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
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. BRAD A. MYERS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER APPLE INC’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER CORE WIRELESS’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1038
`Apple v. Core Wireless
`IPR2015-01898
`Page 00001
`
`
`______________
`
`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
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. BRAD A. MYERS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER APPLE INC’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER CORE WIRELESS’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 1038
`Apple v. Core Wireless
`IPR2015-01898
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`I, Dr. Brad Myers, have previously been asked by Apple (“Petitioner”) to
`
`testify as an expert witness in this action. As part of my work in this action, I have
`
`been asked by the Petitioner to respond to certain assertions offered by Core
`
`Wireless (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (“the
`
`‘020 patent”) in this proceeding, IPR2015-01898. I hereby declare, under penalty
`
`of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, as follows:1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I previously executed a Declaration in this proceeding on September
`
`11, 2015, as Exhibit 1003. My experience, qualifications, and compensation are
`
`provided in this prior Declaration (¶¶ 2-8) and curriculum vitae (Appendix A
`
`attached to Exhibit Ex. 1003).
`
`2.
`
`In this Declaration, I respond to certain assertions in Patent Owner
`
`Core Wireless’s Response (“Opp.”) (Paper No. 18) and Mr. Scott Denning’s
`
`Declaration (Ex.2011) submitted on July 15, 2016.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those cited within and
`
`identified in Appendix B attached to my prior Declaration (Ex.1003). Each of these
`
`
`
` Throughout this declaration, all emphasis and annotations are added unless noted.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`materials is a type of document that experts in my field would reasonably rely
`
`upon when forming their opinions.
`
`4. My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If called to testify as to the truth
`
`of the matters stated herein, I could and would testify competently.
`
`II. OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`6.
`
`“application” (claims 1, 16)
`
`I understand PO construes “application” to mean “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.” Opp. 14. I disagree.
`
`7.
`
`As my opening declaration makes clear, I applied the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “application” under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(BRI) consistent with the specification in forming my opinions. Ex.1003 ¶ 30. In
`
`my opinion, such interpretation of the term “application” is “a program, or group
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`of programs working together, designed to provide access to functions and data.”
`
`The ‘020 specification does not specifically define the term “application” but
`
`describes different applications that provide access to certain functions and data.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:33-40, 2:24-25, 3:5-22, Fig. 1. This is further supported by technical
`
`dictionaries of the type that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon. For
`
`example, Ex.1028, 5 (“application A program or group of programs designed for
`
`end users”); Ex.1031, 4 (“application program Software that enables a computer
`
`to perform a set of related tasks for a specific purpose, such as word processing,
`
`working with spreadsheets or graphics, or Web browsing.”), 5 (“program A set of
`
`coded instructions that direct a computer in performing a specific task”)). This
`
`interpretation is also consistent with the contemporaneous use of the term in the art
`
`(e.g., “web applications”). See Ex.1029 1:40-47 (“A web application is little more
`
`than a set of web pages that support different functionalities.”).
`
`B.
`
`8.
`
`“function” includes opening a certain window of an application
`(claims 1, 16)
`
`The patent owner (PO) proposes that “function” cannot include
`
`merely opening a window of an application. Opp. 18-20. I disagree. As my initial
`
`declaration makes clear, I applied the plain and ordinary meaning of “function”
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification
`
`in forming my opinions. Ex.1003 ¶¶ 30, 64-70, 72-73, 113-119, 121, 132. Such
`
`interpretation of “function” includes an “operation or command” and is not limited
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`to an “an action that a user is to perform within the corresponding application.”
