Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 42
`Filed: March 15, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’020 patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined the Petition showed a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 42
`Filed: March 15, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’020 patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined the Petition showed a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16, and we instituted an inter partes review
`of these claims on certain asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7
`(“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 18 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner
`filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper 27 (“Reply”). An oral
`hearing was held on December 14, 2016, pursuant to requests by both
`parties. Paper 38 (“Tr.”); see Papers 31, 34, 35.
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner
`has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11,
`13, and 16 of the ’020 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’020 patent is involved
`in, at least, the following lawsuits: Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.), and Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 5;
`Paper 5, 2. The ’020 patent is also the subject of IPR2015-01984. Paper 13,
`2. A related patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476, is at issue in IPR2015-01899
`and IPR2015-01985.
`
`
`B. THE ’020 PATENT
`The ’020 patent relates to a computing device with an improved user
`interface for applications. Ex. 1001, 1:14–15. The ’020 patent describes a
`“snap-shot” view of an application that brings together, in one summary
`window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`data. Id. at 2:26–30. Preferably, where the summary window for a given
`application shows data or a function of interest, the user can select that data
`or function directly, which causes the application to open and the user to be
`presented with a screen in which the data or function of interest is
`prominent. Id. at 2:31–35. The ’020 patent explains that this summary
`window functionality saves the user from navigating to the required
`application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to
`enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.
`Id. at 2:35–39. Figure 2 of the ’020 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above, illustrates an implementation of the summary
`window (at 3) of the ’020 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:31–32.
`
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Claim 1, a device claim, and claim 16, a computer program product
`claim, are the only independent claims of the ’020 patent. The remaining
`challenged claims, claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13, all depend, directly or
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter in this
`proceeding, and is reproduced below (formatting added).
`1. A computing device comprising a display
`screen,
`the computing device being configured to display
`on the screen a main menu listing at least a
`first application, and
`additionally being configured to display on the
`screen an application summary window that
`can be reached directly from the main menu,
`wherein the application summary window displays
`a limited list of at least one function offered
`within the first application,
`each function in the list being selectable to launch
`the first application and initiate the selected
`function, and
`is
`wherein
`the application summary window
`displayed while
`the application
`is
`in an
`unlaunched state.
`
`Id. at 5:33–43.
`
`
`
`D. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references.
`Schnarel US 7,225,409 B1
`
`May 29, 20071
`
`Aberg
`US 6,993,362 B1
`
`Jan. 31, 20062
`
`Nason
`US 6,593,945 B1
`
`July 15, 20033
`
`Wagner
`US 6,256,516 B1
`
`July 3, 20014
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1010
`
`
`1 Schnarel was filed August 25, 1999.
`2 Aberg was filed March 13, 2000.
`3 Nason was filed May 19, 2000.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`Dec. 23, 20035
`
`Yurkovic US 6,668,353 B1
`Ex. 1018
`
`
`Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Brad A. Myers,
`dated September 11, 2015. Ex. 1003. Petitioner also relies on the Rebuttal
`Declaration of Dr. Brad A. Myers, dated October 17, 2016. Ex. 1038.
`
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Scott A. Denning, dated
`July 15, 2016. Ex. 2011.
`Patent Owner also submitted observations on cross examination of
`Dr. Myers. See Paper 32. Petitioner submitted responsive observations. See
`Paper 36. We have considered both.
`E. INSTITUTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`We instituted an inter partes review on the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16
`Schnarel6
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16
`Schnarel and Aberg
`§ 103(a) 6
`Schnarel and Yurkovic
`Schnarel, Aberg, and Yurkovic § 103(a) 6
`Nason7
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16
`Nason and Yurkovic
`§ 103(a) 6
`Wagner and Nason
`§ 103(a) 11
`
`
`4 Wagner was filed September 24, 1999.
`5 Yurkovic was filed March 25, 1999.
`6 Petitioner includes “the knowledge of a POSITA [(person of skill in the
`art)]” in all of the Schnarel grounds. Pet. 13. Because an obviousness
`inquiry always includes the knowledge of person of ordinary skill, it is
`unnecessary to list explicitly such knowledge in the grounds.
