Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 86

Declaration of Derek C. Walter in Support Apple's of Opening Claim Construction Brief re 85 filed by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V) (Powers, Matthew) (Filed on 5/7/2010) Modified on 5/10/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT G

Pages 1 - 4 3 UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT NORTHERN D I S T R I C T OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES R . BREYER, JUDGE ELANTECH D E V I C E S , Plaintiff,
VS.

[ ] COpy
NO. C 0 6 - 1 8 3 9 CRB

SYNAPTICS, I N C . , San Francisco, California Defendant. Friday, October 5, 2007 3:00 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: A k i n , Gump, S t r a u s s , H a u e r & F e l d , LLP 3000 El Camino Real Suite 400 Palo Alto, California 94306-2112 SEAN D e B R U l N E , E S Q . MING-TAO YANG, E S Q .

BY:

For Defendant:

BY:

M o r r i s o n a n d F o e r s t e r LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304-1018 KARL J . KRAMER, ESQ. ERIKA YAWGER, ATTORNEY

For Averatec:

BY:

Cohen & Gresser 100 Park Avenue New Y o r k C i t y , New Y o r k 1 0 0 1 7 DAMIR CEPO, E S Q . ( B y t e l e p h o n e i

R e p o r t e d b y B e l l e B a l l , CSR 8 7 8 5 , RMR, CRR O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r - US D i s t r i c t C o u r t
Beiie Ba;;, C S R, R'-viR, e R R (415j 373-2529 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2729

ELN041201

2

1
2
3
4

OCTOBER 5 , 2 0 0 7
3;00 P.M.

PROCEEDINGS

THE CLERK:
versus Synaptics.

Calling Case C-06-1839, Elantech Devices

5

6
7
8
9

Appearances, Counsel? MR. KRAMER; on behalf of Synaptics. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Karl Kramer,

With me t o d a y i s E r i k a Yawger.

MR. DeBRUINE:
for Plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
I

Good morning, Your Honor, Sean DeBruine

10
1.1

wish i t were morning, but actually,

it's

12
1.3

afternoon. MR. D e B R U I N E : things at once. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sean DeBruine for
I

I'm sorry.

Trying to do too many

14
15 16 17

Plaintiff, Elantech Devices Corporation.

will point out that

Mr. Wayne Chang from Elantech i s here i n t h e courtroom, as a r e a number of -- a partner and a number of associates from our law f i r m , b u t a r e n o t j o i n i n g me a t t h e c o u n s e l t a b l e . introduce a l l of them.
THE

18
19 20
21

And I won't

COURT:

They a r e c e r t a i n l y welcome t o move up i f

22
23
24

they would like to get a better view.
THE CLERK:
T H E COURT:

They don't have to s i t --

There is one Counsel on the line. Yes, could you i d e n t i f y yourself, please? Well, t h a t ' s okay.
rCD

25

Hung up.

We h a v e p l e n t y o f

D _ I I " , D . . 11 r~D D U D lj'(;Ut;; A-Ia"l """"", ' "'''''',

v " " l - r , tJ/ . J I v~L~~J O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

' A . - f ' ; ' "J7"") . , . : . , a

A 2730

ELN041202

3

1
2
3
4

lawyers here. MR. KRAMER: Averatec. I think t h a t ' s Mr. Cefo, representing

But he will call back. THE COURT: S h o u l d we t r y t o g e t h i m a g a i n ?

5

MR. KRAMER:
MR. DeBRUINE:

I think so.
And, Your Honor, Ming-Tao Yang i s

6
7
8

j o i n i n g me a t C o u n s e l t a b l e . THE COURT: okay. Thank you. Well,
I

don't know --

9
10 11 12
13

we w i l l s e e w h a t h a p p e n s .
MR. CEFO:

Hello? Hello, this is Judge Breyer.

THE COURT:

Who am I s p e a k i n g w i t h ? MR. CEPO: THE COURT: Hello. I don't think this is working. He c a n ' t

14 15
16

Can y o u h e a r me? THE CLERK: THE COURT: up the phone. THE CLERK: THE COURT:

Mr. Cefo? Could you find out what, what -- j u s t pick

17
18
19
20 21

L e t me t r y a g a i n . Just pick up the phone. Or he j u s t

I s he going t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n some manner?

22
23

wants to hear
MR. KRAMER: clients by telephone. THE COURT: Well, t h i s mayor may n o t work, the He w a n t s t o h e a r . Representing his

24
25

Be!!e Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2731

ELN041203

4

1

s y s t e m , b u t we a r e n o t g o i n g t o p o s t p o n e t h e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e o u r system is broke. And i t i s not your f a u l t . Thank you. Let's see. Either of your clients repair

2
3
4

MR. KRAMER:

THE COURT: telephone systems?
MR.

5
6

KRAMER:

No . No, s i r .

7
8

MR. DeBRUINE:

THE COURT:

No? No. Well, so much f o r t h a t idea. That's

9

MR. DeBRUINE:

10
11

THE COURT: my b e s t i d e a .

No.

12
13

(Off-the-Record discussion) THE CLERK: THE COURT: THE CLERK: THE COURT:
MR.

He's on the regular phone, Your Honor. The regular phone l i n e . Yes. Hello? Hello. Yeah, hi, this i s Judge Breyer, and you Land phone, yes.

14

15
16

17
18 19

CEFO:

THE COURT: are-MR. CEFO:

20
21 22
23
24

(Inaudible) on behalf of Averatec. O k a y , we a r e h a v i n g s o m e , a s t h e y s a y ,

THE COURT: "technical problems." MR. CEFO: THE COURT:

Okay. And I d o n ' t know w h e t h e r o r n o t you w i l l But, l e t ' s

25

be able to hear what's going on in the courtroom.
Belle Ball, CSR, RfrfR, e R R (415) 373 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t
w

A 2732

ELN041204

5

1 2
3

hope. Will you say same words? MR. KRAMER: THE COURT: M r . C e f o , c a n y o u h e a r me? I ' m r e f e r r i n g t o C o u n s e l who i s i n c o u r t .

4

5
6 7

Go a h e a d , s p e a k .
M R . KRAMER: MR.

C a n y o u h e a r me? Yes, I can. Thank you. Okay, l e t ' s proceed. Go a h e a d .

CEFO:

8

MR. KRAMER: THE COURT:
MR.

9

10
11

KRAMER:

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Yeah.
I

THE COURT:
MR.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

KRAMER:

know t h e C o u r t s e n t o u t a s e r i e s o f But

questions, and I want to address those questions directly.

I've organized in a slightly different fashion because I think the heart of the matter is the phrase, quote, "identify value in the finger profile." There are three instances ln which the claims require that an identification of a particular value in the finger p r o f i l e must be made. That's really the heart of the matter,

20 21 22 23 24 25

a n d t h a t i s y o u r q u e s t i o n s , B l a n d C1 a n d C 2 . There is a secondary argument in this case, which means, i t ' s an additional argument for non-infringement that relates to just one certain type of code that's at issue. t h a t ' s t h e c o d e v e r s i o n we h a v e b e e n c a l l i n g t h e d i s a b l e d version of the Type 2 code.
ot:lle arlit,

And

But t h a t ' s the Court's questions,
~I"tn

,,_,._ "_"

~';:)f'[,

"'1.""'''

f'[/r/n,

n · · ,.,

,...,.,,.,

,."'.C'\ &"1r.,n f"+ I OJI .:I {.:I-IC.OJIC.:1
~"7""1

O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2733

ELN041205

6

1

Al through 7, and Dl and 2. There's been a lot of confusion,

2
3
4
5

I think, some, on

that particular issue, but I don't want that to drive the bus here because i t is really a secondary issue relating to an additional non-infringement argument on one of the types of code. Now, t h e r e ' s a n o v e r a r c h i n g t h e m e h e r e t o b o t h p a r t s of the argument. And t h a t , t h a t has t o do with, the claims a t
The accused

6
7

8
9
10
11

issue here address the operations of a machine.

products are touchpad devices that are programmed to perform specific functions.
A programmed machine does only exactly what i t i s

12
13

told.