`
`Opp. 19. This is further supported by technical dictionaries of the type that experts
`
`in my field would reasonably rely upon. See e.g., Ex.1028, 6 (“function…used
`
`synonymously with operation and command”) (emphasis in original). Indeed, the
`
`‘020 specification mentions “commands” in explaining its functions. (e.g., 1:54-58)
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been well understood that “function”
`
`includes displaying relevant information in a window of an application because the
`
`specification discusses that when a function in the App Snapshot (i.e., claimed
`
`application summary window) is selected, the device may “display[] the relevant
`
`screen offering the relevant functionality.” Ex.1001, 3:47-51. Additionally, in my
`
`opinion, even PO’s cited “examples” (Opp.18-19), such as “enter a PIN security
`
`number” and “Enter chat room,” would involve opening a certain window/view on
`
`a screen, such as opening a message or chat window. After reviewing the
`
`specification and claims, I did not find anything that requires a second user action
`
`after launching the application and initiating the function. Applications at the time
`
`frequently included menu items to “View” various windows or dialogues, which a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand to be “functions” of
`
`those applications. Further, during prosecution, PO admitted and the examiner
`
`confirmed that merely displaying a certain view of the application is a function.
`
`Ex.1002, 197, 187; Ex.1036, Fig. 2A, 8:13-15. Thus, in my opinion, the ‘020
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`specification describes “function” to include opening a certain window/view of an
`
`application.
`
`C.
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of at Least One Function
`Offered Within the First Application” (Elements 1.D, 16.D);
`“Selecting a Function Listed in the Summary Window Caus[ing]
`the First Application to Open and That Selected Function to Be
`Activated” (Cl. 2)
`
`10. PO asserts that Schnarel’s caller log and fax buttons are “separate
`
`applications” from the message center application, and thus, are functions of their
`
`own applications and not functions of the message center. Opp. 30-32, 43.
`
`Similarly, Mr. Denning asserts that “Schnarel describes and shows the message
`
`viewers to be applications that are different from the message center application.”
`
`Ex.2011 ¶ 46. I disagree. As explained below, in my opinion, Schnarel discloses a
`
`“limited list of at least one function offered within the first application” through,
`
`e.g., its caller log and fax buttons displayed on the message summary pane, which
`
`offer functionality for and are part of the message center application.
`
`11. More specifically, I understand that PO argues that the message
`
`viewers are applications, and that the message center application does not include
`
`the message viewers. I disagree with both assertions. In my opinion, the viewers,
`
`at least in some embodiments, are not applications. And, even if the viewers were
`
`applications, it is my opinion that they would nevertheless be part of the message
`
`center application.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`12. As discussed in my opening declaration, the “caller log” (Ex.1004,
`
`8:56-59) and/or “fax” (Ex.1004, 8:46-50) buttons, for example, are expressly
`
`displayed as part of the “message summary pane”—whose “parent application,” is
`
`the “message center” application. Ex.1004, 13:42-48; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 37, 38, 64-68.
`
`Ex.1004, Fig. 2. Further, Schnarel’s Fig. 7, shows examples of the message
`
`viewers are “answering machine viewer (732), an e-mail viewer (734), and fax
`
`viewer (736).” Ex.1004, 10:59-61; Ex.1003 ¶ 68.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig. 7. Notably, while enumerating “[t]he application programs” in Fig.
`
`7, Schnarel includes “the message center” but not separate message “viewers.”
`
`Ex.1004, 10:35-39. Schnarel also discloses that the application button bar (104)
`
`includes “all applications that are available” to a user and provides a vehicle for
`
`launching those applications. Ex.1004, 9:1-6, Figs. 1, 2. Message viewers are
`
`absent from this list, but the message center application is present. Further,
`
`Schnarel teaches that the message viewers are COM components. Ex.1004, 12:50-
`
`13:20. COM components are not freestanding applications. Thus, a POSITA
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`would have understood that the message viewers (at least in the COM
`
`embodiment) are not individual applications, but rather are part of the “parent”
`
`message center application. See also Ex.1004, 10:55-61, Figure 7; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 64-
`
`68; Ex.2012, 103:3-7 (“The fax viewer is part of the message center….”). Indeed,
`
`it would make no sense to have a message center application that would not allow
`
`users to view any messages. And, the inability to view messages would also make
`
`it difficult if not impossible to respond to messages.
