Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 942

Declaration of Brian von Herzen in Support of #930 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion for Summary Judgment filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 10)(Related document(s) #930 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

EXHIBIT 17

SAMSUNG’S INVALIDITY CLAIM CHART FOR U.S. PATENT 7,372,455 (“PERSKI ’455”)
Summary of Invalidity Opinions and Materials Relied Upon:
•

U.S. Patent 7,372,455 (“Perski ’455”), entitled “Touch Detection for a Digitizer,” to Haim Perski and Meir Morag, was filed
on January 15, 2004, issued on May 13, 2008, and is assigned to N-Trig Ltd. Perski ‘455 claims the benefit of U.S.
Provisional Pat, App. Nos. 60/446,808, filed on February 10, 2003, and 60/501,484, filed September 5, 2003. As such, Perski
’455 qualifies as prior art to the ’607 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In addition, the patent incorporates by reference U.S.
Provisional Pat. App. No. 60/406,662, filed Aug 27, 2002, (“Perski ’662”) and U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/649,708, filed Aug 28,
2003 (“Perski ’708.”), both of which are also assigned to N-Trig Ltd.

•

Perski ’455 anticipates and/or renders obvious Claim 8 of the ’607 patent. To the extent any limitation of Claim 8 is not
expressly or inherently disclosed in Perski ’455, any such limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention of the ’607 patent.

•

Perski ’455 is directed to “a combined touch and stylus digitizer, and more particularly, but not exclusively to adaptations for
the detection of finger touch.” (Id. at 1:14-16). Using Perski’s digitizer, “multiple conductive objects can be detected” and the
digitizer is configured “to detect more than one finger touch at the same time.” (Id. at 4:1-3; 14:15-19). In my opinion,
Perski’s digitizer is almost identical in construction and operation to the transparent capacitive sensing medium described in
the ’607 Patent. As described in my Declaration, ALJ Essex, the Commission Investigative Staff, and the full Commission
also agreed with this opinion. See 750 ID.

•

I also understand that during the ITC investigation initiated against Motorola, Apple did not contest that Perski ’455 did in fact
disclose almost all of the limitations of Claim 8. I understand that the only contested limitation was the multitouch limitation
of claim 1. (Id.).

1

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
[1A] A touch panel comprising a
transparent capacitive sensing medium
configured to detect multiple touches
or near touches that occur at a same
time and at distinct locations in a plane
of the touch panel and to produce
distinct signals representative of a
location of the touches on the plane of
the touch panel for each of the
multiple touches,

Perski ’4551
Perski ’455 discloses a touch panel (e.g., two-dimensional sensor matrix 20 in Figure 2)
comprising a transparent capacitive sensing medium configured to detect multiple touches or
near touches (e.g., with finger 26 in Figure 2) that occur at a same time and at distinct
locations in a plane of the touch panel and to produce distinct signals (e.g., output signal 30
in Figure 2) representative of a location of the touches on the plane of the touch panel for
each of the multiple touches.

Perski ’455 states: “A two-dimensional sensor matrix 20 lies in a transparent layer over an
electronic display device. An electric signal 22 is applied to a first conductor line 24 in the
two-dimensional sensor matrix 20. At each junction between two conductors a certain
minimal amount of capacitance exists. A finger 26 touches the sensor 20 at a certain position
and increases the capacitance between the first conductor line 24 and the orthogonal
conductor line 28 which happens to be at or closest to the touch position. As the signal is
AC, the signal crosses by virtue of the capacitance of the finger 26 from the first conductor
line 24 to the orthogonal conductor 28, and an output signal 30 may be detected.” Perski
1

Perski ’455 expressly incorporates by reference U.S. Prov. Pat. App. No. 60/406,662 (“the ’662 App.”). Because the disclosure of
the ’662 App. was expressly incorporated by reference in Perski ’455, both the ’662 App. and Perski ’455 will be treated as a single
invalidating reference for purposes of this analysis. See Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
2

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
’455 at 13:32-43.

