PTAB

IPR2020-00225

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Neodron Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Capacitive Sensor Device and Method for Acquiring Touch Data
  • Brief Description: The ’009 patent discloses systems and methods for acquiring touch data from a capacitive sensor array to reduce data acquisition time and power consumption. The technology operates by acquiring touch data from all sensors in a full scan during a sampling period if no touch was detected previously, and upon detecting a touch, it switches to acquiring data from only a subset of sensors located at and adjacent to the determined touch location in a partial scan.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-17 are obvious over Haim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Haim (Application # 2006/0012581).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Haim, which was not considered during prosecution, teaches all elements of the challenged claims through its disclosure of a digitizer with two distinct operating modes. Haim’s “scanning mode” is used when a touch location is unknown and samples “all the sensing elements,” which Petitioner mapped to the ’009 patent’s full-scan operation when no touch is present. Upon touch detection, Haim’s system switches to a “tracking mode” that samples only a “subset of the sensing elements” within a “tracking window” centered on the last known location, which Petitioner argued directly corresponds to the ’009 patent’s partial-scan operation. The system reverts to scanning mode when the touch is removed, mirroring the claimed logic.
    • Key Aspects: The petition emphasized that Haim’s dual-mode system was explicitly designed to “save[] processing resources by sampling only the minimum number of sensing elements,” providing the same motivation and technical functionality as the challenged ’009 patent.

Ground 2: Claims 1-17 are obvious over Seguine.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seguine (Patent 8,508,244).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative primary reference, Petitioner contended that Seguine also renders the claims obvious by disclosing a dual-mode system for “optimizing the consumption of power while maintaining performance.” Seguine’s “first mode” is active when no touch is detected and involves scanning “all sensors” over the “entire” array, which was mapped to the ’009 patent’s full scan. When a touch is detected, Seguine’s system enters a “power saving mode” where it scans only a “halo of sensors” corresponding to the touch location and an “additional perimeter of one or more ... surrounding” sensors. Petitioner argued this directly teaches the ’009 patent’s partial scan of sensors at and adjacent to the touch location.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that Seguine explicitly teaches switching from a full scan to a limited “halo” scan upon touch detection and reverting to the full scan once the touch is released, thereby teaching the complete claimed cycle of operations.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 11, and 16 are obvious over Seguine in view of Hotelling.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seguine (Patent 8,508,244) and Hotelling (Application # 2006/0097991).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring a specific mutual capacitance configuration where first lines (e.g., rows) are driven and second lines (e.g., columns) are used for measurement. While Seguine disclosed a two-dimensional grid of sensors, Petitioner used Hotelling to supply the explicit teaching of a mutual capacitance implementation. Hotelling was cited for its clear disclosure of mutual capacitance systems using one set of lines as “drive lines” through which current is driven and an orthogonal set as “sense lines” that sense capacitive coupling at their intersections.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Seguine’s power-saving, dual-mode scanning system with Hotelling’s well-known mutual capacitance architecture. Petitioner argued this would have been a simple and predictable design choice, as mutual capacitance was a known and advantageous method for implementing grid-based touch sensors like the one in Seguine, particularly for multi-touch detection.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as combining a known scanning logic (Seguine) with a standard sensor hardware configuration (Hotelling) involved applying known techniques in their conventional fields of use to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Haim or Seguine with Reynolds (Application # 2007/0109274). These grounds argued that implementing the dual-mode scanning systems in a one-dimensional sensor array, as taught by Reynolds, was a simple and known design choice for devices with specific functions like scrolling or volume control.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of Patent 8,610,009 as unpatentable under §103.