`
`13. The message center application relies on a message viewer that “plugs
`
`into the message center” application and “provides the functionality for displaying
`
`and managing messages of a particular type.” Ex.1004, 10:55-59, Fig. 7; Ex.1003 ¶
`
`68. These viewers are plugged into the parent message center application to
`
`provide additional functionality and are not designed to function as free-standing
`
`applications. I understand Patent Owner describes the viewers as “plugins.” Opp.
`
`32. When a plugin is plugged into another application, it becomes part of the
`
`parent application. Definitions of plugin support this understanding. Ex.1034, 3
`
`(“PLUG-IN an accessory program that provides additional functions for a main
`
`application program. Plug-ins have to be loaded at the same time as the main
`
`program; they then show up as an option in an appropriate menu”); Ex.1035, 3. In
`
`my opinion, and consistent with my claim construction, an application is a program
`
`or group of programs (which include helper programs such as the message center
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`plugins that allow extended functionality of the parent application). For example,
`
`Microsoft Outlook, with, e.g., mail and calendar programs, and Excel, with
`
`spreadsheet and charting programs, are applications with a group of programs.
`
`Thus, even if the message viewers are themselves individual programs
`
`(or ”separate plugin applications,” as PO contends), they provide functions for the
`
`message center application, and are part of the message center application.
`
`14. My opinions are further confirmed by the fact that the point of
`
`Schnarel’s message center application (708) is to “provide[] integrated access to all
`
`types of messages . . . such as answering machine messages, e-mails, and faxes”
`
`(Ex.1004, 10:45-48; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 64-68), and the fact that Schnarel explicitly
`
`teaches that the message center application is launched and a viewer is opened
`
`when a button related to message viewing is selected (see Ex.1004, 7:56-60 (when
`
`Button 308 is pressed “a procedure associated with the icon launches a message
`
`center application program, which displays the appropriate message viewer.”);
`
`8:46-59 (“[i]n response to selecting an active fax button, the messages application
`
`is launched and a fax viewer is displayed . . . pressing an active call logger button
`
`causes the messages application to launch, and a call log viewer to be displayed”);
`
`see also id. 7:57-60; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 69-70).
`
`15.
`
` Further, including Schnarel’s message viewers as part of the message
`
`center application would be an obvious design choice and advantageous: when part
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`of the larger message center application, the viewer windows would display much
`
`faster than if they were required to launch separate applications for each window.
`
`Further, it would be easier for the message viewer plugins to share resources as
`
`part of the same application, rather than as separate applications. This would likely
`
`reduce the memory footprint, simplify the design of the application program(s),
`
`eliminate the need to design an interface, and ensure interoperability. See also
`
`Ex.1003 ¶ 143. For these reasons, a POSITA would have been motivated and
`
`found it obvious and straightforward to implement Schnarel’s message viewers as
`
`part of Schnarel’s message center application. A POSITA would have also
`
`recognized this as a straightforward and beneficial design choice for the same
`
`reasons. It would have been routine and straightforward for a POSITA to do so,
`
`and it would have been clear to a POSITA that it would have worked and provided
`
`the expected functionality to yield predictable results.
`
`16. PO argues Schnarel’s message viewers merely “open[] an application
`
`window or viewer.” Opp. 34. I disagree. In my opinion, Schnarel does not merely
`
`teach opening an application window/viewer; it also teaches executing functions
`
`under any proposed construction of that term. Schnarel teaches “an action to be
`
`activated in [the message center] application and performed by a user” because
`
`when the caller log/fax button is selected, not only is the message center
`
`application launched but a particular type of message (either caller log or fax
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`messages) is displayed. This is analogous to “enter chat room” because, like
`
`entering a specific chat room, a user would enter the message viewer of a particular
`
`type of message (i.e. Call Logs or Fax Messages).” PO admits that “enter chat
`
`room” is a function. Opp. 19; Ex.1001, 3:33-35. In the absence of caller log or fax
`
`buttons, a user would first have to open the message center application and select
`
`one of the three tabs (tab #3, tab # 2, or tab # 10 in Schnarel’s Fig. 5) to view a
`
`particular type of message. See also Ex.1004, 10:55-61 (“The message
`
`viewer…provides the functionality for displaying … messages….”), 4:24-27
`
`(“feature[s] of the device” include “… reviewing a message (e.g. answering
`
`machine, fax or e-mail message), browsing the Internet, or making a telephone
`
`call.”).
