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
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Background ....................................................................................................... 4 
`a.  About U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (the “‘020 patent” or “Martyn”) ................. 4 
`b.  The Challenged Claims all Require an “application summary window” to
`display “a limited list of at least one function” ...................................................... 9 
`c.  Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction Analysis and
`Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the Claim Terms ....................... 12 
`d.  The Petitioner’s View of Schnarel and Aberg is Incorrect ............................ 20 
`e. 
`Introduction to Nason ..................................................................................... 26 
`III.  Argument ........................................................................................................ 29 
`a.  Schnarel Fails to Disclose the “limited list of at least one function offered
`within the first application” .................................................................................. 29 
`b.  Petitioner’s Proposed Modification of Schnarel is Not Supported by the
`Evidence ................................................................................................................ 38 
`c.  Schnarel Also Fails to Disclose Each Feature of the Challenged Dependent
`Claims ................................................................................................................... 42 
`d.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches “each function in
`the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected
`function,” As Recited In Claims 1 and 16 ............................................................ 46 
`e.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches “an application
`summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu,” As Recited
`In Claims 1 and 16 ................................................................................................ 59 
`f.  The Petitioner Also Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches That “the
`summary window further display a list of data stored in that application,” As
`Recited In Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 62 
`g.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason, Alone Or In Combination
`With Wagner, Renders Claim 11 Obvious ........................................................... 67 
`
`ii
` 
`
`

`
`h.  An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight ......................................................... 70 
`IV.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 72 
`
`
`
`iii
` 
`
`

`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 .......................................................................... 71
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................... 12
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 ............................................................................ 71
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 71, 72
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 ........................................... 71
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............. 13, 14
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 ................................................................................ 71
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................... 13
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) .................................................... 13, 18
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 .......................................................................... 71
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 .......................................... 71
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 .................................................................... 71
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 ..................................................................... 71
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 72
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 12
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order on Claim Construction in
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Partial Trial Transcript in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 to Richard (“Richard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to Oommen (“Oommen”)
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016)
`
`Declaration of Scott A. Denning (“Denning”)
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Brad A. Myers (“Myers”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/135,385
`
`
`
`v
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01898
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
` 
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` 
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. challenges claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,434,020 to Martyn (Ex. 1001 or the “’020 patent”) as allegedly
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner primarily relies upon U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,225,409 to Schnarel et al. (“Schnarel” or Ex. 1004) in the first four challenges,
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 to Nason et al. (“Nason” or Ex. 1007) in the fifth
`
`through tenth challenges. The Petition (“Pet.”) also cites to the Declaration of
`
`Brad A. Myers (“Myers” or Ex. 1003) for evidentiary support. But the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims should be confirmed over these references.
`
`The ‘020 patent’s claims are directed generally to a device that is configured
`
`to display a main menu listing at least one unlaunched application, and an
`
`application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu.
`
`The ‘020 patent specification describes an embodiment’s application summary
`
`window as a “snap-shot” view of an application that “brings together, in one
`
`summary window, a limited list of common functions and/or commonly accessed
`
`stored data” associated with that application. ‘020 patent at 2:26-30. Upon
`
`selecting a function or data from the application summary window, the device
`
`launches the corresponding application. The advantage to this scheme, per the
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`
`‘020 patent, is that a user can directly access and select the common functions or
`
`stored data without having to first launch the application and then navigate through
`
`the application’s hierarchies or layers of menus.
`
`Challenged claim 1 is supported by the detailed disclosure and recites, in
`
`relevant part, a “computing device 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,” and “the application summary
`
`window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state.” ‘020 patent
`
`at 5:33-43 (emphasis added). Independent claim 16 is substantially similar.
`
`However, the Board should confirm the patentability of these challenged
`
`claims over the cited references. For example, Schnarel’s failures to disclose or
`
`suggest all features of the challenged claims are numerous, but most glaring is
`
`Schnarel’s failure to disclose or suggest any “limited list of at least one function”
`
`in an “application summary window.” Schnarel discloses a graphical user
`
`interface that is divided into panes for a screen telephone. Petitioner relies
`
`exclusively on a particular pane to disclose the claimed “limited list of at least one
`
`function,” but the “Caller Log” and “Fax” buttons in that area launch message
`
`viewer applications and do not disclose “function[s]” as that term is properly
`
`construed. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Myers provide any basis for
`
`2
` 
`
`

