IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`United States Patent No: 8,434,020
`Inventor: Mathieu Kennedy Martyn
`Formerly Application No.: 10/343,333
`Issue Date: April 30, 2013
`Filing Date: August 27, 2003
`Former Group Art Unit: 2175
`Former Examiner: VU, THANH T
`Patent Owner: Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L.
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`104677-5016-652
`
`Customer No.: 28120
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`For: COMPUTING DEVICE WITH IMPROVED USER INTERFACE FOR
`APPLICATIONS
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRAD A. MYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1003 Page 00001
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. One of Ordinary Skill ...................................................................................... 4
`IV. Materials Relied Upon ..................................................................................... 5
`V.
`Background on the State of the Art ................................................................. 6
`VI. Analysis of the ’020 patent ............................................................................ 10
`A. Overview of the ’020 patent ................................................................ 10
`B. Overview of the ’020 patent Prosecution History ............................... 14
`C.
`Claim Construction of the ’020 Patent Claims ................................... 18
`VII. The Challenged Claims are Invalid ............................................................... 19
`A.
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 23
`1.
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 (“Schnarel”) .............. 23
`2.
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,362 (“Aberg”) .................. 25
`3.
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,668,353 (“Yurkovic”) ............. 25
`4.
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 (“Nason”) .................. 26
`5.
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,256,516 (“Wagner”) ............... 30
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 are obvious
`under § 103 over Schnarel in view of the knowledge of a
`POSITA; Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 are
`obvious under § 103 over Schnarel in view of Aberg; Ground 3:
`Claim 6 is obvious under § 103 over Schnarel in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA and Yurkovic; Ground 4: Claim 6 is
`obvious under § 103 over Schnarel in view of Aberg and
`Yurkovic. ............................................................................................. 32
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 32
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 47
`3.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 48
`4.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 57
`5.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 58
`6.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 60
`7.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 61
`8.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 62
`C. Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16 are obvious under
`§ 103 over Nason; Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and
`16 are obvious under § 103 over Nason in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA; Ground 7: Claim 6 is obvious under
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`§ 103 over Nason in view of Yurkovic; Ground 8: Claim 6 is
`obvious under § 103 over Nason in view of Yurkovic and the
`knowledge of a POSITA; Ground 9: Claim 11 is obvious under
`§ 103 over Wagner in view of Nason; Ground 10: Claim 11 is
`obvious under § 103 over Wagner in view of Nason and the
`knowledge of a POSITA. .................................................................... 66
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 66
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 77
`3.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 78
`4.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 81
`5.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 82
`6.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 83
`7.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 88
`8.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 88
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 92
`Appendix A
`Appendix B
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`I, Dr. Brad A. Myers, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
`
`of the United States of America:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained to provide assistance regarding U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,434,020 (“the ’020 patent”). Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true and
`
`correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experience. I
`
`have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this declaration, and
`
`believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I would testify competently there-
`
`to. I have been warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`I am a Professor in the Human-Computer Interaction Institute, which
`
`is part of the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”)
`
`in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My areas of concentration include, among others, us-
`
`er interface design and software, mobile devices, computer programming environ-
`
`ments, visual programming, and intelligent interfaces.
`
`3.
`
`I have been working in the field of user interfaces (also called Human
`
`Computer Interaction or “HCI”) for more than 30 years, and I am the author or edi-
`
`tor of more than 450 publications in this field. I have been on the editorial board
`
`of six journals, including the premier journals in the field of HCI. I have been a
`
`-1-
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`consultant on user interface design and implementation for more than 75 compa-
`
`nies.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineer-
`
`ing and Master of Science in Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in 1980. While at MIT, I was a research intern at the Xerox
`
`Palo Alto Research Center (“Xerox PARC”). I received my Doctorate in Comput-
`
`er Science from the University of Toronto in 1987. I worked at the Three Rivers
`
`Computer Corporation (later renamed Perq Systems Corporation) from 1980 to
`
`1983, where I designed and implemented software, including one of the first com-
`
`mercial software programs for controlling the appearance and location of windows
`
`in a graphical user interface (known today as “window managers”).
`
`5.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have authored multiple articles relat-
`
`ing to, among other subjects, mobile computing, mobile phone user interfaces, web
`
`browsing on mobile devices, email messaging, user interface software, window
`
`management, visualization, intelligent interfaces, and novel interaction techniques.