`
`17. As another example, Schnarel discloses that where a device supports
`
`multiple users, activating the fax/caller log “button may first cause a user interface
`
`screen to be displayed, prompting the user to identify herself/himself . . .” and “if
`
`the selected user is security enabled, then a password screen is displayed,
`
`prompting the user to enter a password.” Ex.1004, 8:50-59; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 17, 37, 38.
`
`Schnarel’s teaching of “identify[ing] herself/himself” and “enter[ing] a password”
`
`is analogous to “enter[ing] a PIN security number,” which the ‘020 specification
`
`describes as an example of a function. Ex.1001, 2:8. In my opinion, Schnarel’s
`
`teaching is analogous to the ‘020 teachings because “enter[ing] a PIN security
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`number” would also have involved displaying a prompt screen to enter a PIN
`
`number before displaying and managing messages of a particular type for that user.
`
`Thus, Schnarel discloses that pressing the caller log/fax button, “provides the
`
`functionality for displaying and managing messages.” Ex.1004, 10:55-61;
`
`Ex.1003 ¶¶ 64-68. This indicates that Schnarel does not merely teach opening an
`
`application window/viewer; rather, Schnarel teaches—upon selecting the caller
`
`log/fax button—displaying the relevant screen and offering “an action that a user is
`
`to perform within the corresponding application” (i.e., displaying and managing
`
`messages of a particular type for a particular user, such as, “Chip” in Schnarel’s
`
`Fig. 5).
`
`18. PO asserts that pressing the caller log/fax buttons in message
`
`summary pane 206 might open the same window as pressing the “Messages”
`
`button in pane 104, alleging that the caller log/fax buttons do not provide access to
`
`“functions” of the message center. Opp. 36-37. I disagree. First, I note that the
`
`‘020 claims do not require functions that take the user to different screens. Second,
`
`as I discussed in my opening declaration and above, Schnarel repeatedly describes
`
`that a function (e.g., displaying, managing, entering ID/password information) is
`
`activated after pressing a button, just like “enter[ing] a PIN security number” or
`
`“enter[ing a] chat room” in the ‘020 specification. Further, in my opinion, even if
`
`selecting the caller log button under a “default” mode brought the user to the same
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`window as pressing the “Messages” button, pressing the fax button in the
`
`“Messages” window would open a different, non-“default” view. Thus, at least
`
`one button would open a window that is different from the “default” view and
`
`would meet the claimed limitation.
`
`D.
`
`Schnarel Renders Obvious “an Application Summary Window
`that Can Be Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements
`1.C, 16.C)
`
`19. PO asserts that Petitioner’s proposed modification of Schnarel so that
`
`pane 206 can be reached directly from the main menu is “more than a mere
`
`rearrangement of parts since the message pane 206 would no longer provide notice
`
`of new messages on this start screen.” Opp. 40-41. I disagree. As detailed in my
`
`opening declaration, implementing Schnarel’s summary pane to be reached
`
`directly from the main menu would have been obvious. Ex.1003 ¶¶ 58-59. It was
`
`known in the art to place the summary window “anywhere [in] the menu hierarchy,
`
`i.e. as a sub-menu …” (Ex.1005, 7:25-29), and configuring Schnarel this way
`
`would not frustrate Schnarel’s purpose of allowing users to “quickly discover
`
`whether or not they have new messages and quickly access[ing] these new
`
`messages” (Ex.1004, 6:33-35). In my opinion, in the proposed modification, a user
`
`would still quickly discover/access new messages by reaching the summary pane
`
`in one step, instead of taking multiple steps to check for new messages by first
`
`opening the message center application and having to drill down through several
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`layers of the message center application and take other steps before
`
`discovering/accessing the new messages. For example, to discover messages for a
`
`certain user (e.g., “Chris,” Jimmy,” “Chip,” “Kate”) by first opening the message
`
`center application (instead of using the message summary pane), the user would
`
`need to then take another step to select the user to check messages for (e.g., Fig. 5
`
`“
`
`”). In addition, to access messages, a user
`
`would need to take another step to select the type of messages to access (e.g., Fig.