`
`modifying Schnarel to include such a “limited list of at least one function.”
`
`Additionally, while Petitioner concedes that Schnarel fails to disclose every feature
`
`of the challenged claims on its own, the proposed modifications (either in view of a
`
`secondary reference or just the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”)) have no basis outside of impermissible hindsight and contorted
`
`teachings of the asserted references.
`
`Nason also comes up short in many regards. For example, Nason fails to
`
`teach “each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and
`
`initiate the selected function.” Instead, the alleged functions relied on by Petitioner
`
`are operable to cause changes to Nason’s control bar. In addition, of the items that
`
`Petitioner specifically relies on as the “application” that is launched when the
`
`“function” is selected, none can be characterized as an “application.” Nor can the
`
`corresponding alleged “function” relied on by Petitioner be characterized as a
`
`“function.”
`
`As will be explained in more detail below with support from the Declaration
`
`of Scott A. Denning (Ex. 2011 or “Denning”), the Petition is deficient in its
`
`challenges of independent claims 1 and 16, and also of various dependent claims,
`
`including claims 2, 6 and 10, and claim 11. For these reasons, the Board should
`
`conclude this proceeding with a final written decision that confirms the
`
`3
` 
`
`

`
`patentability of the challenged claims in view of Schnarel, Nason, and the various
`
`secondary references presented in the Petition.
`
`II.
`
`Background
`
` 
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (the “‘020 patent” or “Martyn”)
`The ‘020 patent issued on April 30, 2013 from a national stage application
`
`claiming priority from and the benefit of PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/03387
`
`filed on July 27, 2001 and British application No. GB 0019459.7 filed on July 28,
`
`2000. As such, the critical date for the purposes of the Board’s obviousness
`
`analysis is July 28, 2000.
`
`As the ‘020 patent explains, the “invention relates to a computing device
`
`with an improved user interface for applications.” ‘020 Patent at 1:14-15. As of
`
`the date of invention of the ‘020 patent, mobile telephones possessed small screens
`
`and required users to launch an application and then navigate through “several
`
`hierarchies of functions” within the launched application in order to locate and
`
`activate a desired function. Id. at 1:30-46. A similar lengthy process was necessary
`
`for certain “stored data” to be displayed to the user. Id. At the time, limited
`
`shortcuts were available, but required a user to memorize “various keyboard input
`
`sequences.” Id. at 1:64.
`
`4
` 
`
`

`
`As an improvement to the then-existing menus of “available options” and
`
`“limited shortcuts”, the ‘020 patent disclosed and claimed a device configured to
`
`display an “application summary window” and the code to cause the device to
`
`display it. Id. at 1:54; 1:62; 5:33-43; 6:20-32. The ‘020 patent describes such a
`
`window as a “snap-shot” view of an application that “brings together, in one
`
`summary window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed
`
`stored data.” Id. at 2:26-30.
`
`In the detailed description, the ‘020 describes an “Application Launcher”
`
`and an “App Snapshot.” Id. at 3:5-6; 3:27. The Application Launcher includes a
`
`list of applications, and an App Snapshot may be opened to display certain data or
`
`functions associated with that application. Id. at 3:23-35. As described, an App
`
`Snapshot may open in response to an exemplary selection process occurring at the
`
`Application Launcher. For example, the App Snapshot may be opened if a
`
`highlight rests on a specific application in the Application Launcher for a set
`
`amount of time. Id. at 3:24-27. As other examples, the App Snapshot can be
`
`opened in response to “voice activation,” “softkey selection,” a “right scroll
`
`function,” “a press and hold of the select function,” or “using a right cursor key on
`
`a highlighted application name.” Id. at 3:38-44. In each disclosed embodiment, the
`
`App Snapshot is being opened from the Application Launcher based on a selection
`
`process occurring at the Application Launcher.
`
`5
` 
`
`

`
`Further, as the ‘020 patent explains, the App Snapshot displays “data from
`
`an application and functions of that application without actually opening the
`
`application up: only once a user has selected an item in the App Snapshot
`
`associated with a given application does that application have to be opened.” Id. at
`
`3:53-58.
`
`The Figures of the ‘020 patent display an exemplary App Launcher in Fig. 1,
`
`and exemplary App Snapshots for the Messages application in Figs. 2-3:
`
`
`
`As shown, the App Snapshots are opened in Figs. 2-3 based on a selection of
`
`the Messages application occurring at the Application Launcher screen of Fig. 1.
`
`In Fig. 2, the App Snapshot indicates that there are no (0) new messages, and lists
`
`“the two most common functions” available in the Messages application. Id. at
`
`3:31-33. In Fig. 3, the App Snapshot indicates the number of new emails, SMS
`
`messages, and outgoing chats, and once again links to the functions shown in Fig.
`
`2.
`
`6
` 
`
`