I t c a n ' t do anything more.

I t can't imply anything, i t I t just does exactly what i t ' s

14
15
16

c a n ' t i n f e r anything from data. told.

I t c a n ' t p u t t w o a n d t w o t o g e t h e r a n d g e t f o u r , u n l e s s we I t is an

actually t e l l i t to do that particular step.

17 18 19 20
21

overarching theme, t h a t ' s a l l you need to know in the background, when you are l i s t e n i n g to the arguments t h a t go on today. First, the Court has construed three limitations that are at issue in this case, and that are at issue with respect to this motion. (a) The claims require scanning the touch sensor to

22 23 24 25

"identify a first peak value in a finger profile obtained (b) "identify the lowest value

from scanning the touch sensor";

in the finger profile that occurs after the f i r s t peak value,
Belle Bali, CSR, Rr~;R, e R R (415j 373-2529 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2734

ELN041206

7

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

and before another peak value i s identified"; and (c)

"after

identifying the lowest value in the finger profile, identify a second peak value in the finger profile." S o t h o s e a r e t h r e e t h i n g s t h a t we a r e g o i n g t o b e talking about, and I'm going to focus on what i t i s to identify values in the finger profile. Now, I ' m g o i n g t o t r y t o s p e a k u p a l i t t l e b i t a s I move away from the microphone but, i f you w i l l r e c a l l during
claim construction, we showed you a s e r i e s o f touch pads with

8
9

10 11 12
13

conductors on the touch pads.

And the Court has construed the

phrase, "scanning the touch sensor," and I think correctly, the Court has said that means measuring the values generated by a touch sensor to detect the operative coupling and determine the corresponding.position, positions a t which each of the measurements are made. So scanning means for each one of these conductors o r any other electrical feature, you are going to measure the operative coupling, and i t ' s going to have some magnitude, from zero to the highest that i t can measure, and i t ' s going to store that information in a corresponding place that represents the location, "positions at which each (of the) measurements are made." That
lS

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

what the Court did in i t s claim construction,

and I urge the Court to look at the claim construction order c a r e f u l l y when going through t h i s motion.
Belle Ball, C S R1 RfllR, e R R ( 4 1 5 ) 3 7 3.. 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S . D i s t r i c t Court

A 2735

ELN041207

8

1

Now, i n t h e p a t e n t , i t s a y s e x a c t l y t h e s a m e t h i n g . I t says, "As noted above, the cycle begins by scanning the traces and measuring the capacitance on each trace. Then the

2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9

portion of each measured capacitance that i s induced by the presence of a finger is extracted, and this finger-induced c a p a c i t a n c e i s s t o r e d i n RAM" - - w h i c h m e a n s " r a n d o m a c c e s s memory." And t h e n i t g i v e s a n o t a t i o n ,
(Xcon) . . .
II

" a s X (1) t h r o u g h X

10 11 12 13
14

And w h a t t h a t m e a n s i s , f o r e a c h o f t h e t r a c e s , f r o m 1 t o w h a t e v e r i t i s , we a r e g o i n g t o s t o r e a s e p a r a t e v a l u e . And

that value is the measurement of the operative coupling in, by having the finger touch the touchpad. So, the claims say, "scanning the touch sensor to," so that is the first part. You h a v e s c a n n e d t h e t o u c h s e n s o r a n d

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

y o u h a v e c r c Q t c d , i n e s s e n c e , w h a t we c a l l t h e f i n g e r p r o f i l e , w h e n we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a i m ( I n d i c a t i n g ) . And t h a t f i n g e r p r o f i l e h a s j u s t t w o q u a l i t i e s , really: The position of each, and the magnitude or the value of Those are the only two things t h a t can be

the measurement.

obtained from looking a t that data. S o a p e r s o n who l o o k e d a t t h a t f i n g e r p r o f i l e a n d w a s t o l d t o i d e n t i f y the features t h a t are claimed could do t h a t . I n f a c t , my c h i l d r e n h a v e g o n e t h r o u g h t h e c u r r i c u l u m i n Californiai in fourth and f i f t h grade, they do exactly this sort
Beiie BaU, CSR, RMR, C R R (415j 373-2529 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2736

ELN041208

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

of thing.

They give them s e t s of data and say,

"Find the

highest value, find the second value." So i f y o u go t h r o u g h e a c h o f t h e c l a i m l i m i t a t i o n s a n d look at the data in the finger profile, a person can identify the f i r s t peak value in the finger profile, and you would c i r c l e i t , that's 9. And t h e n i t w o u l d g o t o i d e n t i f y t h e l o w e s t v a l u e i n the finger profile a f t e r the f i r s t peak value, and that would be 1, and you would circle i t . And i f y o u a r e a s k e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e l o w e s t v a l u e i n the finger profile that occurs e x c u s e me, i d e n t i f y t h e l o w e s t

11 12 13
14

value -- after identifying the lowest value in the finger profile, identify a second peak, you would c i r c l e 8. And I w a l k e d t h r o u g h w i t h D r . M a c K e n z i e , t h e i r e x p e r t , and asked him exactly to do t h a t . finger profile. Identify these values in the

15 16
17

And t h i s i s w h a t h e d i d .

Now, a c o m p u t e r i s n ' t a h u m a n b e i n g ; i t c a n ' t r e a c h out and circle data in a data set like this finger profile. t h e p a t e n t t e l l s y o u e x a c t l y how t o i d e n t i f y t h i s d a t a . The patent says, a t Column 8, s p i l l i n g into Column 9, in the table, i t says there is a variable which will be called xpeakl, and for that variable for each scan, you will "store the value of the f i r s t peak X value." In other words, you will actually go in and find a peak value and you will store i t in that variable, here.
Beiie Baii, CSR, RMR, CRR (415j 373-2529 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

So

A 2737

ELN041209

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

(Indicating) . I t says, for Xvalley, which is the lowest value, i t says, "Variable to store the value of a local minimum," the lowest value." A n d t h e n i t s a y s t h e r e i s a n o t h e r p l a c e we a r e g o i n g to store the second peak value, t h a t ' s called Xpeak2. So t h a t

i s how a computer i d e n t i f i e s t h e d a t a from t h e f i n g e r p r o f i l e ; i t says, "It is this."
~_~d

i f we l o o k a t

this i s a complicated

fi~~re

that

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

we h a v e g o n e t h r o u g h b e f o r e i n t h e c l a i m s c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t w h a t t h i s says i s , the red boxes each correspond to how the system determines where to find that peak value. The green box says, once
I

determined that I'm not at

a spot where i t i s the peak value, the Xpeak, which i s that v a r i a b l e s t o r e d i n m e m o r y , i s g o i n g t o e q u a l t h e X, o r capacitance value of that last trace conductor. So i t a c t u a l l y goes through, finds where i t i s , and then s t o r e s t h a t value i n memory as Xpeak. And t h e same t h i n g So t h a t ' s

happens for the lowest value and the second value.

how a computer, when i n s t r u c t e d t o do something l i k e i d e n t i f y some piece of data, does i t . S o a g a i n , i f we g o t h r o u g h t h e f i n g e r - p r o f i l e d a t a t h a t we s h o w e d b e f o r e , f o r o n e p a r t i c u l a r s c a n , t h e r e s u l t w o u l d be the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by the program, Xpeak equals 9 (sic), Xvalley equals 1, Xpeak2 equals 8. T h a t i s how t h e p a t e n t

Beiie Baii, CSR, RMR, e R R [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2738

ELN041210

11

1 2
3

explains to identify values. And a s I s a i d , a c o m p u t e r h a s t o b e t o l d t o g o i n a n d identify a specific value. I t can't just say, " w e l l , I know

4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

i t ' s there, I could show i t to you l a t e r . " instructed to do that.

