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
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART ............................. 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................... 5
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING .................................................................... 5
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’020 PATENT ............................................................. 7
`A. Overview of the ’020 Patent .................................................................. 7
`B. Overview of the ’020 Patent Prosecution History ................................ 9
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 10
`A.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................... 11
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ....................... 12
`C. 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; ............................................................................................. 13
`1.
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,409 (“Schnarel”) .................. 13
`2.
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,362 (“Aberg”) ...................... 14
`3.
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,668,353 (“Yurkovic”) ................. 15
`4. Motivation to Combine Schnarel with Aberg (Elements
`1.C and Claim 6.) ...................................................................... 15
`5. Motivation to Combine Schnarel with Yurkovic (Claim 6)
` ................................................................................................... 21
`Claim Charts for Grounds 1-4 (See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶49-
`102) ........................................................................................... 22
`D. Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 are obvious under § 103
`over Nason; Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16 are
`obvious under § 103 over Nason in view of the knowledge of a
`POSITA; Ground 7: Claim 6 is obvious under § 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
`
`6.
`
`

`
`obvious under § 103 over Wagner in view of Nason and the
`knowledge of a POSITA. .................................................................... 38
`1.
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,593,945 (“Nason”) ...................... 39
`2.
`Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,256,516 (“Wagner”) ................... 41
`3. Motivation to Combine Nason with Yurkovic (Claim 6) ......... 41
`4. Motivation to Combine Wagner with Nason (Claim 11) ......... 43
`5.
`Claim Charts for Grounds 5-10 (see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶103-
`141) ........................................................................................... 44
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................. 5, 11-12
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................. 5
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 11
`Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00170, Paper No. 14 (July 29, 2013) .................................................. 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C § 102(e) .............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.33(c) ................................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R § 42.22 ........................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................... 59
`MPEP § 2111 ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 File History
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Brad Myers In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 (“Schnarel”)
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,993,362 (“Aberg”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,333,973 (“Smith”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 (“Nason”)
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,959,621 (“Nawaz”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,160,554 (“Krause”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,256,516 (“Wagner”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,018,724 (“Arent”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0251448 (“Gropper”)
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,345,550 (“Bloomfield 550”)
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,425,140 (“Bloomfield 140”)
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,408,191 (“Blanchard”)
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,815,142 (“Allard”)
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,737,394 (“Anderson”)
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,668,353 (“Yurkovic”)
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,890 (“Panian”)
`Ex. 1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,174,205 (“Madsen”)
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,761,610 (“Sorensen”)
`Ex. 1022
`Figures 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 (“Nason Figures”)
`(http://patents.reedtech.com)
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751,
`D.I. 107, 107-1 (Joint Submission of P.R. 4-5(d) Claim Construction
`Chart) (E.D. Tex.)
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751,
`D.I. 89 (Core Wireless Opening Claim Construction Brief) (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751,
`D.I. 100 (Apple Responsive Claim Construction Brief) (E.D. Tex.)
`Ex. 1026 Declaration of Michael P. Duffey in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751,
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`D.I. 100-4 and -5 (Apple Responsive Claim Construction Brief Exs. 4
`and 5) (E.D. Tex.)
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Pursuant to §§ 311-319 and Rule § 42.1,1 the undersigned, on behalf of and
`
`acting in a representative capacity for Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) hereby
`
`petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (“the ’020”), originally issued
`
`to Nokia Corporation and, according to USPTO records, now assigned to Core
`
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Core” or “PO”). Petitioner hereby asserts that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`for the reasons set forth herein and respectfully requests review of, and judgment
`
`against, claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 as unpatentable under § 103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART
`
`The ‘020 generally relates to a graphical user interface (“GUI”) for a compu-
`
`ting device that displays a summary window including a limited list of functions
`
`and data offered within an application. Ex. 1001 2:20-30. As set forth in this Peti-
`
`tion, the supposed “invention” in the “Challenged Claims” was well-known and
`
`obvious prior to the claimed priority date of July 28, 2000.
`
`The Challenged Claims generally recite one or more of the following con-
`
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R. as the context indicates, and all em-
`
`phasis and annotations are added unless noted.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`ventional features that were well-known in the art long before July 28, 2000:2 a
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`computing device (such as a mobile telephone) having a display; a main menu list-
`
`ing applications; a summary window that can be reached directly from the main
`
`menu; a summary window displaying a limited list of functions and data that are
`
`selectable to launch an application; a summary window that is displayed while the
`
`application is in an unlaunched state; and varying the functions and/or data in the
`
`summary window based on the environment of the device. See generally Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶14-19.