`
`Generally, the ‘020 patent explains that the summary view can include
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types.” Id. at 4:36-37 (emphasis added). Implicit
`
`in this disclosure is that there are different types of data that could be displayed in
`
`the App Snapshot. As already discussed, the App Snapshot shown in Fig. 3 of the
`
`‘020 patent indicates the number of new emails, SMS messages, and outgoing
`
`chats. Other types of data are described in the ‘020 patent.
`
`For example, the App Snapshot may display certain information where other
`
`applications are simultaneously active. “[I]f the mobile telephone has an active
`
`Calendar application, and the user opens the App Snapshot for Contacts, then the
`
`Contacts App Snapshot may include contact information for parties in the
`
`previously or currently open Calendar application.” Id. at 4:55-59 (emphasis
`
`added). But if the Phone application was active, rather than the Calendar
`
`application, the Contacts App Snapshop could display “contact information of the
`
`most called party, or a missed call party, or a party whose call the user is auto-
`
`replying to.” Id. at 4:59-63 (emphasis added). The Contacts App Snapshot could
`
`also “display phone numbers and email addresses which may be ‘fired’ (i.e. a
`
`phone number is dialed, an email address is seeded into a new message).” Id. at
`
`5:5-9 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Messages App Snapshot could display
`
`“further information” on a message, such as the “date and time it arrived and the
`
`first line/subject of the message.” Id. at 4:64-67.
`
`7
` 
`
`

`
`Finally, the ‘020 patent provides context for its disclosure of applications
`
`relative to an operating system. In the SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT
`
`INVENTION section, the ‘020 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with the above aspects of the
`
`invention,” where those aspects include displaying an application summary
`
`window “comprising a limited list of (i) common functions offered within an
`
`application and/or (ii) data stored in that application.” Id. at 2:40-43; 2:20-25.
`
`This computer program is identified separately from the “application,” and “may
`
`be an operating system.” Id. at 2:43-44. Similarly, claim 17 explains that claim
`
`16’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on
`
`the screen an application summary window” “comprises an operating system.” Id.
`
`at 6:33-35; 6:25-26. Thus, the software to implement the graphical user interface
`
`can be incorporated into an operating system, while the unlaunched applications
`
`listed in the main menu are separate (and claimed separately) from the operating
`
`system. While the ‘020 patent also explains briefly that the “invention can also be
`
`used in systems which do not have a concept of separate applications as such” (id.
`
`at 5:20-21), this disclosure does not rewrite the claims, which each require “at least
`
`a first application” to be in an “un-launched state.”
`
`
`
`8
` 
`
`

`
`b. The Challenged Claims all Require an “application summary
`window” to display “a limited list of at least one function”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11,
`
`13, and 16. Of these, claims 1 and 16 are independent, and each of these
`
`challenged claims require not only an “application” but also an “application
`
`summary window [that] is displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`
`state.” Additionally, the “application summary window” for a first application
`
`must display a “limited list of at least one function offered within the first
`
`application.” Without disclosing or teaching these elements, a prior art reference
`
`such as Schnarel or Nason cannot anticipate or render these claims obvious.
`
`Claim 1 is presented below in full for reference:
`
`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 wherein the application summary window is displayed
`while the application is in an un-launched state.
`(emphasis added). Claim 16 recites, inter alia, a “computer program product
`
`comprising a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable code”
`
`9
` 
`
`

`
`that, when running, causes a “computing device” to display a “main menu” and
`
`“application summary window.” However, for the purposes of this proceeding and
`
`the arguments presented below, independent claim 16 includes features
`
`substantially similar to the features of claim 1.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`While the patentability of all challenged claims can be confirmed based on
`
`the features of independent claims 1 and 16 alone, Patent Owner also discusses the
`
`independent patentability of dependent claims 2, 6,10, and 11 over the challenges
`
`below. As such, the features of these dependent claims are also presented here, in
`
`four groups.
`
`Claim 2
`
`First, claim 2 of the ‘020 patent recites features related to the opening of an
`
`application relative to the opening of an application summary window. Claim 2
`
`depends from claim 1, which requires the “application summary window [to be]
`
`displayed while the application is in an un-launched state,” and “each function in
`
`the list [is] selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected
`
`function.” Claim 2 recites that “selecting a function listed in the [application]
`
`summary window causes the first application to open and that selected function to
`
`be activated.” The full text of claim 2 is provided below:
`
`10
` 
`
`