I t has to be

Then the p a t e n t explains why you a c t u a l l y reach i n and find the particular values in the finger profile that you are interested in. And i n f a c t , t h e d e c i s i o n as shown i n t h e

patent, about whether there i s one finger or two fingers on the touchpad, is determined based upon
~t.

I t ' s in response to the

identification of the actual values. And w h a t h a p p e n s h e r e i s , a s e x p l a i n e d a t C o l u m n 1 0 , Lines 52 to 63, the values from the finger p r o f i l e , the highest value, the lowest value and the second peak value, are compared in a division operation, a mathematical operation, that ensures that you have got two fingers rather than one finger. And t h e c o m p a r i s o n i s m a d e o f t h e a c t u a l v a l u e s f r o m the finger profile because i t says the comparison described above i s provided t o ensure t h a t a legitimate v a l l e y and two legitimate peaks have been detected, and to avoid artifacts. And w h a t t h a t m e a n s i s , w e ' r e u s i n g t h e a c t u a l h i g h e s t value, lowest value, highest value from the finger profile as a t e s t measurement in this mathematical operation, to avoid

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

a r t i f a c t s like noise, interference from other things, to get a true reading. That's the teaching in the patent.
,-.e-n

D t : l l t : o a l l , \".:l/"'{,

0_11_ " _ I I

nmn.,

nit/In

,..n~

\,,("(l"(

("f

,~

.. C\

1;;1/ , ) (,)-,{,;;I,{,:/

"'""7or]

~c~n

O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2739

ELN041211

12

1 2
3

Now, y o u r e c a l l , d u r i n g c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e r e w a s a dispute between the parties on these claim terms. Both parties

agreed that the claims required finding the actual value in the finger profile. That is, the highest value; that is, the lowest Synaptics said no. It's

4
5

value; then the second highest value.

6 7
8
9

that, plus you have to identify the precise conductor on which t h a t value was found. The Court s a i d no. Location is not relevant here.

you have to identify a f i r s t peak value

10 11 12
13

in a finger profile, identify the lowest value in the finger profile, and then the second peak value in the finger profile. So t h a t i s the context of where we're a t . Now, I w a n t t o j u s t f o c u s , f o r b r e v i t y ' s s a k e , o n o n e limitation, and that is the limitation that is the minima, which is the lowest value in the finger profile which has to be found. None o f t h e a c c u s e d S y n a p t i c s t o u c h p a d s i d e n t i f y t h e l o w e s t value in the finger profile that occurs after the f i r s t peak value and before another peak value is identified. Because

14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21

there i s a complete absence of that limitation, there can be no infringement. Now, a s I s a i d b e f o r e , t h e r e i s t w o b a s i c t y p e s o f code. T y p e 1 Code i s s h o w n h e r e . This i s a depiction from

22 23 24 25

Dr. MacKenzie's declaration.

I'm not going to dispute i t , for

purposes of this argument, but this represents, the graph does, the measurements t h a t a r e made on the conductors.
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District C o u r t

A 2740

ELN041212

13

1

What happens i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r code version i s , each conductor i s compared to one particular value. A threshold.
If

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

i t ' s above that threshold, i t ' s given a one; i f i t ' s below, i t ' s given a zero. So there i s a report for each conductor; a zero o r a one. That is the only thing that this algorithm does. This

graph d o e s n ' t appear to the computer, i t d o e s n ' t know t h a t i t ' s there.
Dr. MacKenzie, representing Elantech here, has said

10 11
12

t h a t successive groups of ones somehow represent a maxima, and successive as represent a minima. Of course, t h e r e i s nothing i n here about the Court's claim construction, which requires identification of the value in the finger profile. He's completely ignored them.

13 14
15

And w h e n y o u l o o k a t t h e d a t a t h a t h e ' s s a y i n g i d e n t i f i e s or meets t h i s limitation, there i s no dispute, i t doesn't identify the value in the finger profile. For example, i f you looked a t the zeros here, you wouldn't know what the minimum value i n the finger p r o f i l e i s . And I asked him t h a t i n h i s deposition. I s a i d (As r e a d ) , " A n d t h e s a m e i s t r u e f o r identifying the lowest value in the finger profile and the second peak value in the finger profile after the lowest value, that, in fact, you c a n ' t determine from the ones and zeros what those values actually are . . . at that point in the algorithm;
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, e R R (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District C o u r t

16 17 18 19 20
21

22 23 24 25

A 2741

ELN041213

14

1
2

isn't that correct?n A n s w e r f r o m t h e i r e x p e r t (As r e a d ) , "Knowing only t h a t

3

there is a one and a zero in Line E is insufficient to ascertain t h e s p e c i f i c v a l u e i n t h e f i n g e r p r o f i l e d a t a t h a t was u s e d t o generate that one or zero finger profile." So, the thing they're pointing to doesn't t e l l you the value. Actually, when you look a t i t , a t b e s t , i t suggests a But of course, ironically, t h a t ' s the one
~~d

4
5 6

7
8

general location.

9 10 11 12 13 14
15

thing the Court said i s n ' t necessary. against that. So, for the Type
1

in fact, they

ar~~ed

Code, there'S no minima i d e n t i f i e d

because no Synaptics Type 1 Code l i t e r a l l y i d e n t i f i e s the lowest value in the finger profile. And t h e s a m e t h i n g o c c u r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e T y p e 2 Code. I t is a slightly different problem they have. And i t i s

16 17 18
19

a l i t t l e c l e a r e r what the problem i s when you read the
dec~aration

of Dr. MacKenzie.

In this code, each conductor is measured against the last conductor. I f i t ' s h i g h e r , i t g e t s a zero - - excuse me, So i f i t ' s higher, i f If i t ' s lower

20 21 22
23

i t ' s measured against the next conductor.

i t ' s higher than the next one, i t gets a one. than the next one, i t gets a zero. It is a single question: your neighbor?

Are you higher or lower than

24 25

T h i s s e t o f Os a n d I s ( I n d i c a t i n g ) w a s w h a t
Beiie Baii, CSR, RMR, CRR (415j 373-2529 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2742

ELN041214

15

1

Dr. MacKenzie identified as meeting the claim limitation.

I f we

2
3

j u s t f o c u s o n t h i s r o w o f d a t a ( I n d i c a t i n g ) , h e s a y s , "A ' 1 ' followed by a '0 ' " "a '1' followed by a '0, '" in this stream

4 5 6 7
8

of bits (Indicating), "indicates a minima." He s a y s , f o r e x a m p l e , a l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e f i n g e r profile ceases to decrease i s identified by the "0" in the pattern "10." But what's interesting here, of course, is he'S saying the location, he'S not saying the actual value is identified. You d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t h a t v a l u e i s . I n f a c t , w h e n y o u l o o k a t t h e I s a n d Os t h a t h e ' s pointing out as being the thing in this code that meets the limitation, there's nothing in here that identifies the value in the finger profile. And a s I s a y , a t b e s t , h e ' s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

there'S a location you could determine, i f you or I were reading it. And, l e t ' s think about t h a t . Here i s the stream of I s and Os. And he says, i f

18 19
20

t h e r e i s a 1 i n t h a t p a t t e r n f o l l o w e d b y a 0 , we c a n r e a d i t a n d see that, that probably i s a location where i t clJanges direction. I t might be near where i t ' s lowest. But I asked him, "Is there any specific notation or In the

21 22 23
24

report that one or zero has been looked for and found?" code. He s a y s , "Gh, l e f t t o r i g h t . Okay.

Yeah, I don't I t mayor may

25

recall a specific output of a one zero pattern.
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2743

ELN041215

16

1

not be the case.

