Apple Inc v. Neodron Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00779
• Patent #: 7,903,092
• Filed: April 10, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc. & Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Neodron, Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Touch-Sensitive User Interface
• Brief Description: The ’092 patent discloses touch-sensitive user interfaces, such as capacitive keypads, and methods for determining a user's intended selection when multiple sensing areas are activated simultaneously. The invention resolves this ambiguity by assigning a predefined, position-based ranking to each sensing area and selecting the one with the highest rank or by applying a position-based weighting scheme to the output signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yasuhiro - Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 are obvious over Yasuhiro in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yasuhiro (JP 2,666,900).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yasuhiro, an uncited reference, teaches all limitations of the independent claims. Yasuhiro discloses a “non-touch switch device” with an array of capacitive sensors that solves the same problem as the ’092 patent: ambiguity from simultaneous key activation. Yasuhiro’s controller resolves this by assigning a predefined priority ranking to each switch based on its position (e.g., top-to-bottom, left-to-right). When multiple switches are activated, Yasuhiro’s controller gives "validity to" (selects) the switch with the higher priority ranking, thereby suppressing erroneous inputs from adjacent, lower-priority keys. Petitioner contended this absolute priority system inherently meets the limitation of selecting a sensing area with a smaller output signal over one with a larger output signal, as the selection is based purely on rank, not signal magnitude, once an activation threshold is met.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference in view of a POSITA's general knowledge. The motivation was to apply known principles of touch sensor design to solve the widely recognized problem of input ambiguity.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Yasuhiro's priority ranking scheme, as it is a straightforward logic-based method for resolving a common issue in touch interfaces.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yasuhiro and Houston - Claims 3-4 are obvious over Yasuhiro in view of Houston.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yasuhiro (JP 2,666,900) and Houston (Patent 6,696,985).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenges claims requiring the controller to apply "a weighting to the output signals according to the positions" of the sensing areas. Petitioner argued that while Yasuhiro teaches an absolute, non-weighted priority system, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify it using the teachings of Houston. Houston expressly addresses input ambiguity by employing a weighting algorithm that attributes greater weight to signals from the center of a contact pattern and less to those on the periphery. Claim 4 requires applying this weighting via a "scale factor," which Petitioner asserted is a simple and obvious way to implement the weighting taught by Houston.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would recognize that Yasuhiro's absolute priority scheme risks errors, such as when a high-priority key is barely grazed while a low-priority key is firmly pressed. To improve accuracy without sacrificing sensitivity, a POSITA would combine Yasuhiro’s position-based priority concept with Houston’s more nuanced weighting scheme. This modification would allow the system to prioritize keys by position but still account for significant differences in signal strength.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because implementing a weighting algorithm as taught by Houston into the logic of Yasuhiro's controller would be a straightforward software modification for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yasuhiro and Philipp - Claims 10-11 are obvious over Yasuhiro in view of Philipp.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yasuhiro (JP 2,666,900) and Philipp (Application # 2004/0008129).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring multiple sensing regions (claim 10) and a method to select between them based on output signals (claim 11). Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify Yasuhiro for use in devices where a user’s approach direction can only be assumed on one axis (e.g., vertically, but not horizontally). In such a scenario, keys in the same row would have equal priority under Yasuhiro, creating an unresolved ambiguity. Philipp teaches resolving ambiguity by simply selecting the key with the maximum signal strength. The combination results in a system where each column of keys is a separate sensing region with its own Yasuhiro-style vertical ranking. When a touch spans multiple columns, the ambiguity between the selected, equally-ranked keys from each column is resolved by applying Philipp's method—choosing the one with the higher output signal.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to apply Yasuhiro's ranking system to a device without a fixed horizontal approach (e.g., a non-handheld tablet) would need a mechanism to resolve ambiguities between keys of equal priority. The POSITA would combine Yasuhiro’s system with Philipp's well-known maximum-signal-strength method, a simple and effective solution for the remaining ambiguity.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves a two-step logic process: first applying Yasuhiro’s ranking where possible, then applying Philipp’s signal comparison as a tie-breaker. This would involve a simple expansion of Yasuhiro’s existing signal measurement capabilities.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "touch": Petitioner argued that the term "touch," as used in "touch-sensitive user interface," should be construed to mean "physical touch or close proximity." This construction was based on explicit statements in the ’092 patent specification and was critical to applying the teachings of Yasuhiro, which discloses a "non-touch" capacitive device that detects finger proximity.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 7,903,092 as unpatentable.