`
`2. The computing device of claim 1 in which selecting a
`function listed in the summary window causes the first application to
`open and that selected function to be activated.
`
`Claim 6
`
`Second, claim 6 of the ‘020 patent recites features related to the
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types” of a summary window. Per claim 6, the
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types” of the application summary window vary
`
`with the environment of the device. The full text of claim 6 is provided below:
`
`6. The computing device of claim 1 in which the functionality
`and/or stored data types for a summary window for a given
`application varies with the environment of the device.
`
`Claim 10
`
`Third, claim 10 of the ‘020 patent recites that the application summary
`
`window, which “displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the
`
`first application” per claim 1, further displays “a list of data stored in that
`
`application.” The full text of claim 10 is provided below:
`
`10. The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary
`window further display a list of data stored in that application.
`
`
`Claim 11
`
`11
` 
`
`

`
`Fourth, claim 11 requires that the computing device of claim 1 be “a mobile
`
`telephone.” The full text of claim 11 is provided below:
`
`11. The computing device of claim 1, being a mobile telephone.
`
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that each of the challenged claims is rendered obvious by
`
`Schnarel and Nason, each in combination with the knowledge of a POSITA or
`
`specific secondary references. But as will be explained below, the challenged
`
`claims are all patentable over Petitioner’s challenges.
`
`
`
`c. Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction
`Analysis and Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the
`Claim Terms
`
`Since the ‘020 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). However, any construction must still be consistent with and supported
`
`by the disclosure. See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications
`
`12
` 
`
`

`
`RF, LLC, Case No. 2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (Ex. 2010) at 10-11;
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`During litigation between Patent Owner and LG Electronics, Inc.1 on the
`
`‘020 patent, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued three
`
`claim constructions, albeit under the framework established by Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Prior to trial, the Court ruled that
`
`“additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary
`
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu,” from claims 1 and 16,
`
`has its “plain and ordinary meaning and no further construction [is] necessary.“ Ex.
`
`2003 at 36-44. Then, during trial, the Court heard argument on “un-launched
`
`state” and “reached directly.” Ex. 2004 at 3-23. At the conclusion of this
`
`argument, the Court decided to construe “unlaunched state” as “not displayed,” and
`
`“reached directly” as “reached without an intervening step.” Id. at 23. Though
`
`these constructions were reached under the Phillips framework, they are also
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the ‘020
`
`patent disclosure.
`
`In the Decision on Institution, the Board provided guidance on its
`
`interpretation of “mobile telephone” only. Inst. Dec. at 6. Three other terms require
`
`                                                            
`1 LG filed two related co-pending petitions in IPR2015-01984 and IPR2015-01985.
`
`13
` 
`
`

`
`the Board’s attention in this case, however, to ensure that these terms are not
`
`construed “so broadly that [their] constructions are unreasonable under general
`
`claim construction principles”: application, function, and data. Microsoft, 789 F.3d
`
`at 1298.
`
`
`
`Construction of “application”
`
`The Board did not specifically provide a construction of “application.” In
`
`accordance with the ‘020 patent, 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. Denning ¶¶15-20, 29.
`
`As discussed above, the ‘020 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with certain aspects of the invention,”
`
`including displaying an application summary window comprising “a limited list of
`
`(i) common functions offered within an application and/or (ii) data stored in that
`
`application.” Id. at 2:40-43; 2:20-25. This “program may be an operating system.”
`
`Id. at 2:43-44. Similarly, claim 17 explains that claim 16’s “computer-readable
`
`14
` 
`
`

`
`code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on the screen an application
`
`summary window” “comprises an operating system.” Id. at 6:33-35; 6:25-26.2
`
`Separate from an operating system, Martyn provides examples of
`
`applications “such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’”
`
`applications. ‘020 Patent at 3:5-7. Prior to the claimed “application summary
`
`window,” a user would “open” the application and then navigate “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. Further, the background of the ‘020 patent refers
`
`specifically to a mobile telephone that “includes several different applications” that
`
`must be started/opened in order to navigate to the desired function. Id. at 1:37-40.
`
`Further, the ‘020 patent’s disclosure that an “application” may be in an un-
`
`launched state informs a POSITA that the disclosed device operating system
`
`permits multiple threads of execution. Denning ¶13. For example, the ‘020 patent
`
`discloses at 4:53-63 that the App Snapshot can be opened for a Contacts
`
`                                                            
`2 It does not follow from the doctrine of claim differentiation that claim 16’s
`
`computing device could be implemented without an operating system. Rather,
`
`computing device’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device
`
`to display on the screen an application summary window” could be a second,
`
`separate application on top of the operating system. Denning ¶23.
`
`15
` 
`
`