I don't recall that. n

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

nIs there anywhere in your declaration where you've called that out, to your knowledge?n "1 ' m not aware of t h a t . " So, even though h e ' s saying ,you and I could maybe look at this and see a location where i t exists, there's nothing in the code that actually looks for i t . code that reports that location. So, even though the location i t s e l f i s insufficient, given the Coux-t' s claim construction, i t d o e s n ' t even do t h a t . So, i n the Type 2 Code, i t j u s t d o e s n ' t operate the way t h a t ' s required for the claims. You h a v e t o r e a c h i n a n d And t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g i n t h e

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

identify the specific value in the finger profile, and neither the Type 1 Code or Type 2 Code does t h a t . Now, b r i e f l y , I w a n t t o t o u c h u p o n t h e D o c t r i n e o f Equivalents. The Doctrine of Equivalents, of course, as you

know, requires t h a t each l i m i t a t i o n be addressed individually. Is i t met by an equivalent or not? on that point. Dr. MacKenzie does not address the Doctrine of Equivalents, with respect to the minima for the Type 1 Code a t all. At best -- and I quoted the entirety of his Doctrine of At best, what he says And t h e c a s e l a w i s l e g i o n

Equivalents argument here (Indicating).

i s , the Type 1 Code examines the finger p r o f i l e and determines whether a finger is present.
BeUe BaU, CSR, RMR, e R R ( 4 1 5 j 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. D i s t r i c t Court

A 2744

ELN041216

17

1

Well, of course, the claims are about two fingers, number one. And number two, you c a n ' t t r e a t under the law, the

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

entire claim, comparing i t to the entire operation of the accused device. That is just inadequate, as a matter of law.

The second key point here i s , with r e s p e c t to the Type 2 Code, t h e r e ' s no argument and no evidence on the Doctrine of Equivalents. They haven't presented i t .

Now, I ' v e f o c u s e d s t r i c t l y o n t h e m i n i m a l i m i t a t i o n , a n d t h a t ' s a l l we n e e d t o e s c a p e i n f r i n g e m e n t . B u t we h a v e a l s o

shown, in our papers, that the other values are also not found. I t just operates in a completely different fashion. So now I w a n t t o a d d r e s s t h e C o u r t ' s q u e s t i o n s . Q u e s t i o n B1 i s a l o n g q u e s t i o n t h a t b a s i c a l l y s a y s , y o u g u y s disagree on whether these things meet the claim limitations. But what I note about this question i s , i t doesn't include anything from the Court's claim construction order. It

doesn't use the words as they have been construed by the Court. And, what our p o s i t i o n i s , a l l you have to do i s read the claim construction order, and apply those words. The claims require t h a t the accused device performs a function that identifies the f i r s t peak value, the lowest value, and then the second peak value in the finger-profile data. Now, a s I s a y , t h e c l a i m s a r e n o t l i t e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d b y d a t a t h a t c o u l d b e r e a d b y a p e r s o n i f we o p e n e d u p t h e b o x and looked inside at that string of data, or that are stored in
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, e R R [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2745

ELN041217

18

1
2 3

memory but i s not i d e n t i f i e d by any operation by the device. O u r p o s i t i o n , a n d I t h i n k we h a v e s h o w n w h e n t h e Court's construction is actually applied, they have not raised a genuine issue of fact. I t ' s l i t e r a l l y not met, and the Doctrine

4

5
6

of Equivalents case is deficient. On C o u r t ' s Q u e s t i o n s C1 a n d C 2 , t h e C o u r t
lS

asking

7
8 9

what i n the i n t r i n s i c evidence, or what requires an analysis of any particular value, in the finger profile.
Pnd our response i s , a l l the claims requlre for t h i s

10 11 12 13
14

element is that the program actually identifies the f i r s t peak value, the lowest valuer and the second value. l i m i t a t i o n t h a t says what you do with t h a t . to a c t u a l l y do t h i s function f i r s t . And, what the question also asks, what in the We h a v e a l r e a d y c o v e r e d t h a t . The There's a later

But the program has

15 16 17
18
19

p a t e n t s h o w s how t o d o i t .

patent actually shows identification, like you would expect a program to do. I t steps through and actually says: Xpeak1 i s

t h i s ; Xvalley i s t h i s ; Xpeak2 i s t h i s . those values.

It actually identifies

And i t d o e s i t w i t h s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s r l i k e

20 21 22 23 24 25

you would expect a program to do. And a s
I

say, these are the values that you would

expect to find, and the program has to do something to identify them, rather than simply say they're somewhere in there. And t h i s d a t a t h a t t h e y h a v e p o i n t e d t o , t h e s e a r e t h e two data lines that they say i d e n t i f y the information r don't
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 · 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District C o u r t

A 2746

ELN041218

19

1 2
3
4

identify what's required by the Court's claim construction. So, t h a t ' s our short answer to those questions.
THE COURT: MR. KRAMER: THE COURT:

The short answer. Yes. Okay. And n o w y o u h a v e a n o t h e r s h o r t

5

6
7
8

answer?
MR. KRAMER: THE COURT:
y~. KP~~ER:

Yes, I do. Okay.
Most of the
~Jestions

9

we g o t f r o m t h e

10
11

C o u r t r e l a t e d t o w h a t we t h i n k i s a s e c o n d a r y a r g u m e n t , a n d I ' m going to address each of them in turn. long to do that. As I s a i d , t h e r e ' s a T y p e 1 C o d e a n d t h e T y p e 2 C o d e .
The~e's

Hopefully, i t won't take

12
13

14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

another s e t of code, which i s the Type 2 Code, which has This last set

the multi-finger capability disabled in the code.

of arguments relates only to the last thing I mentioned; i t ' s the disabled version of the Type 2 Code. None of these versions meet the claims based upon the identification of the values in the finger profile that I've a l r e a d y c o v e r e d , b u t t h e r e i s a n a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t a b o u t why this type of code doesn't meet the claim language. The disabled version of the Type 2 Code cannot meet the claim language, quote, "providing an indication of the

simultaneous presence of two fingers . . . " We t h i n k E l a n t e c h h a s s o w n g r e a t c o n f u s i o n h e r e o n t w o
Belfe Balf, CSR, RMR, C R R [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. Dis tr ic t Court

A 2747

ELN041219

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

issues.

O n e i s t h e n o t i o n o f t h e "W" v a l u e ( I n d i c a t i n g

quotation marks), and I ' l l go into some d e t a i l about what t h a t i s and how i t r e l a t e s t o m u l t i - f i n g e r d e t e c t i o n . The second question i s , what "Providing an indication" means in the context of a computer system. Now, t h e "W" v a l u e i s a v a l u e t h a t c a n b e g e n e r a t e d b y a Synaptics touchpad i n some circumstances. on a l l models.
special
IIWII

I t ' s not available

I t ' s reported only when the host enables a
4~11.d

mode.

1 1 m getting t h i s from the only document

10 11 12
13

i n t h e R e c o r d o n how t h e "W m o d e " w o r k s , w h i c h i s t h e S y n a p t i c s touchpad interfacing guide. Dr. Wolfe's declaration.
NOW,

And t h i s i s E x h i b i t 4 , t o

t h e "W" v a l u e may b e u s e d , e v e n i f t h e r e ' s n o And

14 15
16

information in i t relating to multiple-finger detection. I ' l l explain that with the chart shortly.