`
`Indeed, the ‘020 specification and prosecution make clear that Applicant did
`
`not purport to invent, inter alia, a “computing device,” “mobile telephone,” (Ex.
`
`1001 1:14-21); a display (id. 1:15-17); a main menu listing different applications
`
`(id. 1:37-45, 54-57; 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.”); and displaying
`
`functions and data in a menu (Ex. 1001 1:62-2:3; Ex. 1002 251 (9/23/08 Reply
`
`15)). See also, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶14-23, 25-29. And it was well known in the art for
`
`a mobile phone to include a display for presenting a GUI for user control and inter-
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to raise in an appropriate forum invalidity based on
`
`§ 112, as well as the right to argue that the Challenged Claims are not entitled to
`
`the July 28, 2000 priority date, based on other grounds.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`action. See, e.g., Ex. 1010 2:27-28, 2:63-3:2, Figs. 1, 3A, 10; Ex. 1011 Abstract,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`1:44-50, 4:51-5:35, 7:43-50, 11:49-51; Ex. 1012 ¶¶77, 92; Ex. 1003 ¶¶14, 129.
`
`Further, the prior art, including the references cited herein, had long taught
`
`the use of “summary windows” for providing selective access to functions and/or
`
`data offered in an application on computing devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 1:13-15,
`
`1:22-28, 2:7-12, 13:42-48, Fig. 2; Ex. 1005 Abstract, 2:3-5, 2:55-3:3, 7:25-29, Figs.
`
`1, 3; Ex. 1006 1:57-61, 2:26-31, 3:50-54, 8:27-35, Figs. 7A, 7B; Ex. 1007 1:11-13,
`
`2:49-53, 3:25-33, 4:31-40, 5:15-25, Figs. 2, 7-10; Ex. 1010 Abstract, 4:56-5:11,
`
`8:22-29, Fig. 3A; Ex. 1013 1:59-64, 4:14-58, 9:56-10:28, 11:14-24, Figs. 3-6; Ex.
`
`1014 1:41-46, 8:17-32, 9:61-66, Fig. 5; Ex. 1015 1:11-14, 5:30-6:38, Figs. 2, 4; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶15.
`
`It was also well known to configure the summary window so that it is “di-
`
`rectly reached” from a main menu. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 Abstract, 2:3-5, 2:55-3:3,
`
`7:25-29, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1006 8:12-35, Fig. 7A; Ex. 1007 2:49-53, 3:25-33, 4:31-40,
`
`5:15-25, Figs. 2, 7-10; Ex. 1013 4:14-58, 9:56-10:28, 11:14-24, Figs. 3-6; Ex. 1014
`
`8:17-32, 9:61-66, Fig. 5; Ex. 1015 5:30-6:38, Figs. 2, 4; Ex. 1003 ¶16. It was also
`
`well known to include a limited list of functions and/or data in a “summary win-
`
`dow.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 6:26-8:67, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1005 2:55-62, 4:32-48, 6:42-49,
`
`Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1006 2:41-50, 8:36-45, Fig. 7A; Ex. 1007 3:48-4:49, Figs. 2, 5-10;
`
`Ex. 1010 Abstract, 4:56-5:11, 8:22-29, Fig. 3A; Ex. 1015 6:4-7, 8:34-9:11, Fig. 4;
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 4:14-58, 9:56-10:28, Figs. 4-6; Ex. 1016 4:8-19, Fig. 6; Ex. 1017 14:51-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`63, Fig. 9A; Ex. 1003 ¶17.
`
`During prosecution of the ‘020, in an attempt to avoid continued rejection of
`
`its claims, Applicant amended the claims to include the limitation “wherein the ap-
`
`plication summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`
`state.” Ex. 1002 190 (12/26/07 Reply 2). However, patents and publications printed
`
`well before the earliest priority date, including the references cited herein, also
`
`taught displaying a summary window while the application is in an un-launched
`
`state. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 6:27-45, 8:46-62, 13:22-39, Fig. 2; Ex. 1006 1:57-61,
`
`2:26-31; Ex. 1007 3:10-13, 3:56-60, 4:31-40; Ex. 1014 8:17-32, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009
`
`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”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶18, 26-29.