`
`In recognition of my contributions to research, I was selected as a Fellow of the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”) in 2005, a Fellow of the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) in 2013, and elected to the “CHI
`
`Academy” by the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
`
`(“SIGCHI”) of the ACM in April 2004, as one of the top 25 “principal leaders of
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`the field” of HCI. I have also received a number of “best paper” awards with my
`
`students, for example, at the USENIX 2000 Annual Technical Conference, at the
`
`International Conference on Software Engineering in 2005 and 2008, at the ACM
`
`SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility in 2004, and at the
`
`ACM SIGCHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
`
`6.
`
`I have conducted a research project focused on user interfaces for mo-
`
`bile devices since the fall of 1997. My research group has used a wide variety of
`
`Personal Digital Assistants (“PDAs”) and mobile phones to develop a number of
`
`application programs. One aspect of this research, called the “Pebbles” project,
`
`has been the study of how to provide better user interfaces on the small screens of
`
`such devices. My group was also one of the first to use the 802.11 wireless tech-
`
`nology (now called “WiFi”) on handheld devices, starting about 1999. I was also
`
`an early user of the Windows CE operating system from Microsoft for handheld
`
`devices, starting at least in 1998. I was invited to give two keynote talks at confer-
`
`ences (MUM2004 and Mobile HCI’02) on the Pebbles research. I regularly teach
`
`courses on user interface design and software. In particular, I have taught about
`
`user interfaces for consumer electronics such as mobile devices at least since 1989.
`
`7.
`
`I am listed as an inventor on three U.S. patents: U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,581,677 relating to interaction techniques for creating charts and graphs; U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 7,729,542 relating to a more stable technique of entering text for mobile
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`devices for people with muscular disabilities, which resulted from the work on the
`
`Pebbles project mentioned above; and, U.S. Patent No. 7,735,066 relating to a
`
`technique for debugging computer programs that displays a visualization to show
`
`why certain events happen in a program.
`
`8.
`
`Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae (Appendix A), which provides a more complete description of my back-
`
`ground and work experience, and lists the presentations, articles and other publica-
`
`tions I have authored or to which I have contributed.
`
`III. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`9.
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and experience of per-
`
`sons working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology at the time of the purported invention, which I un-
`
`derstand is asserted to be July 28, 2000. I understand that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individu-
`
`al having the qualities reflected by the factors above. I understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would also have knowledge from the teachings of the prior
`
`art, including the art cited below.
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, on or before July 2000, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) relating to the technology of the ’020 patent would have had a
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a comparable field, and approximately two years of profes-
`
`sional experience with designing and/or developing graphical user interfaces
`
`(“GUIs”) for computing devices or other relevant industry experience. Additional
`
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant ex-
`
`perience in the field could substitute for formal education. A POSITA is presumed
`
`to have knowledge of all relevant prior art, and therefore would have been familiar
`
`with each of the references cited herein and the full range of teachings they con-
`
`tain.
`
`11. Well before July 28, 2000, my level of skill in the art was at least that
`
`of a POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA
`
`would have known and understood at that time, and my analysis and conclusions
`
`herein are from the perspective of a POSITA as of July 28, 2000.
`
`IV. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`12.
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in Appendix
`
`B attached to this declaration (Exs. 1001-1002, 1004-1025). These materials com-
`
`prise patents (e.g., Exhibits 1001-1002, 1004-1022).1 Each of these materials is a
`
`
`1 All emphasis and annotations are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`type of document that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when form-
`
`ing their opinions.