`
`application while there is “an active Calendar application,” and further refers to a
`
`“previously or currently open Calendar application.” ‘020 patent at 4:55-59.
`
`These operations require multiple threads of execution so that the device can view
`
`the App Snapshot while another application is “currently open.” Id.; see also
`
`Denning ¶23. Specifically, the device must manage an execution thread for the
`
`currently opened Calendar application, and must also simultaneously manage an
`
`execution thread for software causing the App Snapshot to be displayed.3
`
`From these disclosures, the ‘020 patent makes clear that an “operating
`
`system” is claimed separately and described differently from an “application.”
`
`This is consistent with the understanding that would have been reached by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the relevant time. Denning ¶29.
`
`Specifically, as of July 2000, it was understood by a POSITA that an
`
`“application” referred to application-level architecture, with the application
`
`implemented on top of an operating system layer. Denning ¶¶15, 29. Further, as
`
`of July 2000, a POSITA would have understood an “application” to be packaged
`
`                                                            
`3 As explained elsewhere, the “program” that allows the device to display an
`
`application summary view such as an App Snapshot can be an operating system. A
`
`POSITA would understand that another implementation of the App Snapshot is via
`
`a separate application layered on the operating system. Denning ¶23.
`
`16
` 
`
`

`
`software for performing user functions, arranged in an application layer and able to
`
`access APIs of an operating system. Id. at ¶¶10, 29. In this manner, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of an “application” was and remains distinguishable from
`
`an operating system, which manages system resources among applications,
`
`oversees memory management, assigns windows to applications requesting them,
`
`and determines which application(s) are allocated system resources to execute code
`
`(and similarly, for how long). Id.
`
`Similarly, an “application” should be distinguished from the windows of the
`
`application. For example, a POSITA would not interpret the opening of a new
`
`window in a launched application (or the opening of a new MS Word document
`
`from within MS Word’s menu) as tantamount to launching an application. Denning
`
`¶30. As of the earliest priority date of the ‘020 patent, it was understood that an
`
`application could be assigned more than one window by an operating system, upon
`
`request from the application. Id. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 is the
`
`Richard patent (Ex. 2008 or “Richard”), which was cited during prosecution of the
`
`‘020 Patent. In Richard, filed on June 28, 2000, the Abstract explicitly
`
`acknowledges that an “indicator” provides a “list of open windows within an
`
`application.” Richard, Abstract (emphasis added). Dr. Myers agrees. Ex. 2012 at
`
`26:21-27:10. Since a window and an application must be interpreted separately, it
`
`17
` 
`
`

`
`is not correct to view the opening of a new window in a launched application as
`
`tantamount to launching an application.
`
`
`
`Construction of “function”
`
`According to the governing regulations in inter partes review, the Board’s
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of any claim term must still be consistent with
`
`and find support in the specification of the patent-in-suit. See PPC Broadband, Ex.
`
`2010 at 10-11. The proper interpretation of “function” requires a more detailed
`
`analysis of how the term is described in the corresponding specification. Indeed,
`
`the ‘020 patent provides very specific examples of what is meant by “function.”
`
`Examples are included throughout, and consolidated here:
`
`Exemplary Function
`
`Citation
`
`“create a new contact entry”
`
`“open an address book function”
`
`“enter a PIN security number”
`
`“alter the ring melody”
`
`1:43
`
`2:7
`
`2:8
`
`2:8-9
`
`“Create Message”
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:33-35
`
`18
` 
`
`

`
`“Enter chat room”
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:33-35
`
`
`
`The second example above is particularly revealing; the ‘020 patent does not
`
`describe a “function” as the act of opening an address book. Rather, to constitute a
`
`“function,” the device must “open an address book function.” (emphasis added).
`
`As can be seen from these examples, the ‘020 patent consistently describes a
`
`“function” as something more than simply opening a window or opening an
`
`application. Rather, 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). The term “function” should
`
`be construed consistently with these examples by the Board.
`
`The ‘020 patent also describes functions as options that can be “activated.”
`
`See, e.g., ‘020 patent at 1:28; 2:37-39; 5:46; 6:40. The operation of activating a
`
`function is distinguished in claims 2 and 18 from the operation of opening an
`
`application. Id. at 5:44-46 (“selecting a function listed in the summary window
`
`causes the first application to open and that selected function to be activated.”).
`
`Dennin