`
`During prosecution, Applicant also added the limitation that “each function”
`
`in the summary window is selectable to “launch the first application.” Ex. 1002
`
`238-40 (9/23/08 Reply 2-4). This too, was known in the art before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date, and disclosed by the cited references. See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`
`6:27-45, 8:46-62, 13:22-39, Fig. 2; Ex. 1007 3:10-13, 3:56-60, 4:31-40; Ex. 1014
`
`8:17-32, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶18. In addition, as required by dependent claim 6, it was
`
`well known in the art to vary the functionality and/or data types within a summary
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`window with the environment of the computing device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 5:51-61;
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 3:56-4:5, Figs. 9, 10, 14; Ex. 1018 3:31-41, 5:10-47; Ex. 1021 3:36-50;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶19.
`
`As demonstrated in this Petition, each and every element of the Challenged
`
`Claims had been disclosed in the prior art and the Challenged Claims are at best
`
`nothing more than a routine and predictable combination of these well-known ele-
`
`ments. Petitioner thus respectfully requests that the Board institute trial and find
`
`each of the Challenged Claims invalid under §103.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8
`Apple is the Real Party in Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`Related Matters Under § 42.8(b)(2) and Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Under § 42.8(b)(3) and (4). Core has asserted ‘020 claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11 and
`
`16 against Petitioner in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-
`
`cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.) (“EDTX”), which is being transferred to the Northern Dis-
`
`trict of California. The ‘020 is also the subject of litigation in Core Wireless Li-
`
`censing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.), to which
`
`Apple is not a party. Petitioner has also concurrently filed an IPR petition challeng-
`
`ing claims of a related patent (U.S. Pat. No. 8,713,476). Lead / backup counsel and
`
`service information are designated in the signature block.
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Grounds for Standing Under Rule 42.104(a): Petitioner certifies, pursuant
`
`to § 42.104(a), that the ’020 is eligible for IPR and Petitioner is not barred or es-
`
`topped from requesting IPR. Petitioner was served with a Complaint asserting in-
`
`fringement of the ’020 on September 12, 2014. Neither Petitioner nor any other re-
`
`al party-in-interest or privy of Petitioner was served with a complaint before that
`
`date, or has initiated a civil action challenging the validity of the ’020.
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b): Petitioner
`
`requests IPR of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 and asserts that the claims are
`
`unpatentable based on one or more grounds under § 103: 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 person of ordinary skill in the art (“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; 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 § 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
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`§ 103 over Wagner in view of Nason; Ground 10: Claim 11 is obvious under
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`§ 103 over Wagner in view of Nason and the knowledge of a POSITA. None of
`
`these grounds has been previously before the Patent Office. Sections V.C.6 and
`
`V.D.5 below provide claim charts specifying how the relied upon prior art renders
`
`obvious the challenged claims. In further support of the proposed grounds of rejec-
`
`tion, the Declaration of technical expert Dr. Brad Myers is attached as Ex. 1003.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’020 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’020 Patent
`The ’020 generally describes a “user interface for applications” on a compu-
`
`ting device, including mobile telephones. Ex. 1001 1:14-24. See generally Ex.
`
`1003 ¶¶20-24. The computing device displays a main menu listing applications and
`
`a “summary window” (called an “App Snapshot”) for an application. Id. 2:55-59,
`
`3:5-17, 3:23-30. Applications in the main menu may include, e.g., a message, a
`
`contacts/address book, a calendar or telephone application. Id. 1:37-40, 3:5-7, Fig.
`
`1. The “summary window” can be reached directly from the main menu and in-
`
`cludes a “limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data.” Id.
`
`2:20-30, 2:55-59, Figs. 2-3.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`The ‘020 specification describes that “[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 func-
`
`tions offered within an application and/or data stored in that application will con-
`
`stitute a ‘window’ as such.” Ex. 1001 3:62-67. The functions in the summary win-
`
`dow are selectable to open the application. Id. 2:31-39. In addition, the App Snap-
`
`shot “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. 3:53-58. The “App Snapshot” may “vary with the environment in
`
`which the mobile telephone finds itself.” Id. 4:47-53.
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to a computing device that includes a
`
`display screen that displays a main menu listing at least a first application and a
`
`summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu. The summary
`
`window includes a limited list of at least one function offered within the first ap-
`
`plication, wherein the function is selectable to launch the application and initiate
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`the selected function. The summary window is displayed when the application is in
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`an unlaunched state. The Challenged Claims also claim a summary window that
`
`displays a list of data stored in an application, a summary window where the func-
`
`tionality and/or stored data types varies with the environment of the device, and a
`
`computing device that is a mobile telephone.