Perski ’455 also states: “Preferably, the sensor is substantially transparent and suitable for
location over a display screen. Preferably, the detection region is the surface of a display
screen and wherein the sensor including the at least one conductive element is substantially
transparent.” Id. at 3:39-3:43.
The sensing medium disclosed in Perski ’455 is configured to detect multiple touches or near
touches that occur at a same time. Perski ’455 states: “The goal of the finger detection
algorithm, in this method, is to recognize all the sensor matrix junctions that transfer signals
due to external finger touch. It should be noted that this algorithm is preferably able to
detect more than one finger touch at the same time.” Id. at 14:15-19.1
Perski also is capable of detecting near touches: “[i]n the preferred embodiments of the
present invention, the same detector can detect and process signals from an Electro Magnetic
Stylus whether it is placed in contact with, or at a short distance from, the surface of a flat
panel display.” (Perski ’455 at 8:56-65).
[1B] wherein the transparent
capacitive sensing medium comprises:
a first layer having a plurality of
transparent first conductive lines that
are electrically isolated from one
another; and

Perski ’455 teaches a transparent capacitive sensing medium (e.g., two-dimensional sensor
matrix 20 in Figure 2) comprising a first layer having a plurality of transparent first
conductive lines (e.g., vertical pattern/conductors 3 in Figure 3 of the ’662 App.) that are
electrically isolated from one another.

3

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

The ’662 App. states: “the sensor is a grid of conductive lines made of conductive polymers
patterned on a PET foil. The grid is made of two layers, which are electrically separated
from each other. One of the layers contains a set of parallel conductors. The other layer
contains a set of parallel conductors orthogonal to the set of the first layer.” ’662 App. at 4.
“It is a general object of the present invention to enable as higher transparency as possible,
and therefore in a preferred embodiment only one foil is used. Figure number 3 described a
one-foil configuration in which a Polyester foil (1) patterned on its lower size with horizontal
conductors (2) and on its upper side with vertical conductors (3). The upper side is covered
by protection layer (5) to avoid integration or shipping damage. It should be noted that the
present invention could be implemented in additional combinations, such as using two foils.”
’662 App. at 6.
“In a preferred embodiment, the conductors are straight lines having 1 mm width, equally
spaced in 4 mm intervals. In different embodiments different patterns could be used. Larger
interval between the lines could be selected in order to reduce the total number of conductors
and therefore to reduce the electronic and the price of the system. Smaller intervals could be
selected to get higher resolution. Wider line width could be selected in order to reduce the
resistance of a conductive line.” Id. at 5.
Strickon Dep. Tr. 230:13-28, attached as Exhibit 18 to my Declaration.

4

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
[1C] a second layer spatially
separated from the first layer and
having a plurality of transparent
second conductive lines that are
electrically isolated from one another,

Perski ’4551
Perski ’455 teaches a second layer spatially separated from the first layer and having a
plurality of transparent second conductive lines (e.g., horizontal pattern/conductors 2 in
Figure 3 of the ’662 App.) that are electrically isolated from one another.

See [1A] and [1B].

[1D] the second conductive lines
being positioned transverse to the first
conductive lines,

Strickon Dep. Tr. 230:13-28, attached as Exhibit 18 to my Declaration.
Perski ’455 teaches the second conductive lines (e.g., horizontal pattern/conductors 2 in
Figure 3 of the ’662 App.) being positioned transverse to the first conductive lines (e.g.,
vertical conductors 3 in Figure 3 of the ’662 App.).
See [1A] and [1B].

[1E] the intersection of transverse
lines being positioned at different
locations in the plane of the touch
panel, each of the second conductive
lines being operatively coupled to
capacitive monitoring circuitry;

Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 168:23 - 169:3; 171:1-8.
Perski ’455 teaches the intersection of transverse lines being positioned at different locations
in the plane of the touch panel, each of the second conductive lines being operatively
coupled to capacitive monitoring circuitry (e.g., “detection circuitry”).
See [1A] and [1B].
Perski ’455 states: “The detector may comprise a plurality of conductive elements and the
detection circuitry may comprise a differential detector arrangement associated with the
sensing conductors for detecting differences between outputs of the conductors.” Id. at
5

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
3:44-49.