As we s a i d , t h e "W" mode c a n b e s e t i n s o m e p r o d u c t s by the customer. And w h a t t h e c u s t o m e r h e r e i s , i s t h e

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

m a n u f a c t u r e r o f t h e c o m p u t e r who i s b u i l d i n g t h e t o u c h p a d , c a n reach in and set one p a r t i c u l a r b i t which says, t h e 'W' m o d e i n f o r m a t i o n i f y o u h a v e i t . " Now, t h i s i s i n F i g u r e 2 - 6 o f t h e S y n a p t i c s interfacing guide, which i s Exhibit 4 to Dr. Wolfe's declaration. This i s a chart that shows you, basically, a l l you " P l e a s e s e n d me

n e e d t o k n o w a b o u t "W" v a l u e a n d m u l t i p l e f i n g e r s . On t h e l e f t - h a n d c o l u m n , t h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e
Beiie Baii, CSR. RMR, CRR [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2748

ELN041220

21

1 2
3

which

18

s e n t b y t h i s "W" v a l u e .

T h e "W" v a l u e i s a f o u r - b i t

piece of information, and four bits of information can have 16 d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s . sixteen. I think i t i s , two to the fourth i s

4 5 6 7 8
9

Each of them can be defined as having a correspondence

to a capability in the touchpad itself. For example, when the values 4 through 7, 8 through 14, and 15, a l l represent a function that t e l l s you whether there i s a palm on the touchpad.
The value 2 t e l l s you whether there
lS

a pen being

10 11 12 13 14 15 lG 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

used on the touchpad, i f that i s a capability that is enabled. The values 0 and 1 represent whether there are two or three fingers on the touchpad. possible. Those are the values that are

However, those values are only available within the

"W" v a l u e , i f t h e c a p a b i l i t y i s p r e s e n t i n t h e t o u c h p a d . In the second column, "Needed capability," s p e l l s out the capability that has to be in the touchpad and working, before t h a t information can be included i n t o "W." And y o u w i l l

note, "capMultiFinger" mear.s you are capable of doing multiple-finger detection. Down a t t h e b o t t o m , i t e x p l a i n s t h a t y o u , t h e manufacturer, can figure out what capabilities your touchpad has, by doing an inquiry which is sending a signal to the touchpad, and t h a t ' s taught somewhere else in the interfacing guide. What t h i s means i s , the customer d o e s n ' t s e t t h i s , t h i s

is preset by Synaptics.
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2749

ELN041221

22

1

S o , t o s u m m a r i z e , t h e "W" v a l u e c o n t a i n s l o t s o f information, if that information is available in a capability from the touchpad i t s e l f . Dr. Wolfe's declaration demonstrates that the disabled v e r s i o n o f t h e T y p e 2 C o d e , w h i c h we c a l l t h e c u r r e n t v e r s i o n ,

2
3

4

5
6

i s controlled by Synaptics.

Synaptics alone controls whether

7
8

that multi-finger detection option is enabled. T h e c o d e t h a t we h a v e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t a n d
presented to
S}~aptics,

9
10
11

which is the disabled version of the

Type 2 Code, t h a t does not have that capability.

And t h e o n l y

way to r e s e t i t i s a c a p a b i l i t y t h a t i s not disclosed or shown to customers. I t is only an internal synaptics operation. That

12

13
1~

i s in Dr. Wolfe's declaration, Paragraphs 18 through 20, and the supplemental declaration from Dr. Wolfe, Paragraph 8. So, when you put these things together in a c h a r t , t o make multiple finger a feature available on a touchpad from S y n a p t i c s , t h e n o t e b o o k m a k e r h a s t o s e t t h e "W" b i t , a n d synaptics has to make the capMultiFinger enabled. In other

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

words, the option of MultiFinger has to be turned on before you get any multiple-finger detection at a l l . T h i s c h a r t e x p l a i n s a l o t , w h i c h a n s w e r s many o f t h e questions from the Court. finger. The Type 1 Code does enable multiple

And i f the customer s e t s the b i t , which we're not

really aware of any instance in the U.S., that would contain multiple-finger data.
B e i i e B a i i , CSR, RMR, C R R [phone] O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2750

ELN041222

23

1 2 3 4
5

Same f o r t h e T y p e 2 C o d e .

The disabled Type 2 Code,

the code does not enable multiple finger, so no matter what the c u s t o m e r d o e s w i t h t h a t "W" v a l u e , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o multiple-finger capability will not be present. And i t ' s j u s t t h a t s i m p l e . this. There's no mystery to

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

The c a p a b i l i t y has been turned off in the code i t s e l f .

The code i s there, and what Elantech has done i s not really a d d r e s s e d how t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e c o d e w o r k , i t ' s t r i e d t o raise issues outside the operation of the code. We p r e s e n t e d c o d e , we w a n t a r u l i n g o n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r design of code. Now, t o t h e C o u r t ' s Q u e s t i o n A I , t h e C o u r t a s k s a b o u t the current version of the firmware, and the fact that Elantech went out and bought a notebook computer and did a t e s t and took the touchpad out and sent the right signals to get a multiple-fi.nger detection, does that raise an issue of fact? Well, the answer is no. The question before the Court

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

i s whether the particular code version, which has been disabled, can provide an indication of multiple fingers. not. I t can't be modified, because the fact that they ran out and bought a notebook computer with a touchpad that actually has mUltiple-finger capability enabled, means only that they have got the Type 1 or Type 2 Code t h a t wasn't disabled. that's not surprising.
Beiie Baii, CSR, ROOR, C R R ( 4 1 5 j 373-2529 Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

And, and i t does

And

A 2751

ELN041223

24

1

What Synaptics does i s i t provides design to notebook m a n u f a c t u r e r s who w a n t t o u c h p a d s i n t h e i r d e v i c e s .
It takes a

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

lot of steps before the notebook computer actually lands a t Best Buy, and you would buy a computer to do a t e s t on. n o t i c e , we t a l k e d a b o u t t h i s w i t h t h e m . Synaptics provides i t s touchpad object code to the manufacturer, months before the f i r s t notebook computer i s manufactured.
twelve months.

And t h e y

The whole process takes, a t a minimum, nine to
The disabled code which, as of
Septew~cr

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

o f 2006, would be showing up, you know, 6 t o 12, maybe l o n g e r , months in notebook computers i n the U.S. The f a c t that they go out i n January, four months l a t e r , and buy a notebook computer, and are surprised to find t h a t i f t h e y t o g g l e t h e "W" b i t , i t c a n d o m u l t i p l e f i n g e r , not surprising to us at all. I f they do a check of t h a t code, i t would show i t not the disabled version. disabled version. Q u e s t i o n s A2 a n d A3, w h i c h o f t h e t o u c h p a d s c a n d e t e r m i n e "W", a n d w h i c h c a n ' t , t h e "W" v a l u e c a n b e e n a b l e d b y customers with code versions that are capable of sending the "W," but the m u l t i p l e - f i n g e r d e t e c t i o n can only be p a r t of t h a t "W" i f , i n f a c t , Type 2 Code. The Code i t s e l f , what i t does i s undisputed, and they
Beiie Baii, CSR, RMR, e R R [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. D i s t r i c t Court
lS

is

The code that i s a t issue is the

i t ' s enabled.

And i t cannot be enabled i n the

A 2752

ELN041224

25

1
2 3

haven't really addressed the code.

As I s a i d , D r . W o l f e h a s Again, i t

laid this out in his declaration in these paragraphs. is explained in the chart.