`
`B. Overview of the ’020 Patent Prosecution History
`The application leading to the ’020 was filed August 27, 2003 as U.S. Pat.
`
`App. No. 10/343,333 (“the ’333 application”), claiming priority to PCT App. No.
`
`PCT/GB01/03387, filed July 27, 2001, and GB 0019459.7 filed July 28, 2000. See
`
`generally Ex. 1003 ¶¶25-29.
`
`During prosecution, Applicant amended original independent claims 14 and
`
`26 (now independent claims 1 and 16) in response to Examiner’s rejections to in-
`
`clude (i) “a main menu listing one or more applications,” (ii) a summary window
`
`“that can be reached directly from the main menu,” (iii) “wherein the application
`
`summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state,”
`
`and (iv) that “each function” is selectable to “launch the first application.” Ex.
`
`1002 154-55, 157-58 (6/12/07 Reply 2-3, 5-6), 144-147 (12/12/06 OA 2-5); 190
`
`(12/26/07 Reply 2); 238-40 (9/23/08 Reply 2-4). The Examiner ultimately found
`
`the pending claims unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. Ex. 1002 171-74
`
`(8/22/07 OA 2-5); 219-22 (4/23/08 OA 2-5); 260-63 (12/31/08 OA 3-5); see also
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶25-27.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Applicant appealed, arguing that no combination of the art teaches “opening
`
`a summary window which shows various functions that can be selected within the
`
`designated application even while the application is unlaunched.” Ex. 1002 309
`
`(8/31/09 App. Br. 10). In response, the Examiner explained that Krause “display[s]
`
`a preview window related to an application while the application is in un-launch
`
`[sic] state.” Ex. 1002 328-29 (11/10/09 Exam. Ans. 5-7). Applicant responded that
`
`Krause did not teach “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 332-34 (1/11/10 Reply Br. 2-4). The Board
`
`reversed the Examiner’s final rejection of original claims 14-40 and found Krause
`
`did not teach that “each function in the list [is] selectable to launch the first appli-
`
`cation and initiate the selected function.” Ex. 1002 466-67 (10/24/12 Bd. Dec. 3-4).
`
`See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶25-29.
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioner submits there is at least “a reasonable likelihood that [Petitioner]
`
`[will] prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in [this Petition].”
`
`§ 314(a). As explained below, all of the challenged claims are at least obvious un-
`
`der § 103 in light of the prior art.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`A. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`For purposes of this review, the claim language is construed such that it is
`
`“given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the pa-
`
`tent in which it appears.” § 42.100(b). Under this standard, while an inventor may
`
`rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, claim terms are presumed to
`
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v.
`
`Gen. Elec. Co., IPR2013-00170, Paper No. 14 (July 29, 2013) at 5. For purposes of
`
`this review, Petitioner interprets the claims in accordance with their plain and ordi-
`
`nary meaning under the required broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`the specification. Because the standard for claim construction at the PTO is differ-
`
`ent than that used in litigation, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`
`1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2111, Petitioner expressly reserves the right
`
`to argue in litigation constructions for any term, as appropriate to that proceeding.3
`
`
`3 No construction is necessary for the term “display on the screen an application
`
`summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu” (cls. 1, 16). In
`
`litigation, Petitioner proposed construing this term as “display on the screen an ap-
`
`plication summary window for an application that appears when the user selects
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art
`
`B.
`The applicable person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a
`
`bachelor’s in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`comparable field, and approximately two years of professional experience with de-
`
`signing and/or developing graphical user interfaces (“GUIs”) for computing devic-
`
`es or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could sub-
`
`stitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could sub-
`
`stitute for formal education. A POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of all rele-
`
`vant prior art, and would thus have been familiar with each of the references cited
`
`herein and the full range of teachings they contain. Ex. 1003 ¶¶2-11.
`
`
`the application from the main menu and without any further user action.” See, e.g.,
`
`Exs. 1023-1025, 1027; Ex. 1001 1:14-15, 26-46, 47-49; 2:55-65; 2:66-3:4, 3:23-37,
`
`38-44, 4:24-31, 32-35, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1002 at 162, 179, 181, 197, 198, 245, 303,
`
`309. PO asserted that this term should have its “plain and ordinary meaning,” but
`
`proceeded to interpret the phrase so as to not require any “user action” for the
`
`summary window to be reached directly from the main menu. See Ex. 1024 at 30.