The ’622 App. states: “the sensor is surrounded with a non-transparent frame build of a PCB
or flexible circuit. The frame hose the front-end analog components, the conductors from the
grid to the front-end, the conductors from the front-end to the digital sections and the
excitation coil. In additional embodiments, however, the front-end components could [be]
mounted directly on the transparent foil. In this case conductors to/from the front-end could
be implemented either by patterning the transparent conductive material or by printing of
different material, such as silver on the foil.” Id. at 6.
Perski ’455 states: “In FIG. 1A a sensor 2 comprises at least one electrical conductor 4. In
the typical case there is more than one conductor, and the conductors are set in an
arrangement or pattern over the sensor, most often as a grid which extends over a surface
such as an electronic screen for which touch sensing is required. A detector 6 picks up the
output from the conductors. An oscillator 8 provides oscillations or [AC] energy to the
system comprising the sensor and detector. In one embodiment, the system is not initially
[AC] coupled. However a conductive object, including body parts such as fingers are
capacitive and therefore touch by a finger or the like completes the [AC] coupling within the
system and allows the touch to be sensed. Alternatively a touch by the finger may provide
an [AC] short circuit to ground for a given conductor, again allowing the touch to be
sensed.” Id. at 9:19-33.

6

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
[1F] wherein the capacitive
monitoring circuitry is configured to
detect changes in charge coupling
between the first conductive lines and
the second conductive lines.

Perski ’4551
Perski ’455 teaches that the capacitive monitoring circuitry is configured to detect changes in
charge coupling between the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines.
See [1A] and [1E].

“A faster approach is to apply the signal to a group of conductors on one axis. A group can
comprise any subset including all of the conductors in that axis, and look for a signal at each
one of the conductors on the other axis. Subsequently, an input signal is applied to a group
of lines on the second axis, and outputs are sought at each one of the conductors on the first
axis.” Id. at 14:20-59.
[7] The touch panel as recited in claim Perski ’455 teaches the touch panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the capacitive sensing
1, wherein the capacitive sensing
medium lines (e.g., of two-dimensional sensor matrix 20 in Figure 2) is a mutual capacitance
medium is a mutual capacitance
sensing medium.
sensing medium.
See [1A].
Perski ’455 states: “A number of procedures for detection are possible. The most simple and
direct approach is to provide a signal to each one of the matrix lines in one of the matrix
axes, one line at a time, and to read the signal in turn at each one of the matrix lines on the
orthogonal axis. The signal, in such a case, can be a simple cosine pattern at any frequency
within the range of the sampling hardware and detection algorithms. If a significant output
signal is detected, it means that there is a finger touching a junction. The junction that is
being touched is the one connecting the conductor that is currently being energized with an
input signal and the conductor at which the output signal is detected. The disadvantage of
such a direct detection method is that it requires an order of n*m steps, where n stands for the
number of vertical lines and m for the number of horizontal lines. In fact, because it is
typically necessary to repeat the procedure for the second axis so the number of steps is more
typically 2*n*m steps. However, this method enables the detection of multiple finger
touches. When an output signal is detected on more then one conductor that means more
than one finger touch is present. The junctions that are being touched are the ones
connecting the conductor that is currently being energized and the conductors which exhibit
an output signal.”
7

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

“A faster approach is to apply the signal to a group of conductors on one axis. A group can
comprise any subset including all of the conductors in that axis, and look for a signal at each
one of the conductors on the other axis. Subsequently, an input signal is applied to a group
of lines on the second axis, and outputs are sought at each one of the conductors on the first
axis. The method requires a maximum of n+m steps, and in the case in which the groups are
the entire axis then the number of steps is two. However, this method may lead to ambiguity
on those rare occasions when multiple touches occur simultaneously at specific combinations
of locations, and the larger the groups the greater is the scope for ambiguity.”
“An optimal approach is to combine the above methods, starting with the faster method and
switching to the direct approach upon detection of a possible ambiguity.” Id. at 14:20-59.
Strickon Dep. Tr. 54:7-18; 183:16-20; 204:25 – 205:6.; 258:24-259:1, attached as Exhibit 18
to my Declaration.
Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 155:23 – 156:14.
Day Dep. Tr. 25:8-13; 108:19 – 109:11, attached as Exhibit 19 to my Declaration.
Hotelling Dep. Tr. 78:24-79:2, attached as Exhibit 20 to my Declaration.
[8] The touch panel as recited in claim
7, further comprising a virtual ground
charge amplifier coupled to the touch
panel for detecting the touches on the
touch panel.

Perski ’455 teaches the touch panel as recited in claim 7, further comprising a virtual ground
charge amplifier (e.g., differential amplifier 74) coupled to the touch panel for detecting the
touches on the touch panel.

