U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00230
`Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON DECEMBER 17, 2015
`DEPOSITION OF GREGORY F. WELCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00230
`Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON DECEMBER 17, 2015
`DEPOSITION OF GREGORY F. WELCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012), Patent Owner Aplix
`
`IP Holdings Corporation submits the following observations on the December 17,
`
`2015 deposition of Gregory Welch (exhibit 2034).
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2034 (’245/’692 Welch 12-17-15 deposition), on page 6,
`
`line 10 through page 10, line 25, Dr. Welch testified about his supplemental
`
`declaration’s response to various points raised by Dr. Karon MacLean, an expert
`
`whose testimony Aplix has submitted, including Dr. Welch’s understanding that
`
`Dr. MacLean’s opinion was that application-level software “must redefine spatial
`
`boundaries of the delineated active areas” (page 6, line 24, through page 7, line 4)
`
`(quoting exhibit 1042, ’245 Welch supplemental declaration, ¶ 7) and that in her
`
`view there is a “requirement that the spatial boundaries of the delineated active
`
`areas themselves must change from application to application” (page 10, line 4-14)
`
`(quoting exhibit 1042, ’245 Welch supplemental declaration, ¶ 8). This testimony
`
`is relevant to the testimony of Dr. MacLean that in her view the delineated active
`
`areas had to be “changeable” (exhibit 2003, ¶¶ 85 (heading), 96, 102, 215), not that
`
`they necessarily had to change (exhibit 1040, ’245/’692 MacLean deposition,
`
`page 67, line 23 to page 68, line 4). The testimony is relevant because it shows
`
`that Dr. Welch’s critique of Dr. MacLean’s opinion is based on a misunderstanding
`
`of that opinion.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2034 (’245/’692 Welch 12-17-15 deposition), on page 11,
`
`line 1, through page 15, line 11, Dr. Welch testified that he could not identify
`
`anything in the ’245/’692 specification explicitly saying that the active areas are
`
`defined by system-level (as opposed to application-level) software. This testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. MacLean’s opinion that the ’245 patent’s claim 1 phrase “‘of
`
`[the] selected application’ indicates that the mapping is specified at the level of the
`
`application, not (for example) at the device or operating system level” at ¶ 57 (as
`
`well as ¶¶ 66-71 and 89-91) of exhibit 2003 (’245 MacLean declaration). The
`
`testimony is relevant because it supports Dr. MacLean’s opinion.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2034 (’245/’692 Welch 12-17-15 deposition), on page 15,
`
`line 13, through page 17, line 5, Dr. Welch testified about the ’245/’692
`
`specification’s inclusion of at least one example showing application-level
`
`configuration, as opposed to system-level configuration, of active areas. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. MacLean’s opinion mentioned above (in paragraph 2).
`
`The testimony is relevant for the same reason—because it supports Dr. MacLean’s
`
`opinion.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2034 (’245/’692 Welch 12-17-15 deposition), on page 25,
`
`line 13, through page 28, line 18, Dr. Welch testified that three sections of the
`
`Liebenow specification discuss embodiments of Liebenow’s invention, but the
`
`“Background of the Invention” section, which includes a reference to PDAs, does
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`not. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Welch’s testimony suggesting that
`
`Liebenow’s device could be a PDA in exhibit 1042 (’245 Welch supplemental
`
`declaration), ¶ 13. The testimony is relevant because it shows that the example on
`
`which Dr. Welch relies is not taken from the description of Liebenow’s invention.
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2034 (’245/’692 Welch 12-17-15 deposition), on page 29,
`
`line 6, through page 36, line 12, Dr. Welch testified that he could not agree that
`
`there is much more of a need to display images of keys on a display that the user
`
`can see in a situation where the device has an emulated (soft) keyboard on the back
`
`of the device, as opposed to a situation where the device has a hard-key keyboard
`
`that the user can see and feel (page 32, lines 15-23) and that it would be too much
`
`of a generalization to say that it’s harder for a user to find soft or emulated keys on
`
`the back of a device than it is to find hard keys that the user can see and feel (page
`
`36, lines 7-12). This testimony is relevant to Dr. Welch’s testimony (responding to
`
`Mr. Lim’s opinions about Liebenow) in exhibit 1042 (’245 Welch supplemental
`
`declaration), ¶ 21. The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Welch’s
`
`criticism is grounded on an unrealistic understanding of how users use hand-held
`
`devices.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`By: ___/Sybil L. Dunlop/________________________
` Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile:
`(612) 373-0929
`E-mail: BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
` SDunlop@GreeneEspel.com
` KZhao@GreeneEspel.com
`
`Michael Mauriel, USPTO Reg. No. 44,226
`Sherman W. Kahn (pro hac vice)
` MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`15 West 26th Street, Floor 7
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 529-5131
`Facsimile:
`(212) 529-5132
`E-mail:
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
` skahn@mkwllp.com
`
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,245
`
`IPR2015-00230
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of
`December 2015, the foregoing Patent Owner Aplix IP Holdings Corporation’s
`Motion for Observation is being served via email on the following counsel of
`record for petitioner.
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Eric A. Buresh (Reg. No. 50,394)
`Eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Abran J. Kean (Reg. No. 58,540)
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite
`200
`Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`_____/Sybil L. Dunlop/_________________________
`Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Aplix IP Holdings
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015.
`
`
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
