

IPR2018-00590

Fitbit Inc v. Immersion Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Haptic feedback for touchpads and other touch controls
  • Brief Description: The ’105 patent discloses haptic feedback devices, such as touch screens, that use an actuator to impart a force (e.g., vibration) directly to the touch surface. The haptic effect is generated in response to a user's selection on a graphical image displayed on the screen.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tsuji - Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 14-18 are obvious over Tsuji under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsuji (Japanese Patent Application No. H11-212725).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsuji discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Tsuji describes an "information displaying device" with a touch screen ("operating portion") that uses "bidirectional functional means" (e.g., piezoelectric elements) as actuators to vibrate the operating surface and provide "definite operation haptics" to the user. This teaches a haptic feedback device (Preamble) with a touch screen that displays an image and outputs a position signal (limitation 1[a]). Tsuji’s actuators impart force directly to the screen in response to user selection (1[b]), and this force is based on information from a microcomputer or MPU (1[c]). Petitioner further asserted that Tsuji’s disclosed piezoelectric actuators, when placed at the corners of the operating panel, would impart a force substantially parallel to the plane of the touch screen (1[d]).
    • Key Aspects: For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted Tsuji teaches actuators rigidly coupled to a housing (claim 2), inertial actuators like electromagnetic solenoids (claim 4), sensors for detecting position and pressure (claim 5), and the capability for both continuous and pulsed vibrations (claim 14). For claims related to user interfaces, Petitioner argued Tsuji’s ATM embodiment shows a menu with multiple regions (claims 15-16) and that its objective of providing varied haptics based on location and force makes it obvious to associate different menu items with different haptic effects (claim 17), including for sub-menus (claim 18).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tsuji and Barkan - Claim 6 is obvious over Tsuji in view of Barkan under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsuji (Japanese Patent Application No. H11-212725) and Barkan (Patent 5,656,804).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsuji discloses the base limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 6 depends. Claim 5 requires a sensor for motion, pressure, or position. Tsuji teaches sensors for pressure and position but does not explicitly teach a motion sensor that detects velocity. Barkan remedies this deficiency by disclosing a portable touch screen terminal that employs a "motion or acceleration detecting mechanism" to sense movement and orientation of the device. This directly teaches the additional limitation of claim 6, which requires that the sensed motion is "a velocity or a change in velocity."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Tsuji and Barkan because both references are directed to the same field of portable touch screen devices. A POSITA would have recognized Tsuji’s shortcoming in not detecting device orientation and would have been motivated to incorporate Barkan’s known solution—using a motion or acceleration sensor—to improve Tsuji’s device, a predictable and simple substitution of known elements.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding a motion sensor as taught by Barkan to the haptic device of Tsuji, as it involved applying a known technique to improve a similar device.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gemmell - Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 14-17 are obvious over Gemmell under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gemmell (PCT Application WO 92/00559).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Gemmell, which discloses an "Input Device with Tactile Feedback," teaches all limitations of the claims. Gemmell describes a computer system with a touch screen ("input means") that provides tactile feedback via a "vibrating mechanism" (e.g., solenoid, speaker coil, piezo-electric device) attached to a corner of the screen. The system tracks the touch position in two dimensions and provides feedback based on user selections processed by a workstation, meeting limitations 1[a]-[c]. Petitioner argued that the disclosed solenoid and piezo-electric actuators could be configured to impart a force parallel to the screen, meeting limitation 1[d].
    • Key Aspects: For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Gemmell teaches building the vibration mechanism into the workstation casing (claim 2), using inertial actuators like a solenoid or speaker coil (claim 4), and using a touch sensor that provides position and motion data (claim 5). Gemmell's disclosure of "continuous vibrational feedback or pulsed vibrational feedback" meets claim 14. Its system tracks "which area of the screen is touched" and varies feedback accordingly, satisfying the multiple-region requirements of claims 15-16. Finally, Gemmell's teaching that feedback for a "soft function key may be different from that given when an icon is selected" meets the different-haptic-effects requirement of claim 17.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 6 over the combination of Gemmell and Barkan. The motivation was similar to Ground 2: a POSITA would improve Gemmell’s system by incorporating Barkan’s more effective motion and acceleration sensors to track user movements.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, and 14-18 of Patent 8,059,105 as unpatentable.