`
`13. My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART
`14. Computing devices, including mobile telephones, with displays were
`
`well-known and ubiquitous in the art long before July 28, 2000 (the claimed priori-
`
`ty date of the ’020 patent). The concept of using a graphical user interface includ-
`
`ing a “main menu” to list different applications was also developed decades ago
`
`and was well-known in the art long before July 2000. See also, e.g., Ex. 1002 249
`
`(9/23/08 Reply 13) (“Applicant does not dispute that the concept of a main menu is
`
`well known in the prior art.”). It was also well-known and common to display
`
`functions and data in a menu—indeed, one of the central purposes of providing a
`
`“menu” is to display functions and data.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to using a “GUI” to display a “main menu” listing applica-
`
`tions, it was well-known in the art to provide a “summary window” for displaying
`
`functions and/or data offered by an application on computing devices. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1004 (Schnarel) at 13:42-48, Fig. 2 (teaching the use of a “summary pane”);
`
`Ex. 1005 (Aberg) at Abstract, 2:3-5, 2:55-3:3, 7:25-29, Figs. 1, 3 (teaching the use
`
`of a “dynamic menu” / “special menu”); Ex. 1007 (Nason) at 1:11-13, 2:49-53,
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`3:25-33, 4:31-40, 5:15-25, Figs. 2, 7-10 (teaching the use of “cartridges” to provide
`
`a summary window); Ex. 1010 (Wagner) at Abstract, 4:56-5:11, 8:22-29, Fig. 3A
`
`(teaching the use of a summary window—“display field 32”); Ex. 1006 (Smith)
`
`1:57-61, 2:26-31, 3:50-54, 8:27-35, Figs. 7A, 7B (teaching the use of an “integrat-
`
`ed message center”); Ex. 1013 (Bloomfield 550) at 1:59-64, 4:14-58, 9:56-10:28,
`
`11:14-24, Figs. 3-6 (teaching the use of popup menus); Ex. 1014 (Bloomfield 140)
`
`at 1:41-46, 8:17-32, 9:61-66, Fig. 5 (teaching the use of popup menus); Ex. 1015
`
`(Blanchard) at 1:11-14, 5:30-6:38, Figs. 2, 4 (teaching the use of a summary win-
`
`dow—“display screen 330”).
`
`16.
`
`It was also well known that a summary window could be “directly
`
`reached” from a main menu. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Aberg) at Abstract, 2:3-5, 2:55-
`
`3:3, 7:25-29 (teaching that the “dynamic menu” / “special menu” can be placed ei-
`
`ther as a “top-level menu” or “sub-level menu”), Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1007 (Nason) at
`
`2:49-53, 3:25-33, 4:31-40, 5:15-25, Figs. 2, 7-10 (teaching that the summary win-
`
`dow can be reached directly from the main menu through the use of “rotator” but-
`
`tons); Ex. 1006 (Smith) 8:12-35, Fig. 7A (teaching that the summary window can
`
`be reached by pressing on an icon); Ex. 1013 (Bloomfield 550) at 4:14-58, 9:56-
`
`10:28, 11:14-24, Figs. 3-6 (teaching that the popup menu can be reached directly
`
`from the main menu “upon user request”); Ex. 1014 (Bloomfield 140) at 8:17-32,
`
`9:61-66, Fig. 5 (teaching that the popup menu can be reached directly from the
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`main menu by “click[ing] on the icon with the second mouse button”); Ex. 1015
`
`(Blanchard) at 5:30-6:38, Figs. 2, 4 (teaching that the “display screen 330” can be
`
`reached directly from the main menu using the “Right or Left arrow keys”).
`
`17.
`
`It was also well known to include a limited list of functions and/or da-
`
`ta in a “summary window.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Schnarel) at 6:26-8:67, Figs. 2, 3
`
`(teaching a summary window displaying a limited list of functions, e.g., “Caller
`
`Log,” “Fax,” and data, e.g., icons indicating the presence and type of new messag-
`
`es); Ex. 1007 (Nason) 3:48-4:49, Figs. 2, 5-10 (teaching a summary window dis-
`
`playing a limited list of functions, e.g., “web,” “search,” and data, e.g., ticker text;
`
`Ex. 1010 (Wagner) at Abstract, 4:56-5:11, 8:22-29, Fig. 3A (teaching a summary
`
`window displaying ticker data); Ex. 1006 (Smith) 2:41-50, 8:36-45, Fig. 7A (teach-
`
`ing a summary window displaying a limited list of data, e.g., types of messages,
`
`senders’ names, total number of messages for received messages); Ex. 1015
`
`(Blanchard) at 6:4-7, 8:34-9:11, Fig. 4 (teaching a summary window displaying a
`
`limited list of functions, e.g., “Call Logs” and data, e.g., “Voice Msg [00],” “[Text
`
`Msg 07]” indicating the total number of messages); Ex. 1013 (Bloomfield 550) at
`
`4:14-58, 9:56-10:28, Figs. 4-6 (teaching a summary window displaying a limited
`
`list of functions, e.g., “Check disk,” “Backup”); Ex. 1017 (Anderson) at 14:51-63,
`
`Fig. 9A (teaching a summary window displaying a limited list of functions, e.g.,
`
`“VM,” “NEW,” and data, e.g., “3 VM MSG,” “1 TEXT MSG,” “1 OLD MSG.”);
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Ex. 1016 (Allard) at 4:8-19, Fig. 6 (teaching a summary window displaying a lim-
`
`ited list of functions, e.g., “Send,” “Receive,” and data, e.g., “3 Received Messag-
`
`es,” “2 Ready to Send,” “11 Saved Messgaes [sic]”); Ex. 1005 (Aberg) at 2:55-62,
`
`4:32-48, 6:42-49, Figs. 1, 3 (teaching a summary window where “the contents” or
`
`“menu items” can be “modified by the user”) .
