UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2024-01091
`Patent No. 10,936,114
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01091 | Smith EX2008 | Page 1 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 1
`III. COMPENSATION .............................................................................................. 7
`IV. LEGAL CONSIDERATION ............................................................................... 8
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 8
`B. Claim Interpretation ...................................................................................... 9
`V. OVERVIEW OF TASK & BASIS FOR OPINIONS .......................................10
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’114 PATENT ..............................................................11
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures ..............................................................11
`B.
`Independent Claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 .........................................................18
`C.
`Independent Claims 30 and 62 ....................................................................19
`VII.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.........................................20
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ...........................................................21
`A. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0302281 to Kim (“Kim”) ..21
`B. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0273571 to Bowens
`(“Bowens”) ...........................................................................................................26
`C. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0156818 to Burrough
`(“Burrough”) ........................................................................................................28
`IX. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ...........................................................................30
`A.
`“Conditional” Limitations: Claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 ..................................30
`1.
`[A] / [The] Gesture and Magnitude Of [A] / [The] Duration of The
`Gesture ...............................................................................................................30
`2.
`Conditional Claims Are Not Optional ....................................................34
`3.
`Answers To The Board’s Specific Questions (Paper 10) .......................35
`X. CLAIMS 1, 32, 34, AND 64: “[THE] GESTURE BEING DETECTED” .......37
`A.
`Petitioner Maps “[T]he Gesture Being Detected” Limitations To Three
`Different Gestures ................................................................................................37
`B.
`Petitioner’s Mapping Of The “Duration Of The Gesture” Limitation ........40
`1.
`Plain meaning of “duration of the gesture” ............................................40
`2.
`Petitioner’s mapping of “the duration of the gesture” ............................44
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`Petitioner’s mapping of Limitations [1.g] and [1.i] does not result in
`3.
`performance of a “scaling” and performance of “another operation” ...............46
`C.
`These “Gesture” and “Duration” Defects Are Present in All Grounds of All
`of Claims 1, 32, 34 and 64 ...................................................................................49
`XI. CLAIMS 1, 32, 34 AND 64: “AN OPERATION/FUNCTION” AND
`“ANOTHER OPERATION/FUNCTION” ..............................................................50
`A. The Petition Does Not Demonstrate that Performance of the Mapped
`“Operation/Function” Occurs “When”/“Based On”/“In Response To” “a
`Duration of the Gesture” “is Less Than A First Magnitude Threshold” .............50
`B.
`The Petition Does Not Demonstrate That Performance of the Mapped
`“Another Operation/Function” Occurs “When”/“Based On”/“In Response To”
`“the Duration of the Gesture Being Detected” “is Greater Than a Second
`Magnitude Threshold” .........................................................................................53
`1.
`Petitioner’s Ground 1 Mapping ..............................................................55
`2.
`Petitioner’s Ground 2 Mapping ..............................................................57
`C.
`The “Second Magnitude Threshold” is Greater Than the “First Magnitude
`Threshold” ............................................................................................................59
`XII.
`CLAIMS 30 AND 62 (GROUNDS 1C, 1D, 2C AND 2D): NO
`APPROPRIATE BASIS TO ADD HAPTIC FEEDBACK TO KIM’S DOUBLE
`TAP GESTURE .......................................................................................................62
`XIII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................66
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 69
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`My name is Dr. Vijay Madisetti. I have been retained by Smith
`
`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`
`Interface Technologies, LLC as an independent expert consultant in this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”) regarding US Patent No. 10,936,114 (“the ’114 Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are based on my own
`2.
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, and researching
`
`the technology referenced in this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of my
`
`current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and academic
`
`experience, is being submitted as EX2009. The following provides a brief overview
`
`of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Technology (Honors) in Electronics and
`
`Electrical Communication Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in
`
`Kharagpur, India in 1984. I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science at the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. I received the
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of
`
`California, Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`5.