8

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Perski ’455 states: “In FIG. 5, oscillator 64 is connected between ground 62 and detector 60.
The oscillator 64 oscillates the detector 60 and the detector front end, which includes two
sensor conductors 70 and 72. The two conductors are connected to the two differential
inputs respectively of differential amplifier 74. As explained above, all oscillations are in
reference to the common ground 62. The touch by the user’s finger of a sensor conductor,
say 70 creates capacitance 76. As there is a potential between conductor 70 and the user,
current passes from conductor 70 through the finger to ground. Impedance 78 indicates the
impedance of the finger. Consequently a potential difference is created between conductors
70 and 72. Preferably, the separation between the two conductors 70 and 72 which are
connected to the same differential amplifier 74 is greater than the width of a finger so that the
necessary potential difference can be formed. The differential amplifier 74 amplifies the
potential difference, and the detector 60 processes the amplified signal and thereby
determines the location of the user’s finger. It should be noted that in alternative
embodiments the sensor may be connected to a standard amplifier rather than to a differential
amplifier.” Id. at 15:44-65.
The digitizer described in Perski ‘455 employs such operational amplifiers. (See, e,g,. id. at
Figures 5, 8, 10B, 14, 15, 16A, and 17). As discussed previously, these operational
amplifiers were known to carry Miller capacitance. Perski ‘455 uses the operational
amplifiers without other feedback. Thus, the Miller capacitance of the operational amplifier
provides the charge feedback in the structure, producing the charge amplifier circuit shown
in Figure 13 of the ‘607 patent. Furthermore, the Miller theorem states that this Miller
9

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Perski ’4551
capacitance is mathematically identical to a pair of capacitors to ground, providing a virtual
ground to the charge amplifier.
Thus, the operational amplifier 7 shown in Figure 5 of Perski ’455 is a virtual ground charge
amplifier. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that operational amplifier 7 has Miller
capacitance, which provides virtual ground charge feedback. Additional virtual grounding is
provided by the capacitive coupling of the finger or touch, through the natural resistance of
the body to the ground.
Even if Perski ‘455 did not expressly or inherently disclose a virtual ground charge amplifier,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a virtual ground charge
amplifier as one of the several ways that detection of touches on the touch panel could have
been performed. Indeed, Perski ‘455 acknowledges that “the prior art teaches connection of
a separate charge sensor or the like to each electrode.” (Perski ‘455 at 8:26-28). One such
example of such a separate charge sensor is that of Blonder et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,113,041
issued May 12, 1992 (“Blonder”). As shown in Figure 3a of Blonder, reproduced below,
element 30 is a virtual ground charge amplifier coupled to the touch panel for detecting the
touches on the touch panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
include the virtual ground charge amplifier of Blonder in the digitizer of Perski as a
predictable variant and a matter of simple design implementation in order, for example, to
reduce noise from stray capacitance.

10

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Another example of the claimed “virtual ground charge amplifier” is shown in U.S. Patent
No. 5,565,658 to Gerpheide et al. (hereinafter “Gerpheide ’658”). Gerpheide ’658 issued in
1996—8 years before the ’607 Patent was filed. I understand that Gerpheide ’658 was even
included and charted in Samsung’s preliminary invalidity contentions in an obviousness
combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,305,017 also to Gerpheide et al. (hereinafter “Gerpheide
’017”). Gerpheide ’658, like Blonder, is directed to a capacitive touch sensor. Gerpheide
’658, in FIG. 6B, shows a “virtual ground charge amplifier” as its “capacitive measuring
element” connected to the touch panel.