`
`18. Displaying the application summary window while the application is
`
`in an un-launched state was also well-known in the art before July 2000. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1004 (Schnarel) at 6:27-45, 8:46-62, 13:22-39, Fig. 2 (teaching that the appli-
`
`cation is launched after a function or data is selected from the summary window);
`
`Ex. 1007 (Nason) at 3:10-13, 3:56-60, 4:31-40 (teaching that the application is
`
`launched after a button or ticker data is selected to launch the application); Ex.
`
`1006 (Smith) 1:57-61, 2:26-31 (teaching a summary window where the infor-
`
`mation is displayed “without the need to launch different applications”); Ex. 1014
`
`(Bloomfield 140) at 8:17-32, Fig. 5 (teaching a summary window where the appli-
`
`cation is launched after making a selection in the menu); Ex. 1009 (Krause) at
`
`1:52-56, 2:2-5; Ex. 1002 325 (11/10/09 Exam.’s Br. 3) (finding during prosecution
`
`that “Krause teaches displaying a summary window of an application while an ap-
`
`plication is in an un-launched state.”). It was common and well-known that the
`
`summary window could be displayed while the application was either in an un-
`
`launched or launched state. Similarly, displaying a summary window where each
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`function displayed is selectable to launch an application was well-known in the art
`
`before the earliest claimed priority date. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Schnarel) at 6:27-45,
`
`8:46-62, 13:22-39, Fig. 2; Ex. 1007 (Nason) at 3:10-13, 3:56-60, 4:31-40; Ex. 1014
`
`(Bloomfield 140) at 8:17-32, Fig. 5.
`
`19.
`
`In addition, it was well known in the art to vary the functionality
`
`and/or data types within a summary window with the environment of the compu-
`
`ting device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Aberg) at 5:51-61 (varying what is displayed
`
`based on an accessory or SIM card); Ex. 1007 (Nason) at 3:56-4:5, Figs. 9, 10, 14
`
`(varying what is displayed based on, e.g., the time, date, weather); Ex. 1018
`
`(Yurkovic) at 3:31-41, 5:10-47 (varying what is displayed based on, e.g., the time,
`
`date, geographic location); Ex. 1021 (Sorensen) at 3:36-50 (varying what is dis-
`
`played based on a SIM card).
`
`VI. ANALYSIS OF THE ’020 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’020 patent
`20. The ’020 patent specification generally describes a computing device
`
`that displays a main menu listing different applications and a summary window
`
`(“App Snapshot”). Ex. 1001 at 2:55-59, 3:5-17, 3:23-30. “The term ‘computing
`
`device’ refers to any kind of device which can process and display information.
`
`The invention has specific application to mobile telephones. The term ‘mobile tel-
`
`ephone’ refers to any kind of mobile device with communications capabilities and
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`includes radio (mobile) telephones, smart phones, communicators, PDAs and wire-
`
`less information devices. It includes devices able to communicate using not only
`
`mobile radio such as GSM or UMTS, but also any other kind of wireless commu-
`
`nications system, such as Bluetooth.” Ex. 1001 at 1:15-24.
`
`21. With respect to the summary window (also called an “App Snap-
`
`shot”), the ’020 patent describes that “App Snapshots are not intended to replace
`
`notifications, but to complement them by providing non-intrusive reminders for the
`
`user, as well as rapid shortcuts to key application functionality.” Id. at 4:32-35.
`
`The summary window “can be reached directly” from the main menu and displays
`
`a limited list of the functions and data offered within a particular application listed
`
`in the main menu. Id. at 2:20-30, 2:55-59. According to the ’020 patent specifica-
`
`tion, “[a]lthough the term ‘window’ has been used to describe the drop down
`
`summary, the summary does not have to be presented within any kind of frame.