`
`I am now a tenured Full Professor in the Colleges of Computing and
`
`Engineering at Georgia Tech and serve as its representative to the European
`
`Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI). I am knowledgeable and familiar
`
`with topics including software engineering, web applications, cloud computing, user
`
`interface design, data analytics, wireless communications, messaging protocols,
`
`microprocessor architecture, hardware, RF, cellular networks, computer
`
`engineering, digital signal processing, and associated software and firmware
`
`design—including
`
`software
`
`and
`
`firmware
`
`design
`
`for wireless
`
`and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations in general and ETSI/3GPP/3GPP2
`
`standards based cellular architecture and infrastructure in particular. I have created
`
`and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in hardware and software design for
`
`computer science and engineering applications at Georgia Tech for the past thirty
`
`years. I have been the principal investigator (“PI”) or co‐PI in several active research
`
`programs in these areas, including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of Application
`
`Specific Signal Processors, the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United
`
`States Army’s Federated Sensors Laboratory Program, and the United States Air
`
`Force Electronics Parts Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty
`
`Award and NSF’s Research Initiation Award.
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`6.
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks such as wireless
`
`audio/video processing and messaging/protocol processing for portable platforms,
`
`such as cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants. I also developed UIs for tools
`
`for electronic design automation of complex chipsets and their reverse engineering
`
`processes for the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin and Boeing in the late 1990s
`
`and early 2000s. I have worked on designing systems that are efficient from
`
`performance, size, weight, area, and thermal considerations. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design were developed under the sponsorship of the
`
`United States Department of Defense in the late 1990s and have been used by several
`
`U.S. and international universities as part of their course work. I graduated more
`
`than 20 Ph.D. students that now work as professors or in technical positions around
`
`the world.
`
`7.
`
`Over the years, I have been an active consultant to industry and various
`
`research laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Labs
`
`and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). As part of that
`
`involvement in the industry, I have been actively involved in product development.
`
`For example, in the early 2000‐2001 timeframe I designed three GSM multiband
`
`mobile phones for a leading telecom equipment manufacturer in Asia, and in the
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`2002-2007 timeframe, I developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software
`
`and assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo‐cancellation and for another in the
`
`optimization of their 3G software stack. My work in this regard included creation of
`
`software code, and analysis and revision of existing software code.
`
`8.
`
`I have also founded three companies in the areas of embedded software,
`
`military chipsets involving imaging technology, and wireless communications. The
`
`first of these companies, VP Technologies, offers computing systems for helicopter
`
`imaging systems for the United States Air Force. The second of these companies,
`
`Soft Networks, LLC, offers software for multimedia and wireless computing
`
`platforms, including the development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-
`
`2 video streams and imaging codes for multimedia phones. The third of these
`
`companies, Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding to capture
`
`high quality video at low bit rates, with primary application for wireless video
`
`systems. I also have extensive experience developing user interfaces for products.
`
`Recent examples of such work include my work developing a crypto exchange
`
`prototype, and my work on a web-based document management environment, called
`
`CatchUp, which is now commercialized as CatchUp Cloud (https://catchup.cloud).
`
`9.
`
`I have authored more than 110 refereed journal publications and around
`
`forty peer-reviewed conference publications. I have served as associate editor or on
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`the editorial board for technical journals, including IEEE Transactions on Circuits
`
`& Systems II, International Journal in Computer Simulation, and International
`
`Journal in VLSI Signal Processing. I have also authored or co‐authored several
`
`books, including VLSI Digital Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital
`
`Signal Processing Handbook (CRC Press, 1998, 2010). I also co‐authored Quick‐
`
`Turnaround ASIC Design in VHDL (Kluwer Academic Press 1996) and Platform‐
`
`Centric Approach to System‐on‐Chip (SoC) Design (Springer 2004). I am also the
`
`editor of several books, including the three‐volume DSP Handbook set: Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals, Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards, and Volume 3: Wireless, Networking,
`
`Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing, published in
`
`2010 by CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. More recently I have authored Cloud
`
`Computing (2014, CreateSpace Press), and Internet of Things (2014, CreateSpace),
`
`and the book, Cloud Computing, was nominated as a Notable Book of 2014 by the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) in July 2015.