`
`5 “
`
`,” “
`
`,” “
`
`”).
`
`E.
`
`Schnarel in view of Aberg Renders Obvious “an Application
`Summary Window that Can Be Reached Directly From the Main
`Menu” (Elements 1.C, 16.C)
`
`20. PO asserts that Schnarel in view of Aberg does not render obvious
`
`Elements 1.C and 16.C because Aberg “teaches nothing about how to structure a
`
`relationship between Schnarel’s message pane 206…and Schnarel’s application
`
`selection area 104” and “Schnarel’s area 104 . . . does not allow navigation . . . .”
`
`Opp.40; Ex.2011 ¶ 59. I disagree. As an example, a POSITA would have known
`
`to place Aberg’s SPECIAL menu as a button or a pop-up window on Schnarel’s
`
`application selection area (104). Ex.1003 ¶ 58; Ex.1006 (Smith), 8:12-35, Fig. 7A
`
`(displaying a list of received messages by pressing a message center icon);
`
`Ex.1015 (Blanchard), 5:30-6:38, Figs. 2, 4 (using “Left,” “Up,” “Right,” “Down,”
`
`keys to scroll between menu screens). As I described in my opening declaration, a
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 00015
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to use Aberg’s teachings of a summary
`
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu in implementing
`
`Schnarel’s GUI for a mobile phone to avoid cluttering the display with too much
`
`information while still providing easy access to functions and data offered in an
`
`application. Ex.1003 ¶¶54-63. Relocating Aberg’s SPECIAL menu and making it
`
`accessible through interaction with Schnarel’s menu would have amounted to a
`
`predictable variation resulting from design incentives, not any inventive concept.
`
`Id.
`
`21. Aberg itself expressly teaches placing a summary window at any level
`
`of the menu hierarchy and accessing the SPECIAL menu through interaction with
`
`the main menu (Ex.1005, 7:25-29), and Schnarel likewise teaches customizing the
`
`GUI (Ex.1004, 5:7-26). Aberg also expressly teaches, e.g., (1) “a dynamic menu …
`
`which is easily accessible from the normal menu system” (Ex.1005, 2:58-59), (2)
`
`accessing a regular menu for an application (e.g., accessing the phonebook by
`
`navigating the menu to the phonebook and pressing the “YES” key) (Ex.1005,
`
`4:32-33, 4:66-5:5), and (3) separately accessing a “special menu” (Ex.1005, 7:25-
`
`29). Thus, it would have been obvious to implement Schnarel’s GUI so that the
`
`“message summary pane” is reached directly through an item available on the main
`
`menu. Additionally, it was well-known to make a selection on the main menu to
`
`display a summary window. Ex.1003 ¶¶ 58, 59.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`22. PO further asserts that Schnarel in view of Aberg does not render
`
`obvious Elements 1.C and 16.C because Aberg allegedly does not teach an
`
`“application summary window” since the “SPECIAL menu 300 is not associated
`
`with any ‘application’ . . . .” Opp. 40; Ex.2011 ¶ 59. I disagree. As I explained in
`
`my opening declaration, a POSITA would have been motivated and found it
`
`obvious and straightforward to apply Aberg’s teachings of structuring a summary
`
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu in implementing
`
`Schnarel’s GUI (which already teaches an application summary window).
`
`Ex.1003 ¶¶ 61-63.