And i t a n s w e r s , t h e T y p e 2 c a n n o t b e

4
5
6

enabled to do multiple fingers. Does Synaptics concede Type 1 does multiple finger? The answer i s , Type manufacturer sets that bit. manufacturer sets the bit.
~~estions

1

can do multiple finger,

if the

7
8

Type 2 can do i t , i f the The disabled version cannot. Neither the
T}~e

9

4 a n d 5 , A4 a n d - 5 :

1

10
II

meets the claim limitations i f the bit is not set.
L e t ' s move on t o t h i s , Q u e s t i o n s A6 and A7: Is the

12
l3

code sent to customers in source code or object code? The answer i s , i t i s an o b j e c t code, i t i s i n the touchpad itself. issue. And I don't think there i s any dispute on t h a t

14 15
16

We h a v e a d e c l a r a t i o n f r o m o u r 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) w i t n e s s t h a t i s
I

one paragraph that says that t h a t ' s true.

can submit that, ln

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the response to the Court's question, but I don't think there is any dispute about that. Q u e s t i o n s D l a n d D2, t h i s i s t h e u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n about the claim language. mean? What, i n the i n t r i n s i c evidence, r e l a t e s t o providing an indication? What, i n the claim language, r e l a t e s to What does "providing an indication"

"providing an indication?" (AS r e a d ) "The '352 Patent i s directed to a touch

B e i i e BaH, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S . D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2753

ELN041225

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

sensor that i d e n t i f i e s the presence of two fingers and supplies a signal to something other than i t s e l f that, in turn, is programmed to understand that the signal means t h a t there are two fingers present." In other words, to provide an indication that there a r e two fingers present, I have t o know t h a t t h e r e are two fingers present, and the receiver has to understand that t h a t ' s what's being intended in the data.
"Pro~.liding"

means simply

suppl~ling,

of course.

10

An " i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s p r e s e n c e o f t w o fingers" means t h a t the "signal i s defined i n the system as meaning ' t h e r e are two fingers. '" The p a t e n t t i t l e , the p a t e n t a b s t r a c t / and the description of the f i e l d of the invention, a l l show the i n t e n t o f : h i s p a t e n t i s t o make s u r e t h a t t h e t o u c h p a d c a n c o m m u n i c a t e to another part of the system t h a t there are two fingers present. And t h a t , t h a t h a s s o m e r a m i f i c a t i o n , t h a t w i l l b e

11 12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

defined as a button switch or a s c r o l l option or some other feature, but the system defines i t as having been recognized as two fingers. Now, t h e r e i s o n l y o n e r e f e r e n c e i n t h e p a t e n t t o t h i s claimed function providing that indication. Column 5, Lines 52

to 55, says, "Depending on the operation being performed a t the p a r t i c u l a r time, the output of microcontroller 60 i s then s u p p l i e d t o a n i n t e r f a c e t o a PC o r o t h e r d e v i c e , s u c h a s a P S / 2
BeNe BaU, CSR, RMR, CRR (415j 373-2529 O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2754

ELN041226

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18

interface, an RS-232 i n t e r f a c e , or an Apple Desktop Bus." In other words, depending on the operation to be performed, the output, the signal, is sent to a host. don't think there's any dispute about that. We h a v e E l a n t e c h , d u r i n g c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n , s a y i n g exactly that. Elantech said that the indication must be sent to
I

And I

t h e h o s t , q u o t e (As r e a d )

"The function of det.ecting the

simultaneous presence of two fingers and reporting that presence to the host is described as being carried out with firmware or software generally consistent with the flow diagram in Figure 5 and algorithm i n Figure 6 . . . At various p o i n t s reports are made when two fingers are detected . . . A ' r e p o r t ' means information transmitted to the host, which again is the province of microcontroller 60 . . . Thus, the p a t e n t c l e a r l y teaches t h a t m i c r o c o n t r o l l e r 60 i s p r o g r a m m e d t o d e t e c t t h e p r e s e n c e o f t w o fingers and provide an indication of that fact to the host computer." So t h a t ' s the i n t r i n s i c evidence t h a t shows t h a t , to provide an indication, the sending piece, the touch sensor, has t o know what i t means, i t i s d e f i n e d , and t h e r e c i p i e n t h a s t o know t h a t what i s being sent i s intended t o mean t h a t t h e r e a r e
two fingers present.

19 20 21
22

23 24 25

Now, t h e r e ' s n o s i g n a l s e n t t o t h e h o s t i n t h e d i s a b l e d Type 2 Code t h a t says t h e r e a r e two f i n g e r s p r e s e n t . And what Elantech has done i s , s o r t of, f a l l back on a d i f f e r e n t
Belle Ban, CSR, RMR, C R R (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. D i s t r i c t Court

A 2755

ELN041227

28

1 2 3
4

argument now, which i s t h a t somehow, a f e a t u r e i n the Type 2 Code c a l l e d "PrimaryFingerTracking," meets the l i m i t a t i o n . First of all, PrimaryFingerTracking is about finger where one finger i s on the touchpad (Indicating)_ There i s no

5 6 7 8
9

signal sent to the host, and i t i s undisputed that i t i s not sent to the host, representing the two fingers present. How i t w o r k s i s - - a n d t h i s i s l a i d o u t i n D r . W o l f e ' s declaration -- during the f i r s t scan, there will be a location
indication saying the finger i s at Location 4.

So there w i l l be

10 11 12 13
14

a report of that location to the host, you're at Location 4. If, in a second scan, the locations could be at a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t places, the system has t o know where the finger is. Now, t h i s c o u l d b e s o m e b o d y ' s k n u c k l e , i t c o u l d b e a I t ' s defined as anything other than

palm, i t could be a pen. the primary finger.

15
16

What the PrimaryFingerTracking does i s , i t eliminates this information (Indicating), and says, "Here is your finger" (Indicating). That is then reported to the host.

17 18
19 20

So, number one, t h e r e ' s no counting, whatsoever, of any fingers in this profile here (Indicating). If the data

21
22

comes out t h i s way, i t doesn't say there are four fingers by
counting through.

I t s a y s , " W h e r e i s my f i n g e r ? "

And i t

23

eliminates all the other data.

So, there's no count of fingers,

24 25

there i s no signal sent that there are two fingers present. Elantech's argument i s essentially, again, i f you look
B e l l e Ball, C S R , Rf,fR, e R R ( 4 1 5 ) 373--2529 O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2756

ELN041228

29

1 2
3

a t t h i s data as raw data, somebody reading them could determine, hey, there might be two fingers here. But again, a computer doesn't work that way. A

4 5 6 7 8
9

computer does exactly what i t is told, and this operation i s such that i t ' s not told to count the number of fingers. That is

not a defined feature at that stage of the operation of the device. So, to summarize that piece of i t , there i s no signal
sent i n the Type 2 disabled code t h a t says two fingers. A...nd i f

10 11 12 13
14

they dig in and find some other

featun~

like

primaryFingerTracking, i t doesn't count fingers, and i t doesn't purport to count fingers, so i t doesn't meet the limitation of

providing an indication that there are two fingers present. S o , t h a t ' s my p r e s e n t a t i o n . time. THE COURT: Okay. resume
Ul

I r e s e r v e t h e r e s t o f my

15
16 17

You a r e o u t o f t i m e . A n d we w i l l

We're going t o take a break now.

18 19 20 21
22 23
24

15 minutes.

We w i l l r e s u m e a t a f e w m i n u t e s

before 4:15. (Recess from 4:00 to 4:15 p.m.) THE COURT: Okay, please be seated.

A r e we r e a d y t o p r o c e e d ? MR. DeBRUINE: THE COURT: We a r e , Y o u r H o n o r .

Okay, you may. Your Honor w i l l be happy t o know t h a t

25

MR. DeBRUINE:

Beiie BaU, CSR, RlviR, e R R (415j 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2757

ELN041229

30

1

t h e r e a r e some a r e a s where C o u n s e l a n d I a g r e e . what the important questions are.