11

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Once again, this amplifier is in precisely the same configuration as shown in FIG. 13 of the
’607 Patent. The non-inverting (positive) terminal of the amplifier is tied to ground, and the
inverting (negative) terminal is connected to a feedback loop with a capacitor. As such, the
amplifier includes the exact same “capacitor designed into a negative feedback loop” that
Apple’s own expert alleged was required for an operational amplifier to be considered a
“virtual ground charge amplifier.” There can be no doubt that Gerpheide ’658 clearly shows
a “virtual ground charge amplifier” coupled to the touch panel for detecting touches.
Gerpheide ’658 provides the motivation to incorporate the virtual ground charge amplifier of
FIG. 6b shown above into any capacitive touch sensor. For example, Gerpheide ’658 teaches
that FIG. 6b represents a “preferred alternative” for the capacitive measurement element
shown in the prior figures. (Gerpheide ’658 at 7:46-54). Gerpheide ’658 also expressly
mentions that these configurations “represent different implementations known in the art for
low pass filter elements, such as switched capacitor integrators and filters, high-order analog
filters, and digital filters.” (Id. at 8:15-19). As such, it would be readily apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the virtual ground charge amplifier of FIG. 6b into any
capacitive touch sensing application, including the touch sensors described in Perski and
Smartskin, in order to filter unwanted charge coupling and detect only charge coupling due
to the presence of a finger touch.
As yet another example, Gerpheide ’017, which I understand was also included and charted
in Samsung’s preliminary invalidity contentions, again shows the claimed “virtual ground
charge amplifier.” Gerpheide ’017 issued in 1994—a decade before the ’607 Patent was
filed. Gerpheide ’017 was also identified and referenced in my opening expert report with
respect to claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. I cited Gerpheide ’017 for its description of
a mutual capacitive touch sensor (see ¶¶ 111 and 112 of my Corrected Opening Report,
attached as Exhibit 16 to my Declaration). In particular, I cited column 9, line 62 through
column 12, line 13 in my opening report. (Id. at ¶ 112). These columns describe the exact
same “virtual ground charge amplifier” shown in FIG. 13 of the ’607 Patent.
12

Perski ’4551

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

For example, Gerpheide ’017 describes a “differential charge amplifier” which maintains its
inputs to “virtual ground” in order to detect mutual capacitance. This is yet another clear
example of the claimed “virtual ground charge amplifier” recited in claim 8 of the ’607
patent. As shown in the excerpt below, differential charge amplifier 560 is a virtual ground
charge amplifier because it is a charge amplifier whose inputs are maintained at virtual
ground, the precise definition provided by Brian Huppi, an inventor of the ’607 Patent.

(Gerpheide ’017 at 11:41-64).
It is therefore my opinion that Perski ‘455 discloses this limitation.
Huppi Dep. Tr. 96:19-98:5, attached as Exhibit 9 to my Declaration.
13

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Perski ’4551
See also the analysis in my Declaration of several textbooks references, a university physics
experiment, and an IEEE reference, each of which confirms my opinion that the use of a
“virtual ground charge amplifier” in a capacitive touch sensor would be an obvious and
trivial addition to the digitizer of Perski ’455. The inclusion of such a charge amplifier
would be a predictable variation yielding predictable results—namely, compensating for
unwanted charge coupling in the sensor—which was well known in the art for over a decade
before the ’607 Patent was filed.

14

SAMSUNG’S INVALIDITY CLAIM CHART FOR “SMARTSKIN: AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FREEHAND
MOVEMENT OF INTERACTIVE SURFACES” (“SMARTSKIN”)
Summary of Invalidity Opinions and Materials Relied Upon:
•

“Smartskin: An Infrastructure for Freehand Manipulation on Interactive Surfaces,” Conference on Human Interaction 2002, by
Jun Rekimoto, (“Smartskin”) was published between April 20-25, 2002. Smartskin appears to refer to the same input device
described in Smartskin and is by the same author. Smartskin qualifies as prior art to the ’607 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

•

Smartskin anticipates and/or renders obvious Claim 8 of the ’607 Patent. To the extent any limitation of the Claim 8 is not
expressly or inherently disclosed in Smartskin, any such limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention of the ’607 patent.

•

Smartskin is “a new sensor architecture for making interactive surfaces that are sensitive to human hand and finger gestures.”
(Smartskin at 1). Similar to the other prior art references I analyzed above, “[t]his sensor recognizes multiple hand positions
and shapes and calculates the distance between the hand and the surface by using capacitive sensing and a mesh-shaped
antenna.” (Id.). The mesh or grid-like arrangement includes both transmitter and receiver electrodes and describes a mutual
capacitance sensing system. (Id. at 2).

•

As described in my Declaration, ALJ Essex and the full Commission held that Smartskin rendered all the asserted claims of the
’607 patent obvious, by itself or in combination with Rekimoto. See 750 ID.

•

I also understand that during the ITC investigation initiated against Motorola, Apple only contested the “transparent” sensing
medium limitation of Claim 1. (Id. at 147).