`
`While Petitioner believes its litigation construction is correct, construction of this
`
`term is not necessary for purposes of this proceeding as the cited references and
`
`combinations herein disclose this limitation under both proposed constructions.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`C. 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 obvi-
`ous 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;
`1. Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,409 (“Schnarel”)
`Schnarel (Ex. 1004) was filed Aug. 25, 1999 and issued May 29, 2007, mak-
`
`ing it prior art under at least § 102(e). Schnarel teaches a graphical user interface
`
`for computing devices (such as a mobile telephone or personal digital assistant)
`
`with screen displays. E.g., Ex. 1004 1:12-27, 2:7-12. Schnarel teaches displaying a
`
`main menu listing applications (e.g., “the application button bar” listing applica-
`
`tions such as “Address Book,” “The Web,” “Messages,” “Settings” shown in Fig. 2)
`
`and a summary window (e.g., “message summary pane,” shown as item 206 in
`
`Fig. 2) that displays a limited list of data (e.g., icons such as notepad, answering
`
`machine, and e-mail messages indicating new messages received, as shown in
`
`Fig. 2) and functions (e.g., “Caller log,” “Fax,” as shown in Figs. 2-4) offered in
`
`an application (e.g., the “message center” application). E.g., id. 2:23-30, 6:27-44,
`
`6:52-61, 7:41-53, 8:46-62, 9:1-6, 9:40-43, 13:42-48, Figs. 1-3, 5.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Id. Fig. 2. The application summary window taught by Schnarel is displayed while
`
`the application is in an unlaunched state. E.g., id. 8:46-62 (describing “the applica-
`
`tion is launched” in response to the user “selecting an active [] button”). In addition,
`
`each of the functions displayed in the summary window is selectable to launch the
`
`application and initiate the selected function. E.g., id. Schnarel also teaches that the
`
`icons displayed on the summary window vary based on the environment of the de-
`
`vice (i.e., based on whether the “call log transport,” “fax machine transport,” etc.
`
`are “available on the device.”). E.g., id. 8:18-30, 10:45-61; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶37-
`
`38.
`
`2. Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,993,362 (“Aberg”)
`Aberg (Ex. 1005) was filed Mar. 13, 2000 and issued Jan. 31, 2006, making
`
`it prior art under at least § 102(e). Aberg teaches a mobile telephone having a dis-
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`play with a user-customized short menu of functions that can be reached directly
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`from the main menu. E.g., Ex. 1005 Abstract, 2:3-5, 2:63-3:3, 7:25-29, Figs. 1, 3.
`
`Aberg teaches that the short menu beneficially allows a user to have easy access to
`
`the most desired functions selected by the user from different top level menus (i.e.,
`
`from Phonebook, Mail, Calculator, Access, Networks, etc.). E.g., id. 2:55-62, 4:32-
`
`48. Aberg also teaches that the functionality available in the short menu varies with
`
`the environment of the device (i.e., the contents of the short menu might change
`
`based on whether the mobile device is connected to an accessory or depending on
`
`the type of SIM card inserted). E.g., id. 4:5-11, 5:51-61, 7:16-20; see also Ex. 1003
`
`¶39.
`
`3. Overview of U.S. Pat. No. 6,668,353 (“Yurkovic”)
`Yurkovic (Ex. 1018) was filed Mar. 25, 1999 and issued Dec. 23, 2003,
`
`making it prior art under at least § 102(e). Yurkovic teaches a GUI for a PC or
`
`PDA that displays tickers and information (e.g., date, time, news, weather infor-
`
`mation) in a summary window (i.e., the “space/time portal”). E.g., 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 geographic location, providing the user with
`
`information relevant to the user’s location. E.g., id. 5:10-47; see also Ex. 1003 ¶40.
`
`4. Motivation to Combine Schnarel with Aberg (Elements 1.C
`and Claim 6.)
`a.
`
`Element 1.C
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`With respect to Element 1.C, a POSITA would have been motivated and
`
`found it obvious and straightforward to use Aberg’s advantageous express teach-
`
`ings of a summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu in im-
`
`plementing Schnarel’s phone. Ex. 1003 ¶¶61-62; see also element 1.C in §V.C.6
`
`below. Both Schnarel and Aberg are in t