`
`Any manner of presenting the common functions offered within an application
`
`and/or data stored in that application will constitute a ‘window’ as such.” Id. at
`
`3:62-67. The ’020 patent specification describes that, in a mobile telephone con-
`
`text, applications may include a message application, a contacts/address book ap-
`
`plication, a calendar application and a telephone application. Ex. 1001 at 1:37-40,
`
`3:5-7.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`22. The ’020 patent specification describes that functions in the summary
`
`window are selectable to open the application. Id. at 2:31-39. In addition, the App
`
`Snapshot “display[s] 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.
`
`23. The ’020 patent specification further discusses that “the user or sys-
`
`tem designer may define the kinds of functionality and/or stored data to be includ-
`
`ed in the App Snapshot for a given application.” Id. at 4:50-53. The “App Snap-
`
`shot” may also “vary with the environment in which the mobile telephone finds it-
`
`self.” Id. at 4:47-53. For example, “if the telephone is Bluetooth enabled, then
`
`there may be a Bluetooth application which has associated with it a summary win-
`
`dow which lists the other Bluetooth devices in the vicinity.” Id. at 4:47-53.
`
`24.
`
`I have considered the Challenged Claims (claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13,
`
`16) of the ’020 patent, which read as follows:
`
`1[PREAMBLE]. A computing device comprising
`[1.A] a display screen,
`[1.B] the computing device being configured to display on the
`screen a main menu listing at least a first application,
`[1.C] and additionally being configured to display on the screen
`an application summary window that can be reached directly
`from the main menu,
`
`-12-
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`[1.D] wherein the application summary window displays a lim-
`ited list of at least one function offered within the first applica-
`tion,
`[1.E] each function in the list being selectable to launch the first
`application and initiate the selected function,
`[1.F] and wherein the application summary window is dis-
`played while the application is in an un-launched state.
`
`2. The computing device of claim 1 in which selecting a func-
`tion listed in the summary window causes the first application
`to open and that selected function to be activated.
`
`6. The computing device of claim 1 in which the functionality
`and/or stored data types for a summary window for a given ap-
`plication varies with the environment of the device.
`
`8. The computing device of claim 1 in which opening a sum-
`mary window for a given application does not result in that ap-
`plication being opened.
`
`10. The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary
`window further display a list of data stored in that application.
`
`11. The computing device of claim 1, being a mobile telephone.
`
`13. The computing device of claim 1 wherein said limited list is
`a sub-set of all of the functions offered by a given application.
`
`-13-
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`16[PREAMBLE]. A computer program product comprising
`[16.A] a computer readable storage medium having computer-
`readable code embodied in the medium which, when running
`on a computing device, causes
`[16.B] the computing device to display on a screen of the de-
`vice a main menu listing at least a first application,
`[16.C] and additionally causes the device to display on the
`screen an application summary window that can be reached di-
`rectly from the main menu,
`[16.D] wherein the summary window displays a limited list of
`at least one function offered within the first application,
`[16.E] each function in the list being selectable to launch the
`first application and initiate the selected function,
`[16.F] and wherein the application summary window is dis-
`played while the application is in an unlaunched state.
`
`B. Overview of the ’020 patent Prosecution History
`25. The application leading to the ’020 patent was filed on August 27,
`
`2003 as U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/343,333 (“the ’333 application”). The ’333 applica-
`
`tion claims priority to PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/03387, filed July 27, 2001,
`
`and British application GB 0019459.7, filed July 28, 2000.
`
`26. On December 12, 2006, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection,
`
`finding all original claims 14-36 unpatentable under § 103(a) over U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,512,525 (“Capps”) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,121,968 (“Arcuri”). Ex. 1002 at 144-147
`-14-
`
`Page 00017
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`(12/12/06 OA at 2-5). In response, Applicant, inter alia, amended original inde-
`
`pendent claims 14 and 26 (now independent claims 1 and 16) to include the limita-
`
`tion “a main menu listing one or more applications” and a summary window “that
`
`can be reached directly from the main menu” to avoid the prior art. Ex. 1002 at
`
`154-55, 157-58 (6/12/07 Reply at 2-3, 5-6). Applicant argued that Capps and Arcu-
`
`ri “do not teach or suggest functionality that enables the functions to be accessible
`
`from the main menu and across all applications displayed in the main menu.” Id.