`
`10.
`
`I have worked in the area of user interfaces over the past twenty years
`
`as part of my extensive development in mobile and portable applications for mobile
`
`phones and portable devices since the early 2000 timeframe. I developed commercial
`
`products for leading companies, and was part of the team that developed the user
`
`interfaces for a Soft Switch, called SNX 8500, that provides voice and VOIP services
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`for enterprises. In addition to authoring textbooks and research papers in the area of
`
`wireless messaging interfaces, I have developed web-based document management
`
`systems and web-based fintech applications. I have submitted approximately 100
`
`invention disclosures and provisional patents over the past ten years. I am listed as
`
`a first inventor on over thirty issued US patents, and am listed as an inventor on
`
`several patents related to wireless messaging. Many of my patents also disclose
`
`techniques for efficient user interface design including use of multilevel hierarchies
`
`and other UI innovations in the area of user interfaces for work environments.
`
`11. Additionally, I have extensive experience analyzing, designing, and
`
`testing systems based on 3GPP Technical Specifications, including specifications
`
`describing WCDMA and HSDPA technologies. I have been active in the area of
`
`location‐based services and wireless localization techniques since the mid‐1990s,
`
`and have authored several papers on location‐based services, including, Vijay K.
`
`Madisetti et al., Mobile Fleet Application Using SOAP and System on Devices
`
`(SyD) Middleware Technologies, Communications, Internet, and Information
`
`Technology (2002) at 426‐31.
`
`12.
`
`I have been extensively involved in the activities of one of the premier
`
`standard setting organizations in the world, the IEEE, since the 1980s, and was a
`
`member of the IEEE Press Board from 1995-1997. I was the Technical Program
`
`Chair of IEEE ICASSP in 1996. I was also the Associate Editor of IEEE
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`Transactions on Circuits & Systems II from 1994 to 1997. I am also the director of
`
`the IEEE Atlanta Chapter, and the author of several drafts of IETF proposals in the
`
`area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming over the internet. I have been elected a
`
`Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest grade of membership of the IEEE, a
`
`world professional body consisting of over 300,000 electrical and electronics
`
`engineers, with only one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the IEEE membership being
`
`elected to the Fellow grade each year. Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast
`
`by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded VHDL International Best Ph.D. Dissertation
`
`Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF RI Award in 1990. I was Technical Program
`
`Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and the IEEE Workshop on Parallel
`
`and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989, I was recognized with the Ira Kay
`
`IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper presented at the IEEE Annual
`
`Simulation Symposium.
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`14. My work on this matter is being billed at my customary rate of $700 an
`
`hour. Also, I am being reimbursed for reasonable expenses I incur in relation to my
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`services. I have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I understand
`
`I will be paid regardless of the outcome of any proceeding in which my work is used.
`
`IV. LEGAL CONSIDERATION
`I am not an attorney. My understanding of the law is based on
`15.
`
`information provided by counsel for Smith Interface Technologies, LLC.
`
`A. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is obvious and, therefore, not
`16.
`
`patentable if the subject matter claimed would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention of the ’114 Patent (a
`
`“POSITA”), which I have been asked to treat as August 5, 2011.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in view of a single prior art
`
`reference (e.g., via modification of that prior art reference) or multiple prior art
`
`references (e.g., via a combination of two or more prior art references), if such a
`
`modification or combination was within the skill of a POSITA. I understand that
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`a conclusion of obviousness. I also understand that to establish a finding of
`
`obviousness one must show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`motivation to combine the prior art references to produce the claimed invention and
`
`a reasonable expectation that the combination would be successful.
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`I further understand that exemplary rationales that may support a
`
`18.
`
`conclusion of obviousness include: (1) simply arranging old elements in a way in
`
`which each element performs the same function it was known to perform, and the
`
`arrangement yields expected results, (2) merely substituting one element for another
`
`known element in the field, if the substitution yields no more than a predictable
`
`result, (3) combining elements in a way that was “obvious to try” because of a design
`
`need or market pressure, where there was a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, (4) that design incentives or other market forces in a field would have
`
`prompted variations in a work that were predictable to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (5) that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led a POSITA to modify or combine prior art references to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`I understand that a claim term is interpreted according to its ordinary
`19.