We a g r e e o n

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11

We a g r e e l a r g e l y o n how o u r

arguments are put together, the order we're taking the questioI1S in. O b v i o u s l y , we d i s a g r e e v e h e m e n t l y o n t h e a n s w e r s t o m o s t o f

those questions, and I would l i k e t o explain why. S t a r t i n g with the question of whether maxima and minima are identified, and the questions are, what i s required of the -- when one i s i d e n t i f y i n g the maxima or i d e n t i f y i n g the minima.
A~d

the

~~estions

are, particularly, does i t

re~~ire

an

indication or analysis of a specific or particular value? And t h e n we w i l l a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f , i f i t i s required, what steps are asked -- or s a t i s f y the analysis or the indication. Now, o f c o u r s e , t e c h n i c a l l y , t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e i s "identify"; there's other claim language, that i s , "provide an indication/" so there's a difference, perhaps, in the meaning of those two terms. The next question i s whether the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n requires an analysis, and I would say here, the analysis of the values is a precursor. Obviously, i f you are going to figure

12
13

14
15

16

17
18

19

20
21

out which of a group of values i s the highest, you need to analyze the values, which i s the lower. You n e e d t o a n a l y z e t h e

22 23 24 25

values, but the identifying takes place after that analysis has taken place. The question of whether a s p e c i f i c or p a r t i c u l a r value
Belie Baii, CSR, RMR, CRR (415j 373-2529 O f f i c i a l R e p o r l e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2758

ELN041230

31

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

is identified. product.

In fact, that is what happens in the accused

And t h a t i s , I t h i n k , a r e a s o n a b l e a r g u m e n t o f w h a t

the claim construction says. So a g a i n , t h e c l a i m l a n g u a g e h e r e , a n d t h i s i s important, the claim language says identify a f i r s t maxima, i d e n t i f y a minima, i d e n t i f y a second maxima. And w h a t we h e a r d e a r l i e r t h i s a f t e r n o o n , Y o u r H o n o r , was, "We c a n ' t i n f r i n g e b e c a u s e we d o n ' t s t o r e t h a t v a l u e a f t e r
We d o n ' t t a k e a c o p y o f d a t a t h a t i s i n o n e p l a c e

8
9

the analysis.

10
11

and put i t in a different, unique place.

We d o n ' t m o v e o r c o p y

o r s t o r e t h a t d a t a , a n d b e c a u s e we d o n ' t s t o r e a n u m e r i c a l v a l u e s o m e w h e r e , we d o n ' t i d e n t i f y . That i s not what the claim requires, i n any way, shape, or form. I t simply requires that i t be identified. And

12
13

14 15 16
17
18

frankly, that i s precisely what t h e i r products do, and they do i t in the exact same way that the patent requires. How i s i t i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e - - i n t h e p a t e n t ? compare X(n) to X(n-l), u n t i l you find a that is higher than its neighbors. You

e x c u s e me, a p l a c e

19 20 21 22 23
24

You c o n t i n u e t h a t c o m p a r i s o n

of the value associated with a particular trace to its neighboring trace, u n t i l you find the lowest value. You t h e n

continue on your analysis, trace by trace, until you find the trace that has the highest value. Exactly what they do. patent. Slightly different than the In essence, they compare X

25

The patent compares X(X-l) .

Beiie Baii, CSR, RMR, e R R (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Officiaf Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2759

ELN041231

32

1

to X plus

1.

But the outcome

lS

exactly the same.

The r e s u l t Is this

2 3
4

of the comparison is, is this bigger than this? bigger than this? No; 1.

Zero.

A n d t h i s s e r i e s o f I s a n d Os i d e n t i f i e s t h e t r a c e where the value, the peak value i s stored. This 0 following a 1

5 6 7 8

i d e n t i f i e s the trace where the corresponding minima i s stored. Again, a second peak identifies the trace where the second peak value is stored. A n d we k n o w t h a t t h i s

9
10 11 12
l3

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n t to t e l l the system what that actual
value is, because, as we'll discuss a l i t t l e later, in response to that identification, the program actually goes and retrieves that f i r s t peak value. In the PrimaryFingerTracking module, i t retrieves the value that has been identified; i t compares i t to a f i r s t threshold. threshold.
lS

14

the peak value.

It

15 16 17 18 19
20

I t compares i t to a second

Mathematical operations on what has been identified

as the peak value, to come to a determination of, "Is t h i s a valid touch that I need to worry about? touchpad?" That i s what an identification i s . It is information
lS.

Is i t a finger on the

21
22

s u f f i c i e n t t h a t the system knows what t h a t value

And t h a t

i s exactly what they do.
Similarly, i n the Type 1 Code, c a l l e d the Centroid C o d e i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s t h a t we s u b m i t t e d , w h a t we h a v e h e r e i s a crude, fairly crude but effective, finger profile.
IJ,,",I'~

23 24 25

The finger

R~lIa

R",II . _Wil, rU 'c, 1 1 .M" " , r . "g 1"'."IfT.,rw."\ ~7'J_?"?D V ~ '' C n' C . . c " , ( Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

tJ,,,,-&.v~,,,,

A 2760

ELN041232

33

1

p r o f i l e here, keep i n mind, these are not - - well, l e a r n how t o u s e my o w n t e c h n o l o g y - - t h e v a l u e s i n t h e T y p e 2 C o d e i n t h i s finger profile, keep in mind, are not the raw capacitance values taken straight off of the traces. There's f i l t e r i n g done, in to throw out

2

3
4

5
6

order to create this nice, monotonic curve, extraneous information and do this. specific,

And t h e p a t e n t i s very
~-

7
8

t h a t you would intend one to do t h i s in the

to

create the finger profile. Similarly, in the Type 1 Code, you do what i s a much less sophisticated filtering. You t a k e t h e v a l u e , a n d i f i t ' s

9
1.0

11

high enough, you consider that a value of 1; i f i t ' s not high e n o u g h , y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t a O. So what you have i s a s e r i e s of b i t s i n the finger profile, where a group of Is
1S

12
13

14
15

a m a x i m a , t h e g r o u p o f Os i s a Again, fully within the

minima, the group of Is i s a maxima. teaching of the patent.

16
17
18

So, getting on to the indication for analysis of a specific or particular value, there does have to be an identification of a particular value. We w i l l c o n c e d e t h a t .

19
20

But t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n does not mean taking the value from one where i t ' s stored in one r e g i s t e r and putting i t ln a different

21
22

one.

Copying

storing i t , again.

the system

1S

given the

23 24 25

information necessary to determine what that value is, that value has been identified. I already talked about that (Indicating)
LJ..,,,W I.JP"J

0_11", 12-./1

r~ ""'a'"'''D "~ntIll', r"",o '''A""~/ . .lJ7J - ,)v: ' .;,7 '' 'J D l l O " o '\, ' ' V . ) I ? ' I £ n O f f i c i a l R e p o r t e r , U. S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t

A 2761

ELN041233

34

1

So again, despite what Counsel would say, the identification does not require the storage, manipulation, or analysis of any value. A n d a g a i n , w h a t we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r e i s , e s s e n t i a l l y , claim c o n s t r u c t i o n , the IEEE d i c t i o n a r y , about as close as I could find, i n software an i d e n t i f i e r i s the name, the address, the label, the distinguishing index of an object in a computer program.
M R . KRAMER:

2
3

4
5

6

7
8
9

Could I have

Co~nsel

point out where in

10
11

the Record that exists?
MR. DeBRUINE:

I t doesn't exist in the Record.

If

12
13

Your Honor would like to take j u d i c i a l notice of the dictionary, b e c a u s e we h a v e e n t e r e d i n t o a r e a s o f c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n a f t e r the claim construction has taken place. We d o n ' t b e l i e v e t h e r e ' s a n y d i s p u t e h e r e t h a t w h a t happens is an identification. where that value is stored. Now, w h a t h a s t o h a p p e n , a s f a r a s p r o v i d i n g a n indication? F i r s t , what in the claim language requires that I t gives the system the location

14
15

16

17 18 19
20

that indication be provided to the host? Nothing. The claim language says, "provide an

21

22
23
24

indication.

II

I t doesll.! t say,

"provide

aT.!.

indication to the

host," i t doesn't say, you know,

"report this to the host."