`7 As with Schnarel, Petitioner lists alternative grounds based on Nason that
`explicitly recite “the knowledge of a POSITA.” Pet. 37. For the reasons
`discussed in footnote 6, we do not list those alternative grounds separately.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`We interpret claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we presume a
`claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption may be overcome by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
`Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms which are in controversy need be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “application”
`The term “application” is found in independent claims 1 and 16.
`Patent Owner construes this term as requiring that “an ‘application’ exists in
`a particular software architecture having an operating system that can
`manage multiple executables (e.g., applications) and an application can be
`launched to access its associated functions and data.” PO Resp. 14 (citing
`Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 15–20, 29). Patent Owner’s construction, that there must be
`multiple threads of execution, relies on Mr. Denning’s interpretation of a
`discussion in the Specification where the ’020 patent describes that the App
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`Snapshot for the “Contacts” application can be opened while there is “an
`active Calendar application” and that the App Snapshot can include contact
`information relating to parties in the “previously or currently open Calendar
`application.” Id. at 15–16 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:55–59). Patent Owner
`contends that these operations require multiple threads of execution so that
`the device can view the App Snapshot while another application is
`“currently open.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 23). Patent Owner submits
`that a person of ordinary skill in July 2000 would have understood that an
`“‘application’ referred to application-level architecture, with the application
`implemented on top of an operating system layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 2011
`¶¶ 15, 29). Patent Owner further argues that a person of ordinary skill
`“would have understood an ‘application’ to be packaged software for
`performing user functions, arranged in an application layer and able to
`access APIs of an operating system.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2011
`¶¶ 10, 29).
`Patent Owner also asserts that “an ‘application’ should be
`distinguished from the windows of the application.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner
`submits that “it is not correct to view the opening of a new window in a
`launched application as tantamount to launching an application.” Id. at 17–
`18. Patent Owner identifies extrinsic evidence—the testimony of
`Mr. Denning and a reference, Richard (US 6,781,611), relied on for a
`different issue during the prosecution of ’020 patent—that it asserts supports
`this contention. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 30; Ex. 2008, Abstract);
`Ex. 1018, 171, 180–81 (the prosecution history discussion of Richard).
`Petitioner argues that no construction is necessary, but also that if the
`term is construed, then its broadest reasonable interpretation is “a program
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`or group of programs working together to provide access to functions and
`data.” Reply 1. Petitioner submits that this is consistent with the
`Specification of the ’020 patent, id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:33–40, 2:24–25, 3:5–
`22, Fig. 1), and “relevant dictionaries and contemporaneous use,” id. (citing
`Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029, 1:40–47; Ex. 1030, 1:17–20; Ex. 1031, 4, 5). Petitioner
`submits that Patent Owner’s limitations are unsupported by the Specification
`and nothing in the Specification limits the term in this way. Id. at 2.
`We agree with Petitioner that “application” should be construed as “a
`program or group of programs working together to provide access to
`functions and data.” We agree with Petitioner that this construction is
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, as
`evidenced by the dictionaries and extrinsic evidence submitted by Petitioner.
`See Ex. 1028, 5 (“application A program or group of programs designed for
`end users”) (PHILIP E. MARGOLIS, RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COMPUTER &
`INTERNET DICTIONARY 24 (3d ed. 1999)); Ex. 1029, 1:40–47 (“A web
`application is little more than a set of web pages that support different
`functionalities.”) (Kieffer, US 7,996,626 B2, filed Jan. 30, 2001); Ex. 1030,
`1:17–20 (U.S. Provisional App. 60/180,378, filed Feb. 4, 2000 (provisional
`application for Kieffer); Ex. 1031, 4 (“application program: Software that
`enables a computer to perform a set of related tasks for a specific purpose,
`such as . . . Web browsing.”), 5 (“program A set of coded instructions that
`direct a computer in performing a specific task”) (LON POOLE & TODD
`STAUFFER, MACWORLD MAC OS 9 BIBLE 842, 855 (1999)). We further agree
`with Petitioner that this construction is consistent with the Specification’s
`use of this term. See Ex. 1001, 1:33–40, 2:24–25, 3:5–22, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`As for Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we do not agree with
`Patent Owner that the disclosure in the Specification amounts to a definition
`or disclaimer necessary to limit this term. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v.
`AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To begin with, we
`note that a number of the limitations that Patent Owner wishes to read into
`this claim—such as, “application level architecture,” “packaged software,”
`“application layers,” or “APIs”—are not discussed or mentioned in the
`Specification. As for Patent Owner’s reliance on the description of an
`embodiment where two applications are open at once, see PO Resp. 15–16
`(citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–59), that embodiment is described only as a “possible
`feature.” We do not find this optional feature sufficient to limit this term.
`See Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).
`Indeed, this example repeatedly uses the word “may” to describe the features
`that Patent Owner relies upon to argue that the term must be limited, but this
`is precisely the type of tentative language that indicates that the inventors
`did not intend to require that the “applications” of the invention have these
`features. See Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that “the use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors
`did not intend to limit [the claims to a particular feature]”).
`As for Patent Owner’s contentions that “launching an application”
`does not include opening a new window of a launched application, we are
`not persuaded that this limitation should be read into the definition of
`“application.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the Specification or
`claims for this limitation. Instead, Patent Owner relies on the testimony of
`Mr. Denning and a reference relied on for other issues during the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`prosecution, Richard (Ex. 2008, U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611). We find that
`this extrinsic evidence is too vague to support reading this limitation into the
`term application given the lack of support in the Specification and claims.
`Accordingly, we construe “application” to mean “a program or group
`of programs working together to provide access to functions and data.”
`2. “function”
`Patent Owner contends that term “function” should be construed as
`“an action to be activated in an application and performed by a user, and
`should not be interpreted as simply opening an application or a window of
`an application.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner identifies several examples of
`functions given in the Specification. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43 (“create
`a new contact entry”), 2:7 (“open an address book function”), 2:8 (“enter a
`PIN security number”), 2:8–9 (“alter the ring melody”), Figs. 2, 3, 3:33–35
`(“Create Message” and “Enter chat room”)). Patent Owner argues that these
`examples demonstrate that “the ’020 patent consistently describes a
`‘function’ as something more than simply opening a window or opening an
`application.” Id. at 19. Patent Owner asserts that the “the ’020 patent uses
`the term ‘function’ to refer to an action that a user is to perform within the
`corresponding application (e.g. create a new contact entry, perform an
`address book function, enter a PIN number, change a ring tone, create a
`message, or participate in a chat).” Id. Patent Owner further argues that
`“[t]he ’020 patent also describes functions as options that can be
`‘activated.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:28, 2:37–39, 5:46, 6:40). Patent Owner
`contends that “[t]he operation of activating a function is distinguished in
`claims 2 and 18 from the operation of opening an application.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, 5:44–46 (“selecting a function listed in the summary window
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`causes the first application to open and that selected function to be
`activated.”)).
`Petitioner responds that no construction is necessary and that, if we
`decide to construe the term, “function” should be given its ordinary meaning
`of “operation or command.” Reply 2–3. Petitioner asserts that the
`Specification confirms that “upon selection of a function . . . the device may
`‘display[] the relevant screen offering the relevant functionality’ where the
`‘function of interest is prominent.’” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:35, 3:47–
`51). Petitioner submits that none of Patent Owner’s examples “defines or
`limits ‘function’ to exclude opening a window/displaying on a screen” and
`the ’020 patent does not “require a second user action after initiating the
`function.” Id.