`
`and customary meaning as a POSITA would have understood the term in light of the
`
`surrounding claim language, other claims, the specification, and the patent’s
`
`prosecution history, which are referred to as intrinsic evidence. I also understand
`
`that prior art references cited in the patent’s prosecution history are considered
`
`intrinsic evidence. I further understand that evidence outside the patent and its
`
`prosecution history (e.g., dictionaries and technical articles), may inform the context
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`in which a POSITA would have understood the claims of a patent. I understand this
`
`ordinary and customary meaning applies absent unique circumstances, such as
`
`where a patent clearly expresses an intent to set forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF TASK & BASIS FOR OPINIONS
`I have been asked to review the ’114 Patent. I have been asked to
`20.
`
`provide opinions related to certain issues from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill, having knowledge of the relevant art, as of August 5, 2011, and—except where
`
`otherwise noted—the opinions stated in this declaration are from that perspective.
`
`The qualifications and abilities of such a person are described in Section VII below.
`
`21. More particularly, I have been informed that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “Board”) will decide whether the Petition establishes by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that at least one claim of the ’114 Patent is invalid. I
`
`have been asked to focus my analysis on the Petition’s proposed invalidity theories
`
`related to the challenged claims of the ’114 Patent.
`
`22. My opinions are based on my education, training, and experience as
`
`well as items that I reviewed to prepare my opinions, including the Petition, the
`
`documents listed in the Exhibit List included with the Petition, the deposition of Dr.
`
`Cockburn, and any other items that I reference in my analysis below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that other issues may arise that require further explanation,
`
`and I will provide that explanation if appropriate. As a result, I respectfully reserve
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`the right to update and supplement this declaration and the information and opinions
`
`provided herein.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’114 PATENT
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures
`24. At the time of the ’114 Patent’s priority date, touch screen mobile
`
`devices were becoming increasingly capable of more complex tasks that required
`
`more control than possible with traditional, basic input methods. As more capable
`
`and precise sensors were being placed in mobile devices, the corresponding options
`
`for designers were increasing.
`
`25. Additionally, advancements in cellular connectivity speed enabled
`
`more complex tasks on touch screen mobile devices such as gaming and more
`
`detailed remote office tasks. The introduction of 4G networks offered up to ten times
`
`faster speeds. Greater cellular speeds not only enabled enhanced multi-player
`
`gaming but also enabled users on the go to more readily access games, which in turn
`
`increased demand for mobile games. In person interactions with mobile phone users
`
`partly drove this demand. For example, when a user would show another user a game
`
`they had found, the second person would desire immediate access on their own
`
`mobile device. This immediate access was facilitated by greater cellular speeds
`
`leading to higher adoption rates. Remote office work performed on mobile devices
`
`also increased with increasing cellular speeds. Increased cellular speeds enabled
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`easier document access (e.g. presentations) on mobile devices. This in turn increased
`
`demand for modifying those documents on the go. The spread of mobile gaming and
`
`games as well as increased out of office work possibilities led to increasing
`
`capabilities for more complex tasks that required advancements over basic input
`
`methods.
`
`26. Further, limited screen real estate meant that input and output
`
`techniques used for more complex tasks on desktop computers could not be used.
`
`The ’114 Patent addresses this shortcoming by enabling users to operate these new
`
`powerful mobile devices, which had less real estate, and their feature-rich
`
`applications through implementation of multi-part gestures where users can take
`
`successive actions and receive feedback at each stage.
`
`27. The ’114 Patent describes these multi-part, multi-action gestures as
`
`“pattern-based gestures” that “may be recognized in the form of an ordered
`
`sequence” by, for example, “using a decision tree.” EX1001, 75:24-26; EX2010,
`
`[00581]. The “pattern-based gesture” may be defined as “a path through a phase
`
`space of one or more dimensions.” EX1001, 73:27-29; EX2010, [00564]. Exemplary
`
`“pattern-based gesture[s] 2302” are “described by a phase space path which
`
`represents the time evolution of the touch state associated with a contact point” on
`
`the touch screen. EX1001, 73:41-44; EX2010, [00566].