15

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
[1A] A touch panel comprising a
transparent capacitive sensing medium
configured to detect multiple touches
or near touches that occur at a same
time and at distinct locations in a plane
of the touch panel and to produce
distinct signals representative of a
location of the touches on the plane of
the touch panel for each of the
multiple touches,

Smartskin2
Smartskin teaches a touch panel comprising a transparent capacitive sensing medium (e.g.,
the SmartSkin sensor of Figure 2) configured to detect multiple touches or near touches that
occur at a same time and at distinct locations in a plane of the touch panel and to produce
distinct signals representative of a location of the touches on the plane of the touch panel for
each of the multiple touches.

Smartskin states: “The sensor consists of grid-shaped transmitter and receiver electrodes
(copper wires). The vertical wires are transmitter electrodes, and the horizontal wires are
2

The Sony Smartskin system is also a prior art reference in its own right. The analysis for Sony Smartskin system is believed to be
identical (or substantially similar) to the analysis shown here.
16

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin2
receiver electrodes. When one of the transmitter lines is excited by a wave signal (of
typically several hundred kilohertz), the receiver receives this wave signal because each
crossing point (transmitter/receiver pairs) acts as a (very weak) capacitor. The magnitude of
the received signal is proportional to the frequency and voltage of the transmitted signal, as
well as to the capacitance between the two electrodes. When a conductive and grounded
object approaches a crossing point, it capacitively couples to the electrodes, and drains the
wave signal. As a result, the received signal amplitude becomes weak. By measuring this
effect, it is possible to detect the proximity of a conductive object, such as a human hand.”
Id. at 2.

“A notable advantage of SmartSkin over traditional mouse-based systems is its natural
support for multiple-hand, multiple-user operations. Two or more users can simultaneoulsy
interact with the surface at the same time…. He or she can also ‘concatenate’ two objects by
using both hands, as shown in Figure 7, or can take objects apart in the same manner.” Id. at
4.
“The system time-dividing transmitting signal is sent to each of the vertical electrodes and
the system independently measures values from each of the receiver electrodes. These
values are integrated to form two-dimensional sensor values, which we called “proximity
pixels.” Once these values are obtained, algorithms similar to those used in image
processing, such as peak detection, connected region analysis, and template matching, can be
applied to recognize gestures. As a result, the system can recognize multiple objects (e.g.,
hands). If the granularity of the mesh is dense, the system can recognize the shape of
objects.” Id. at 2.
17

Smartskin2

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

“A transparent SmartSkin sensor can be obtained by using indium tin oxide (ITO). This
sensor can be mounted in front of a flat panel display or on a rear-projection screen.” Id. at
7.
Strickon Dep. Tr. 214:6-13, attached as Exhibit 18 to my Declaration.
Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 157:5 – 158:5; 158:20 – 159:11.
Smartskin also is capable of detecting near touches: “[w]hen a user’s hand is placed within
5-10 cm from the table, the system recognizes the effect of capacitance change.” (Smartskin
at p. 3). Smartskin goes on to explain how “distance estimation” is implemented to
determine the relative distance of a hand to the table and even shows (in Figure 5 reproduced
below) different visual indications corresponding to varying distances of a finger being away
from the table. Smartskin, therefore, clearly detects near touches as well as actual touches.

[1B] wherein the transparent
capacitive sensing medium comprises:
a first layer having a plurality of
transparent first conductive lines that
are electrically isolated from one
another; and

Smartskin teaches a transparent capacitive sensing medium comprising a first layer having a
plurality of transparent first conductive lines that are electrically isolated from one another.
See [1A].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is inherent that indiviudal
18

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

[1C] a second layer spatially
separated from the first layer and
having a plurality of transparent
second conductive lines that are
electrically isolated from one another,

Smartskin2
transmitter lines and indiviudal receiver lines of the SmartSkin sensor are electrically
isolated from one another and each layer is electrically isolated from the other layer,
otherwise the lines could not be individually driven and sensed, nor would each crossing
point between the transmitter and receiver lines act as a capacitor—as expressly disclosed in
Smartskin. Id. at 2.
Strickon Dep. Tr. 230:13-28, attached as Exhibit 18 to my Declaration.
Smartskin teaches a second layer spatially separated from the first layer and having a
plurality of transparent second conductive lines that are electrically isolated from one
another.
See [1A] and [1B].
Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 155:6-21.

[1D] the second conductive lines
being positioned transverse to the first
conductive lines,

Strickon Dep. Tr. 183:21 – 184:6, attached as Exhibit 18 to my Declaration.
Smartskin teaches the second conductive lines being positioned transverse to the first
conductive lines.
See [1A].
Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 168:23 - 169:3; 171:1-8.