`
`23. Furthermore, in my opinion, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`Aberg teaches configuring its “SPECIAL” menu for one (or more) applications,
`
`contrary to PO’s assertions. For example, Aberg teaches that its “SPECIAL” menu
`
`is “customized by the user…to add and delete menu items in an easy way,” and
`
`that such “menu items” are associated with one or more applications, such as
`
`“Settings” and/or “Phonebook.” Ex.1005, 2:55-3:3, 6:6-24; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 37, 38, 39,
`
`58-63; see also Ex.1004, 9:1-6, Figs. 1, 2 (Schnarel also teaches “Settings” and
`
`“Phonebook” applications). Thus, a POSITA would have understood that Aberg
`
`teaches selecting menu items for the SPECIAL menu for one application, as
`
`customized by the user. Furthermore, Aberg’s claim 3 teaches “add[ing] a selected
`
`menu item to the dynamic menu.” Ex.1005, Claim 3. In my opinion, “a selected
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`menu item” in the SPECIAL menu, without any other menu item, is associated
`
`with a single application. Hence, Aberg teaches associating the SPECIAL menu,
`
`which is a form of dynamic menu, with only one application. And in any event, in
`
`view of Schnarel and Aberg, a POSITA would have found it obvious and
`
`straightforward to configure Aberg’s SPECIAL menu with menu items from only
`
`one application because, in order to do so, a POSITA would merely have to add
`
`menu items from a single application, which would allow a user to access the most
`
`often used functions of that application with less effort.
`
`F.
`
`Schnarel, Schnarel in view of Aberg, or Alternatively, Schnarel in
`view of Yurkovic Discloses “the Functionality and/or Stored Data
`Types for a Summary Window for a Given Application Varies
`with the Environment of the Device” (Claim 6)
`
`24. PO asserts that, in Schnarel, displaying, e.g., caller log and fax buttons,
`
`depending on whether, e.g., a caller log or fax “transport” is available does not
`
`implicate the “environment,” of the device. Opp. 43-44. I disagree. In my
`
`opinion, the BRI of “environment of the device” includes at least the device’s
`
`hardware, software, and/or location. Ex.1001, 4:47-52 (“constituency of the App
`
`Snap shot may vary with the environment in which the mobile telephone finds
`
`itself. For example, if the telephone is Blue tooth enabled, then there may be a
`
`Bluetooth application which has associated with it a summary window which lists
`
`the other Bluetooth devices in the vicinity”); 5:29-31 (“present invention may
`
`therefore be used in any computing environment, including both keyboard and
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`keyboard-less devices”); Ex.1003 ¶¶ 74-86. In my opinion, nothing in the ‘020
`
`specification limits the plain and ordinary meaning of “environment” in a way that
`
`would exclude these, though I understand PO’s analysis excludes software and
`
`hardware from being part of the device’s environment (Opp.43-44). According to
`
`my understanding, whether a particular “transport,” which is software that allows a
`
`user to receive a particular message type, is available on the device is clearly an
`
`aspect of the device’s environment that impacts the availability of associated
`
`functionality. Ex.1003 ¶ 76.
`
`25. PO asserts that the presence or absence of an accessory or SIM card
`
`(in Aberg) does not impact the device’s “environment.” Opp.44. I disagree.
`
`Under the BRI of the “environment” of the device, in my opinion, whether and
`
`what type of accessory or SIM card is attached to a device impacts the device’s
`
`hardware and software “environment.” Ex.1003 ¶¶ 78-83; see also Ex.1001, 4:47-
`
`52; 5:25-31.
`
`G.
`
`Schnarel Discloses “Display[ing] a List of Data Stored in That
`Application” (Claim 10)
`
`26.
`
`I understand PO argues Schnarel does not disclose displaying a list of
`
`“data stored in that application” under its construction, because the data displayed
`
`is not the data caused to be “stored by the messaging center.” Opp.45-46, 20. I
`
`disagree. Schnarel teaches that the message center application stores status change
`
`information when a new message is received. Ex.1004, 13:61-14:10. And, when
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`the message center is launched, it will also display the number of messages (see
`
`Schnarel Fig. 5), so that data is then stored by the message center application as
`
`well. Schnarel further teaches that message transports receive messages of a
`
`particular type and save them to persistent storage. Ex.1004, 10:54-55. A POSITA
`
`would understand that the message center application would have to at least cache
`
`this data to display it on a device using a message viewer, and would therefore
`
`necessarily, and thus inherently be storing it locally on the device, at least
`
`temporarily (e.g. in the RAM or registry associated with the message center
`
`application). See also Ex.1003 ¶¶ 89-91. To the extent it is argued that the
`
`message center application does not store the data itself, it would at minimum have
`
`been obvious based on these disclosures.