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 23; EX2010, FIG. 28. Each state, and transitions between states, may
`
`be defined by factors including “contact point changes” and “the time spent on each
`
`leg of the path through phase space.” EX1001, 73:47-74:7; EX2010, [00567]-
`
`[00570]. Consistent with the “decision tree” aspect of these pattern-based gestures,
`
`multiple patterns may share the same starting (and intermediate) points. EX1001,
`
`75:24-26; EX2010, [00581]. Consistent internal device logic is important to keep a
`
`user engaged and appropriately aware of the response for a desired task. A user
`
`wishing to execute a final action contingent on a previous device state would be
`
`unsuccessful if the device did not predictably follow a decision tree. Predictability
`
`in starting and intermediate points is enabled by decision tree logic.
`
`28. To detect these pattern-based gestures, the ’918 Provisional, which the
`
`’114 Patent incorporates by reference (EX1001, 1:22-24), discloses techniques for
`
`“gesture differentiation,” which is distinguished from simply detecting a “basic user
`
`interaction (i.e., button press, basic application interaction, etc.).” EX2010, [00498],
`
`[00502]. The process begins by “determine[ing] whether there is any meaningful
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`user input,” including applying a “threshold above which user interaction may rise
`
`before it may be deemed meaningful.” EX2010, [00501]-[00502]. Detecting the
`
`gesture may involve “gesture subject matter context,” including “objects displayed
`
`at or near the location of the gesture.” EX2010, [00512]. For example, the starting
`
`point may be the beginning of a touch contact at a particular location of a specific
`
`object on the touch screen. EX2010, [00512]. A touch-capable device offers a user
`
`the ability to input at a desired location on the touch screen. The ability for a user to
`
`pick from a variety of locations on a touch-capable device requires device logic to
`
`start a decision tree with a detected user touch contact at a specific location. This
`
`location often corresponds to a desired object like an application. This location could
`
`also refer to other objects that a user would recognize that interacting with could lead
`
`to a desired result.
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`
`
`
`EX2010, FIG. 24.
`
`29. Again, as indicated by the flow chart, multiple complete full patterns
`
`may share the same starting (and intermediate) points. From the flow chart, the start
`
`of a pattern begins with gathering input at block 2402. Further blocks, for example
`
`block 2406, describe gesture notation, components, and attributes. This reveals that
`
`the input gathering at one location could be at the same location based on later
`
`defined features of that input. Furthermore, the steps of the flow chart illustrate that
`
`a gesture pattern involves multiple steps that may share the same starting point as
`
`well as intermediate points. For example, a different gestures or input type at the
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`same location would thus share the same starting point. Other examples consistent
`
`with the ’114 patent could include a common starting point in a pressure level. In
`
`both instances, the logic of the device analyzes a parameter associated with user
`
`contact. The same pressure level again could be the same starting point. Consistent
`
`with the multi-part nature, the device may perform “intermediate operations
`
`associated with the identified gesture.” EX2010, [00521]. “[E]ach execution of
`
`intermediate gesture operations may trigger a display update (i.e. rendering, etc.).”
`
`EX2010, [00512]. [00524]. One purpose of these intermediate gestures is so “a user
`
`may receive feedback on their gesture before terminating the interaction.” EX2010,
`
`[00522].
`
`30. A “gesture may be ended by ending one or more user inputs” or “by
`
`performing a different gesture” at which time “the final operations associated with
`
`the identified gesture are performed.” EX2010, [00526]-[00528]. “For example, in
`
`one embodiment, a gesture which triggers the display of a pop-up menu and allows
`
`a user to cycle through menu items may have as a final operation the selection of the
`
`current menu item and removal of the pop-up menu.” EX2010, [00529].