The patent, in what i t c a l l s c o n s i s t e n t l y "the exemplary embodiment," takes the indication of two fingers, uses
Belfe Ball, CSR, RMR, e R R (415) 3 7 3.. 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. Dis tr ic t Court

25

A 2762

ELN041234

35

1
2

that to set a button state, and reports that button state out to the host. But that is not what's required in the claims. That

3
4

i s an exemplary embodiment of an intended use. In fact, the patent and the patent, again, is very

5
6

clear, as a l o t of patents are, that exemplary embodiments are not meant to be limitations. There
I

S

no

nothing in this

7
8 9

patent that would permit the importation of such a claim limitation into the claim. Counsel. In fact, the patent uses the word, the verb,· " i n d i c a t e , " o n c e , t o my k n o w l e d g e , i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . That Nothing's been pointed out by

10

11 12 13 14
15

i s a t Column 8, Line 16 to 19, where a r e p o r t of p a r t i c u l a r data to the microcontro1ler to -- within the touchpad, indicates a cursor movement. So, i f an internal data report providing an indication to the microcontro11er indicates an event providing information to the microcontroller in the claims is an indication of an event, the presence of two fingers. Where Counsel already talked, the word "report" was used i n t h e r e t o say when something i s s e n t t o t h e h o s t . According to the intrinsic evidence, what steps or acts must be performed to provide an indication? A g a i n , we j u s t s a w i t . Give some data to the host,

16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

24 2S

t h a t t e l l s i t - - I m e a n , e x c u s e me, n o t t o t h e h o s t , t o t h e microprocessor within this software -- that this has happened.
Belle Ball, CSR, Rfr'lR, e R R ( 4 1 5 ) 3 7 3.. 2 5 2 9 O f f i c i a l Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2763

ELN041235

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8

Now, w e ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e p r i m a r y F i n g e r T r a c k i n g , and i f the r e s u l t i s more than 1, 1, in the b i t vector output, each of those Is indicates the presence of a finger.
Syn~pticsls

own e x p e r t agrees, t h a t i f you have two f i n g e r s on

the touchpad, and the result of their PrimaryFingerTracking module puts two I s i n t h a t b i t vector, those Is are indicative of those two fingers. I t indicates t h a t there are two fingers.

What - - and again, i n software, an i n d i c a t o r i s "a
device or variable that can be set to a pre-prescribed state,

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

based on the results of a process or the occurrence of a specified condition." Precisely what their -- the accused devices do. k e e p i n mind how t h e P r i m a r y F i n g e r T r a c k i n g module w o r k s . t h e r e ' s no dispute on t h i s . Now, And

The finger p r o f i l e i s generated.

Data are ascribed, indicating where the maxima, where the minima i s , where the maxima. That i s an indication of those values. Those values

a r e r e t r i e v e d and analyzed t o come up with t h a t i n d i c a t i o n - e x c u s e me, come u p w i t h t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . After the identification, the only subsequent process t h a t i s required by the claim i s to provide an indication of two fingers in response to the maxima. The i d e n t i f i e d
m~xima.

And t h a t i s e x a c t l y what p r i m a r y F i n g e r T r a c k i n g d o e s . I t takes the indication of two maxima, i t pulls the values stored at those trace locations. So, in fact, i t does identify

Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR [phone] Official Reporter, U. S. District Court

A 2764

ELN041236

37

1 2
3

t h e s p e c i f i c v a l u e s , a n d we k n o w t h a t b e c a u s e t h e p r o g r a m r e t r i e v e s them from memory, and compares them to threshold values. Not once, but twice. So, two mathematical operations are performed on the actual value t h a t ' s been i d e n t i f i e d as the maxima, and i n response to that identification, a bit vector. where one b i t represents each trace.
A

4
5
6

series of

7
8

And i f there a r e two

fingers, i f they survive the -- the thresholding, there will be
a 1 for each trace that has a finger on i t .

9

10

And i s t h a t a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f two fingers, i f there are two Is in that b i t value? Absolutely. It

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

i s an indication to the touchpad, in t h i s instance, to go and determine which trace t h a t has a finger, which of these two t r a c e s a r e we g o i n g t o u s e t o t r a c k . A n d w h i c h o n e a r e we n o t

going to worry about, as far as tracking. So, as much as Synaptics would l i k e to have the claim l i m i t a t i o n s r e a d " s t o r i n g a maximum v a l u e , s t o r i n g a m i n i m u m value," there again, and then cOUIlting the number of fingers, those are not limitations of this claim. The claim simply requires t h a t you i d e n t i f y the maxima and minima, and i n response t o the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e maxima alone, provide an indication of the presence of two fingers. And i n our view, as we've s e t out, t h a t i s a b s o l u t e l y met. Now, t h e r e w e r e a n u m b e r o f i s s u e s a b o u t t h e "W" value. Unless the Court has any questions about Section C
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, CRR (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District C o u r t

25

A 2765

ELN041237

38

1 2
3

a n d D. Now, t h e "w" v a l u e i s w h a t i s a c t u a l l y r e p o r t e d t o t h e host. So, h e r e ' s where I'm in agreement with Counsel, i t i s a N o t h i n g i n t h i s c l a i m t h a t r e q u i r e s t h a t "W"

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

secondary issue.

value be reported to the host. As t h e i n t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e s h o w s , p r o v i d i n g a n indication, indicating means -- can mean indicating to the internally to the touchpad, to the microcontroller that controls the tOlichpad.
A~d

there's nothing else in the record from

which -- other than the exemplary embodiment, that would allow the claim to be read more narrowly. So, we're down to which products a c t u a l l y do report a finger count to the host and which do not. Counsel's view, a secondary issue. Our view, as in

W h a t we k n o w , a s C o u n s e l

s a i d , some of t h e i r products, the Type 1 products do i t , some of the Type 2 products do, some of the Type 2 products d o n ' t . W h a t we d o n ' t k n o w , b e c a u s e t h e i r m o t i o n w a s f i l e d b e f o r e we c o u l d t a k e t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t we p r o p o u n d e d , w a s w h i c h models and which versions and which source code were actually shipped to which particular customers. you know, what s o r t of volume. And, which of these are,

We s i m p l y d o n ' t k n o w .

I do want to address b r i e f l y the point that Counsel says, that, they're the Type 2 disabled i s incapable of I think i t ' s slightly misleading. And

24 25

providing finger counting.

I t ' s capable of doing that, i f a particular bit is set.
Belle Ball, CSR, RMR, e R R (415) 3 7 3 - 2 5 2 9 Official Reporter, U. S. District C o u r t

A 2766

ELN041238

39

1
2

t h a t b i t c a n b e s e t from a command from t h e h o s t . The claim i s , they never t e l l anybody about i t . He

3
4

c i t e s t o h i s own e x p e r t t o s u p p o r t t h e i r s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t t h a t no one else i n the world has learned t h i s . I'm not sure how

5 6 7 8
9

Mr. Wolfe would know, or not know, every communication between Synaptics and i t s customers. But again, that is an issue for further discovery. I t ' s not an issue for summary jUdgment.
Co~~sells

Which t i e s to fact that

asking for summary judgment on a code version i n the

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

abstract and not the code as i t ' s actually implemented in the real world. We - - Y o u r H o n o r , t h e r e ' s some evidence, they claim

t h a t w h a t we t e s t e d i n t h e r e a l w o r l d w a s n o t c u r r e n t c o d e . A g a i n , we h a v e n ' t h a d s u f f i c i e n t d i s c o v e r y t o d e t e r m i n e , f o r that p a r t i c u l a r model of computer, what code shipped with i t . We s i m p l y d o n ' t k n o w . I j u s t want t o make sure I ' v e answered a l l of Your Honor's questions. I heard Counsel say that the firmware for the touchpad ships as object code. I'm not aware anywhere in the record that

21 22 23 24 25

says