[1E] the intersection of transverse
lines being positioned at different
locations in the plane of the touch
panel, each of the second conductive
lines being operatively coupled to
capacitive monitoring circuitry;

Smartskin teaches the intersection of transverse lines being positioned at different locations
in the plane of the touch panel, each of the second conductive lines being operatively
coupled to capacitive monitoring circuitry (e.g., receiver circuitry, A/D converter, and/or
host PC of Figure 2).

19

Smartskin2

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

See [1A].
[1F] wherein the capacitive
monitoring circuitry is configured to
detect changes in charge coupling
between the first conductive lines and
the second conductive lines.

Smartskin teaches the claimed touch panel wherein capacitive monitoring circuitry is
configured to detect changes in charge coupling between the first conductive lines and the
second conductive lines.
To the extent this limition requires driving more than one electrode at the same time while
sensing on more than one sense line, Smartskin discloses this feature.
For example, Smartskin teaches that “[t]he system time-dividing transmitting singal [is] sent
to each of a vertical electrodes and the system independently measures values from each of
receiver electrodes.” (Smartskin at p. 2). The fact that the transmitted signal is time-divided
would indicate that the signal is transmitted to a subset of all the electrodes in one axis while
20

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin2
all the electrodes on the other axis are sensed. It is therefore my opinion that Smartskin
discloses driving more than one line while sensing one more than one line at the same time.
To the extent Smartskin’s sensor applies the drive signal only to one electrode at a time, it
would have been obvious to use the “faster approach” described in Perski ’455 in the
Smartskin sensor in order to reduce the number of steps or operations required in order to
scan the entire panel.

See [1A].
[7] The touch panel as recited in claim Smartskin teaches the touch panel as recited in claim 1, wherein the capacitive sensing
1, wherein the capacitive sensing
medium is a mutual capacitance sensing medium.
medium is a mutual capacitance
sensing medium.
See [1A].
Strickon Dep. Tr. 54:7-18; 183:16-20; 204:25 – 205:6.; 258:24-259:1, attached as Exhibit 18
to my Declaration.
Huppi Dep. Tr., Exhibit 9 to my Declaration, at 155:23 – 156:14.
Hotelling Dep. Tr. 78:24 – 79:2, attached as Exhibit 20 to my Declaration.
Day Dep. Tr. 25:8-13; 108:19 – 109:11, attached as Exhibit 19 to my Declaration.
[8] The touch panel as recited in claim
7, further comprising a virtual ground
charge amplifier coupled to the touch
panel for detecting the touches on the
touch panel.

Smartskin teaches the touch panel as recited in claim 7, further comprising a virtual ground
charge amplifier (e.g., “lock-in amplifier” of Figure 2) coupled to the touch panel for
detecting the touches on the touch panel.
See [1A].

21

Smartskin2

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin states: “To accurately measure signals only from the transmitter electrode, a
technique called “lock-in amplifier” is used. This technique uses an analogue switch as a
phase-sensitive detector. The transmitter signal is used as a reference signal for switching
this analog switch, to enable the system to select signals that have the synchronized
frequency and the phase of the transmitted signal.” Id. at 2.
The sensor of Smartskin employs such operational amplifiers. As discussed previously,
these operational amplifiers were known to carry Miller capacitance. Smartskin uses the
operational amplifiers without other feedback. Thus, the Miller capacitance of the
operational amplifier provides the charge feedback in the structure, producing the charge
amplifier circuit shown in Figure 13 of the ‘607 patent. Furthermore, the Miller theorem
states that this Miller capacitance is mathematically identical to a pair of capacitors to
ground, providing a virtual ground to the charge amplifier.
Thus, the “lock-in” amplifier of Smartskin is a virtual ground charge amplifier. One of
ordinary skill in the art knows that the operational amplifier has Miller capacitance, which
provides virtual ground charge feedback. Additional virtual grounding is provided by the
capacitive coupling of the finger or touch, through the natural resistance of the body to the
ground.
Even if Smartskin did not expressly or inherently disclose a virtual ground charge amplifier,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a virtual ground charge
amplifier as one of the several ways that detection of touches on the touch panel could have
been performed. One such example of such a separate charge sensor is that of Blonder et al.,
U.S. Patent No. 5,113,041 issued May 12, 1992 (“Blonder”). As shown in Figure 3a of
22

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin2
Blonder, reproduced below, element 30 is a virtual ground charge amplifier coupled to the
touch panel for detecting the touches on the touch panel. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to include the virtual ground charge amplifier of Blonder in the
sensor of Smartskin as a predictable variant and a matter of simple design implementation in
order, for example, to reduce noise from stray capacitance.