`
`31. Consistent with the ’918 Provisional’s disclosure of detecting multi-
`
`part pattern-based gestures through gesture differentiation, the ’114 Patent describes
`
`a process by which a “gesture is identified from gesture input.” EX1001, 58:11;
`
`EX2010, [00385]. The process begins by “determin[ing] if a touch event has
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`occurred.” EX1001, 58:6; EX2010, [00383]. “If it is determined that a touch event
`
`has occurred, then the initial touch event attributes are determined.” EX1001, 58:8-
`
`9; EX2010, [00384]. Touch event attributes may include “one or more measurable
`
`aspects of the user interaction which resulted in a touch event,” EX1001, 55:1-3;
`
`EX2010, [00359], including e.g., “gesture input” from which “a gesture may be
`
`identified.” EX1001, 58:26-27; EX2010, [00388]. Such gesture inputs may include
`
`“touch event attributes” evaluated “both initial[ly] and over time.” EX1001, 58:20;
`
`EX2010, [00386]. Another example may include the “time to complete [a] gesture.”
`
`EX2010, [00403]. The ’114 Patent distinguishes between gestures that may be
`
`identified solely from initial touch event attributes and “gestures [that] may only be
`
`identified after the gesture has been performed for some period of time.” EX1001,
`
`58:28-30; EX2010, [00388].
`
`32. The ’114 Patent explains that, “[o]nce the gesture has been identified,
`
`the corresponding operation is performed.” EX1001, 58:50-51; EX2010, [00390].
`
`Identification of a gesture may include “determin[ing] whether the gesture is meant
`
`to trigger some sort of transformation,” such as a “scale” operation. EX2010,
`
`[00518]. Such transformations may be a result of a gesture “associated with
`
`operations that are carried out as functions of the gesture input.” EX1001, 60:58-60;
`
`EX2010, [00402]. The identification may also perform “intermediate operations
`
`associated with the identified gesture.” EX2010, [00521].
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`33. A corresponding operation may include “a gesture … associated with
`
`the modification of one or more device attributes.” EX1001, 59:26-27; EX2010,
`
`[00393]. For example, “a device may have a status bar along one side of a display
`
`which indicates the status of device hardware, including … Wi-Fi signal strength,
`
`cellular network type and signal strength, Bluetooth status (i.e., on, off, etc.), system
`
`volume, battery remaining, etc.” EX1001, 59:28-33; EX2010, [00393].
`
`Independent Claims 1, 32, 34, and 64
`B.
`34. Petitioner challenges independent claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 of the ’114
`
`Patent. Claims 1 and 32 are each directed to an “apparatus.” EX1001, 97:13, 107:40.
`
`Claims 34 and 64 are each directed to a “method.” EX1001, 107:40, 118:42. Claims
`
`1, 32, 34 and 64 are similar to one another.
`
`35. Claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 recite logic to process user gestures on a touch
`
`screen to recognize a set of gesture components that begin from a common starting
`
`point and perform operations upon recognizing various aspects of a gesture. The
`
`claims each recite “detect[ing] [at least one component of] a gesture [on/via] the
`
`touch screen on the [first] object.”1 Limitations [1.e], [32.e], [34.f], [64.f]. Claims 1,
`
`32, 34, and 64 then recite three logic operations:
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless specifically noted otherwise.
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 69
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-01091
`Patent 10,936,114
`“[when]/[based on]/[in response to] a magnitude of a duration of the
`
`•
`
`gesture being detected on the touch screen on the object is less than a
`
`first magnitude threshold, perform an [operation]/function],”
`
`•
`
`“[when]/[based on]/[in response to] the magnitude of the duration of
`
`the gesture being detected on the touch screen on the object is greater
`
`than the first magnitude threshold, perform a scaling … , and”
`
`•
`
`“[when]/[based on]/[in response to] the magnitude of the duration of
`
`the gesture being detected on the touch screen on the object is greater
`
`than a second magnitude threshold, perform another
`
`[operation]/[function].
`
`Limitations [1.f, 1.g, 1.i], [32.f, 32.g, 32.i], [34.g, 34.h, 34.j], [64.g, 64.h, 64.j].
`
`Independent Cl