`
`at 164 (6/12/07 Reply at 10). On August 22, 2007, the Examiner issued a final re-
`
`jection finding all pending claims unpatentable as obvious over Capps, Arcuri, and
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,781,161 (“Richard”). Ex. 1002 at 171-74 (8/22/07 OA at 2-5). On
`
`October 22, 2007, Applicant filed a Reply arguing that Richard does not teach “a
`
`main menu listing one or more applications” and instead teaches “two open appli-
`
`cations.” Ex. 1002 at 180-81 (10/22/07 Reply at 3-4). On November 8, 2007, the
`
`Examiner issued an Advisory Action rejecting Applicant’s request for reconsidera-
`
`tion and maintaining the previous rejections over Capps, Arcuri, and Richard under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specifica-
`
`tion. Ex. 1002 at 186. On December 26, 2007, to avoid the prior art, Applicant
`
`amended original independent claims 14 and 26 to include the limitation “wherein
`
`the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-
`
`launched state.” Ex. 1002 at 190 (12/26/07 Reply at 2). On January 24, 2008, the
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 00018
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner issued an Advisory Action and did not enter the pro-
`
`posed amendments because they raised new issues. Ex. 1002 at 206.
`
`27. On February 21, 2008, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Exam-
`
`ination (RCE). Ex. 1002 at 209. On April 23, 2008, the Examiner issued a non-
`
`final rejection finding all pending claims obvious over Capps, U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,570,596 (“Frederiksen”), Arcuri, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,160,554 (“Krause”). Ex.
`
`1002 at 219-22 (4/23/08 OA at 2-5). On September 23, 2008, to avoid the prior art,
`
`Applicant amended original independent claims 14 and 26 to include the limitation
`
`that “each function” is selectable to “launch the first application.” Ex. 1002 at 238-
`
`40 (9/23/08 Reply at 2-4). On December 31, 2008, the Examiner issued a final re-
`
`jection, finding all pending claims unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,815,142 (“Allard”), Arcuri, and Krause. Ex. 1002 at 260-63 (12/31/08 OA at 3-
`
`5). On March 2, 2009, Applicant filed a Reply and argued that none of the dis-
`
`cussed references “teaches or suggests displaying functions of an application in a
`
`summary window, and which is available prior to application launch.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`284-85 (3/2/09 Reply at 9-10). On March 17, 2009, the Examiner issued an Advi-
`
`sory Action maintaining the objections. Ex. 1002 at 291-92.
`
`28. On June 30, 2009, Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal. Ex. 1002 at
`
`294. On August 31, 2009, Applicant filed an Appeal Brief, arguing that no combi-
`
`nation of Allard, Arcuri, and/or Kraus “teaches or suggests displaying, in a main
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 00019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`menu, a list of accessible applications, and, by designating (e.g., hovering the cur-
`
`sor over) one of the applications listed in the main menu, opening a summary win-
`
`dow which shows various functions that can be selected within the designated ap-
`
`plication even while the application is unlaunched.” Ex. 1002 at 309 (8/31/09 App.
`
`Br. at 10). On November 10, 2009, the Examiner submitted an Examiner’s An-
`
`swer, explaining that Kraus “display[s] a preview window related to an application
`
`while the application is in un-launch [sic] state”; thus, the claims were unpatenta-
`
`ble as obvious over Allard, Arcuri, and Kraus. Ex. 1002 at 328-29 (11/10/09 Ex-
`
`am. Ans. at 5-7).
`
`29. On January 11, 2010, Applicant filed a Reply Brief arguing that
`
`Krause teaches “‘previewing’ metadata … [which] is conceptually very different to
`
`a user selecting an application and causing functionality of that application to be
`
`displayed, or allowing the application to be launched and a certain functionality in-
`
`itiated, or displaying functionality of the application of the unlaunched application
`
`on a main menu screen and allowing the functionality to be initiated from this main
`
`menu screen.” Ex. 1002 at 332-34 (1/11/10 Reply Br. at 2-4) (emphasis in origi-
`
`nal). On October 24, 2012, the Board issued a Decision on Appeal, reversing the
`
`Examiner’s final rejection of original claims 14-40 and finding that Krause teaches
`
`“previewing of files without opening them using metadata” which is different from
`
`the claim limitation requiring “each function in the list being selectable to launch
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Page 00020
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`the first applicat