`We agree with Petitioner that the Patent Owner is seeking to limit the
`term “function” improperly. To begin with, Patent Owner does not identify
`and we have not found a definition or disclaimer for the term “function” in
`the Specification. Furthermore, according to the Random House Webster’s
`Computer & Internet Dictionary, which was published in 1999, a “function”
`is “operation” or “command.” Ex. 1028, 6 (PHILIP E. MARGOLIS, RANDOM
`HOUSE WEBSTER’S COMPUTER & INTERNET DICTIONARY (1999)) (“The term
`function is also used synonymously with operation and command. For
`example, you execute the delete function to erase a word.” (emphasis
`added)). This meaning is consistent with the examples from the
`Specification that Patent Owner has identified. Ex. 1001, 1:43 (“create a
`new contact entry”), 2:7–8 (“open an address book function”), 2:8 (“enter a
`PIN security number”), 2:8–9 (“alter the ring melody”), Figs. 2, 3, 3:33–35
`(“Create Message” and “Enter chat room”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s construction, on the other hand, would exclude the
`Specification’s disclosure that selecting a function offered in the application
`summary can cause a window to open displaying the relevant functionality.
`See Ex. 1001, 2:35, 3:47–51 (noting the device may “display[] the relevant
`screen offering the relevant functionality” where the “function of interest is
`prominent”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “function” is “operation or command.”
`3. “reached directly from the main menu”
`Both independent claim 1 and 16 recite “an application summary
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu.” Ex. 1001, 5:37–
`38, 6:26–27. In its discussion of claim construction, Patent Owner does not
`offer an explicit construction. See PO Resp. 12–20. However, Patent
`Owner does state that although the District Court’s constructions in its
`lawsuit against LG Electronics, Inc., are based on the standard set forth in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), they are “consistent
`with the ’020 patent.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner contends that the District
`Court construed “reached directly” as “reached without an intervening step.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 2004, 23).8
`However, Patent Owner additionally contends that in order to be
`considered “reached directly from the main menu” a person of ordinary skill
`would understand that the window would be “separate from, and not part of,
`the main menu.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 88). Patent Owner asserts that
`the Specification of the ’020 patent explains that “a user can get to the
`
`8 Patent Owner filed a copy of the Patent Owner Response as Exhibit 2004
`in this case, but filed a correct copy of Exhibit 2004 in IPR2015-01899.
`Patent Owner is directed to file a correct copy Exhibit 2004 in this case as
`well.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`summary window in just two steps—first, launch a main view which shows
`various applications; then, launch the appropriate summary window for the
`application of interest.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:61–64, Figs. 1, 2). Patent
`Owner argues that Figure 1 of the ’020 patent illustrates the main view,
`which Patent Owner asserts corresponds to the “main menu,” and that Figure
`2 of the ’020 patent “shows a separate summary window that is displayed on
`top of the main menu when a particular application listed in the main menu
`is selected.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:5–35, Figs. 1, 2).
`Petitioner simply contends that no construction is necessary. Reply 5.
`We do not agree that “reached directly from the main menu” requires
`that the summary window be “separate from, and not part of, the main
`menu.” To begin with, nothing in the claims requires such a demarcation.
`Although the claims indicate that the menu and the summary window are
`distinct entities, there is nothing that requires that the summary window be
`“separate” and “not a part” of the main menu. Moreover, there is no express
`requirement in the Specification that the “summary window” be “separate”
`from the menu.
`Patent Owner relies on Figures 1 and 2 of the ’020 patent to support
`its contention, but these figures illustrate why Patent Owner’s construction is
`not supported. For example, Figure 2 shows the “summary window”
`displayed together and as a single view with the options of the main menu.
`The Specification indicates that a user can scroll seamlessly from options in
`the App Snapshot to the next item on the list. See Ex. 1001, 4:6–9
`(“Scrolling down through the App Snapshot and off the end moves the
`highlight to the next application in the list. . . .”). Indeed, the Specification
`states that:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`Another caveat regarding the main list is that when the App
`Snapshot opens, there will typically be one item in the main list
`above and below it to preserve context—(i.e., to reduce any
`feeling in the user of having been transported somewhere else
`in the [User Interface (“UI”)]. They have not gone anywhere
`yet; the App Snapshot is just showing where they could easily
`go to.