`
`H. Nason Discloses “Each Function in the List Being Selectable To
`Launch the First Application and Initiate the Selected Function”
`(Elements 1.E, 16.E)
`
`27.
`
`I understand that PO asserts, and Mr. Denning says, that Lycos, AOL,
`
`and Amazon applications are “websites,” not “applications,” thus no application is
`
`launched when a function from Nason’s summary window is selected. Opp. 53-58;
`
`Ex.2011 ¶¶ 81, 125. I disagree. As I explained in my deposition, a “web
`
`application is a collection, typically one or more web pages, that helps the user do
`
`a variety of tasks or a variety of functions.” Ex.2012, 72:8-17, 72:22-73:21; see
`
`also Ex.2012, 73:12-21. Thus, in my opinion, each of the Lycos, AOL, and
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`Page 00020
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`Amazon websites (running on a browser) are web applications because each of
`
`them consists of a collection of webpages that support different functionalities,
`
`such as searching the Internet, checking mail, chatting, etc.
`
`28. PO and Mr. Denning state that Gmail (https://mail.google.com/mail/),
`
`Maps (https://www.google.com/maps), and Google+ (https://plus.google.com) are
`
`applications (Opp. 53-58; Ex.2011 ¶¶ 81-83); yet they are all websites. For
`
`example, typing a web address, such as https://www.google.com/maps, in the
`
`Internet browser takes a user to the Google Maps website. In my opinion, each of
`
`the Lycos, AOL, and Amazon websites (running on a browser) is a program or
`
`group of programs (with code) designed to provide access to functions and data,
`
`and each is thus an application—and in particular a web application.
`
`29. PO says that the AOL “mail feature” is an application and it has a
`
`“create/write email” function, but asserts that AOL itself is not an application.
`
`Opp.57-58. I disagree. Nason expressly discloses that the AOL web application is
`
`not limited to a “mail feature.” Ex.1007, Fig.10; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 116-119. Nason
`
`shows that the AOL web application is a collection of webpages that provides
`
`various functionality, including, e.g., “Mail,” “AOL NetFind,” “Web Centers,”
`
`“My News,” “Shopping,” “Web Search,” “Weather” and many more. Id. It also
`
`provides various data, including the current date “January 12, 1999”, and news like
`
`“Jordan set to retire”. Id. Further, even if the “mail feature” is operable as an
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`Page 00021
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`individual application, it provides functionality for and is displayed on and
`
`accessed from the AOL web application—and is therefore, in my opinion, part of
`
`the AOL web application. In any case, Nason further discloses that the applications
`
`in the cartridges are not limited to AOL, Lycos, and Amazon: “[u]ser cartridge(s)
`
`may include access to applications, documents, files, or network links ….”
`
`Ex.1007, 4:34-37. Alternatively, in my opinion, these same disclosures would
`
`certainly render this limitation (Elements 1.E, 16.E) obvious. A POSITA would
`
`have known that the modification would work as expected, yielding the expected
`
`result because this was a known method for initiating a function selected from an
`
`application that is not yet launched. Ex.1003 ¶ 119.
`
`I.
`
`Nason, or Wagner in View of Nason, Discloses “a Mobile
`Telephone” (Claim 11)
`
`30. PO argues that a POSITA would not be motivated to implement
`
`Nason’s GUI on a mobile telephone, such as the phone taught by Wagner, based
`
`on theory that “Nason’s parallel GUI is designed for use in CRT displays, not
`
`mobile LCD displays.” Opp. 68-69. I disagree. Nason expressly teaches that its
`
`GUI “may be implemented in any
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