It is therefore my opinion that Smartskin discloses this limitation.
Another example of the claimed “virtual ground charge amplifier” is shown in U.S. Patent
No. 5,565,658 to Gerpheide et al. (hereinafter “Gerpheide ’658”). Gerpheide ’658 issued in
1996—8 years before the ’607 Patent was filed. I understand that Gerpheide ’658 was even
included and charted in Samsung’s preliminary invalidity contentions in an obviousness
combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,305,017 also to Gerpheide et al. (hereinafter “Gerpheide
23

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin2
’017”). Gerpheide ’658, like Blonder, is directed to a capacitive touch sensor. Gerpheide
’658, in FIG. 6B, shows a “virtual ground charge amplifier” as its “capacitive measuring
element” connected to the touch panel.

Once again, this amplifier is in precisely the same configuration as shown in FIG. 13 of the
’607 Patent. The non-inverting (positive) terminal of the amplifier is tied to ground, and the
inverting (negative) terminal is connected to a feedback loop with a capacitor. As such, the
amplifier includes the exact same “capacitor designed into a negative feedback loop” that
Apple’s own expert alleged was required for an operational amplifier to be considered a
“virtual ground charge amplifier.” There can be no doubt that Gerpheide ’658 clearly shows
a “virtual ground charge amplifier” coupled to the touch panel for detecting touches.
Gerpheide ’658 provides the motivation to incorporate the virtual ground charge amplifier of
FIG. 6b shown above into any capacitive touch sensor. For example, Gerpheide ’658 teaches
that FIG. 6b represents a “preferred alternative” for the capacitive measurement element
shown in the prior figures. (Gerpheide ’658 at 7:46-54). Gerpheide ’658 also expressly
mentions that these configurations “represent different implementations known in the art for
low pass filter elements, such as switched capacitor integrators and filters, high-order analog
filters, and digital filters.” (Id. at 8:15-19). As such, it would be readily apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the virtual ground charge amplifier of FIG. 6b into any
capacitive touch sensing application, including the touch sensors described in Perski and
Smartskin, in order to filter unwanted charge coupling and detect only charge coupling due
to the presence of a finger touch.
As yet another example, Gerpheide ’017, which I understand was also included and charted
24

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607

Smartskin2
in Samsung’s preliminary invalidity contentions, again shows the claimed “virtual ground
charge amplifier.” Gerpheide ’017 issued in 1994—a decade before the ’607 Patent was
filed. Gerpheide ’017 was also identified and referenced in my opening expert report with
respect to claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. I cited Gerpheide ’017 for its description of
a mutual capacitive touch sensor (see ¶¶ 111 and 112 of my Corrected Opening Report,
attached as Exhibit 16 to my Declaration). In particular, I cited column 9, line 62 through
column 12, line 13 in my opening report. (Id. at ¶ 112). These columns describe the exact
same “virtual ground charge amplifier” shown in FIG. 13 of the ’607 Patent.
For example, Gerpheide ’017 describes a “differential charge amplifier” which maintains its
inputs to “virtual ground” in order to detect mutual capacitance. This is yet another clear
example of the claimed “virtual ground charge amplifier” recited in claim 8 of the ’607
patent. As shown in the excerpt below, differential charge amplifier 560 is a virtual ground
charge amplifier because it is a charge amplifier whose inputs are maintained at virtual
ground, the precise definition provided by Brian Huppi, an inventor of the ’607 Patent.

25

Smartskin2

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607
(Gerpheide ’017 at 11:41-64).

Huppi Dep. Tr. 96:19-98:5, attached as Exhibit 9 to my Declaration.
See also the analysis in my Declaration of several textbooks references, a university physics
experiment, and an IEEE reference, each of which confirms my opinion that the use of a
“virtual ground charge amplifier” in a capacitive touch sensor would be an obvious and
trivial addition to the sensor of Smartskin. The inclusion of such a charge amplifier would
be a predictable variation yielding predictable results—namely, compensating for unwanted
charge coupling in the sensor—which was well known in the art for over a decade before the
’607 Patent was filed.

26