`Ex. 1001, 4:24–29. The ’020 patent indicates that although these may be
`different views of main menu, Figures 1 and 2 are both part of the main
`menu component of the user interface. Thus, we do not agree the term is
`limited in the manner Patent Owner suggests. With this qualification, we
`adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of this phrase “reached directly
`from the main menu,” namely, “reached without an intervening step.”
`4. “environment of the device”
`The phrase “environment of the device” appears in claim 6. Claim 6
`depends from claim 1 and additionally recites that “the functionality and/or
`stored data types for a summary window for a given application varies with
`the environment of the device.” Petitioner submits that the phrase includes
`at least device hardware, software, or location. Reply 5. Patent Owner
`argues that this phrase excludes the presence and type of accessory attached
`to the device or SIM card inserted in the mobile phone. PO Resp. 43–44.
`We agree with Petitioner that the “environment of the device”
`includes the device hardware, software, and location, and does not exclude,
`as Patent Owner contends, the presence and type of accessory attached to the
`device or SIM card inserted in the mobile phone. This construction is
`supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of “environment” in the
`computer arts, as evidenced by the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`Technical Terms. See Ex. 1033, 6 (MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL TERMS 686 (5th ed. 1994) (“environment
`[COMPUT SCI] The computer system . . . including the hardware and
`system software . . . .”).
`This construction is also consistent with the Specification of the ’020
`patent. For example, the ’020 patent states that the App Snapshot contents
`may change depending on the hardware present and system software (e.g., if
`the device is “Bluetooth-enabled” with Bluetooth hardware and software) or
`location. See Ex. 1001, 4:47–52 (content varies based on other open
`software), 5:25–32 (explaining that the invention “may also be used in
`environments outside of mobile telephony . . . [e.g.,] desktop and laptop PCs
`may also benefit from the present invention”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31, 74–86, 122–
`125.
`
`Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the phrase the “environment of the device” includes device
`hardware, software, and location, and does not exclude the presence and
`type of accessory attached to the device or SIM card inserted in the mobile
`phone.
`
`5. “data stored in that application”
`The phrase “data stored in that application” appears in claim 10.
`Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites additionally that “the summary
`window further display[s] a list of data stored in that application.” Ex. 1001,
`6:4–5. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he type of ‘data’ being claimed in
`claim 10 and displayed in the application summary window must be data
`that is ‘stored in’ an associated application.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner
`further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand
`that data ‘stored in’ an application refers to ‘data’ that is caused to be stored
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`by an application in a memory location that is allocated specifically to the
`application.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 35). Petitioner responds that no
`construction is necessary, but if we determine a construction is necessary,
`the phrase means—“data associated with that application.” Reply 4.
`We agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“data stored in that application” is data associated with the application. This
`construction is consistent with the Specification, which refers to the data that
`is displayed in the application summary window as “data associated with
`that application.” Ex. 1001, 3:27–30. Moreover, we see no persuasive
`support for Patent Owner’s efforts to limit the claims to data stored “by” the
`application and to further limit the data to data stored in particular memory
`locations. There is no discussion in the Specification or claims of a
`particular memory location, and we decline to impose such a requirement
`absent some definition or disclaimer limiting the “stor[ing]” of the data to a
`particular location. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting claims should be limited only
`when “(1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`lexicographer; or (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim
`term either in the specification or during prosecution”). Thus, we agree with
`Petitioner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “data stored in that
`application” is “data associated with the application.”
`B. SCHNAREL-BASED OBVIOUSNESS GROUNDS
`One set of instituted grounds relies primarily on the Schnarel
`reference and alleges that claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of the ’020
`patent are unpatentable as obvious over Schnarel alone and Schnarel and
`Aberg. Pet. 13–38; Inst. Dec. 7–23. Petitioner also asserts that claim 6 is
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`additionally obvious over the combinations of Schnarel and Yurkovic and
`Schnarel, Aberg, and Yurkovic. Pet. 18–22, 30–34; Inst. Dec. 19–23.
`1. Schnarel (Ex. 1004)
`Schnarel, titled “Graphical User Interface for a Screen Telephone,”
`describes a graphical user interface for a web telephone and other telephony
`devices that provides information and enables the user to access
`functionality of the device. Ex. 1004, Abstract. In particular, Schnarel
`describes a “start” or “home” screen of a telephony device, which is shown
`in Figure 1 reproduced below. Id. at 4:17–19.
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, illustrates an example of start screen 100.
`Id. at 4:34. The start screen includes the following display elements: pane
`area 102, application selection area or application button bar 104, and call
`slip area 106. Id. at 4:34–37. Schnarel describes that the application button
`bar’s primary functions are to inform the user about all of the applications
`that are available to them and to provide a vehicle for launching those
`applications. Id. at 9:4–6. The default panes within pane area 102 are
`labeled in Figure 2 of Schnarel, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an example of the default panes of the home screen.
`The default panes of the home screen include branding pane 202, date
`and time pane 204, message pane or message summary pane 206, and task
`pane 208. Id. at 5:20–22. Schnarel also describes a message pane that
`allows users to “quickly discover whether or not they have new messages
`and quickly access these new messages.” Id. at 6:26–34. The message pane
`works with a “parent application program” that “notifies the message pane
`program when state changes occur, such as the arrival of a fax, e-mail or
`answering machine message.” Id. at 2:64–3:7. “The message pane displays
`an indicator of the type of message that has arrived in the pane.” Id.
`In the message pane, when the user selects “user-specific messages
`button (308) [shown in Figure 3], the button’s procedure launches a message
`viewer application.” Id. at 6:62–7:3, Fig. 3. The viewer application that is
`chosen depends on the type of new messages available. Id. at 7:1–12.
`Similarly, the controls in the “general messages area enable the user to
`launch a task associated with the control”: e.g., upon “selecting an active fax
`button, the messages application is launched and a fax viewer is displayed,”
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`and “pressing an active call logger button causes the messages application to
`launch, and a call log viewer to be displayed.” Id. at 8:46–67.
`2. Aberg (Ex. 1005)
`Aberg, titled “Portable Communication Apparatus Having a
`Hierarchical Menu System and a Dynamic Menu,” describes a menu system
`for a portable communication apparatus, such as a mobile telephone.
`Ex. 1005, 2:55–57. In particular, Aberg discloses a dynamic menu, which
`may be customized by the user and is easily accessible from the normal
`menu system. Id. at 2:57–60. The menu system is hierarchical and includes
`a plurality of top-level and sub-level menus. Id. at 4:22–31. The dynamic
`menu may be located anywhere further down the menu hierarchy, i.e., a sub-
`menu of any top-level or sub-level menu in the menu system. Id. at 7:25–29.
`The top-level menus include, for example, a mail menu (for reading and
`sending short messages), a clock menu (for setting date and time), a
`calculator menu (for using the mobile telephone to perform calculations), an
`access menu (for barring certain call types, locking the telephone, etc.), and
`a networks menu (for selecting mobile telecommunications network to be
`used). Id. at 4:36–48.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates the menu structure of Aberg.
`
`
`Figure 3, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram of a menu system
`according to Aberg’s invention, and includes a dynamic menu that can be
`modified by a user of the communications apparatus. Id. at 3:23–25. Three
`“top-level” menus are shown in Figure 3: SETTINGS menu 100,
`PHONEBOOK menu 200, and SPECIAL menu 300. Id. at 4:32–34.
`SPECIAL menu 300 is a dynamic menu, the contents of which may be
`modified by the user. Id. at 4:34–36. The menu system includes other top-
`level menus not shown in Figure 3. Id. at 4:36–48.
`3. Yurkovic (Ex. 1018)
`Yurkovic, titled “Space/Time Portals for Computer Systems,”
`describes retrieving customized information and displaying tickers and other
`information (e.g., date, time, news, weather information) in a window on a
`computer. Ex. 1018, 3:46–53, 5:29–47, 8:45–59, Fig. 1. The information
`displayed in Yurkovic’s summary window changes based on the user’s
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`geographic location, providing the user with information relevant to the
`user’s location. Id. at 5:10–47.
`
`4. Analysis
`a. Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, and 16
`i. Claims 1 and
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
