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.
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER CORE WIRELESS’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`“application” (cls.1, 16) ........................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`“function” (cls.1, 16) ............................................................................. 2 
`C. 
`“data stored in that application” (cl.10) ................................................ 4 
`D. 
`“environment of the device” (cl.6) ........................................................ 5 
`E. 
`“un-launched state” and “reached directly” (cls.1, 16) ......................... 5 
`SCHNAREL .................................................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`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) ................................................................................... 6 
`Schnarel Renders Obvious “an Application Summary Window
`that Can Be Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements
`1.C/16.C) ............................................................................................. 11 
`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) ...................................................... 12 
`Schnarel, Schnarel in View of Aberg, or Alternatively Schnarel
`in View of Yurkovic Discloses or Renders Obvious “the
`Functionality and/or Stored Data Types for a Summary
`Window for a Given Application Varies With the Environment
`of the Device” (Cl.6) ........................................................................... 16 
`Schnarel Discloses “Display[ing] a List of Data Stored in That
`Application” (Cl.10) ............................................................................ 18 
`III.  NASON .......................................................................................................... 20 
`A.  Nason Discloses “An Application Summary Window That Can
`Be Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements
`1.C/16.C) ............................................................................................. 20 
`Nason Discloses “Each Function in the List Being Selectable
`To Launch the First Application and Initiate the Selected
`Function” (Elements 1.E/16.E) ........................................................... 23 
`Nason Discloses “the Summary Window Further Display a List
`of Data Stored in that Application” (Cl.10) ........................................ 27 
`D.  Nason, or Wagner in View of Nason, Discloses “a Mobile
`Telephone” (Cl.11) .............................................................................. 31 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`IV.  CONSTITUTIONALITY .............................................................................. 33 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Brad Myers In Support of the Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 (“Schnarel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,362 (“Aberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,333,973 (“Smith”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 (“Nason”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,959,621 (“Nawaz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,160,554 (“Krause”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,256,516 (“Wagner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,724 (“Arent”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0251448 (“Gropper”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,345,550 (“Bloomfield 550”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,425,140 (“Bloomfield 140”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,191 (“Blanchard”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,142 (“Allard”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,737,394 (“Anderson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,668,353 (“Yurkovic”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,285,890 (“Panian”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,174,205 (“Madsen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,610 (“Sorensen”)
`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.)
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`Ex. 1030
`Ex. 1031
`Ex. 1032
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`Ex. 1036
`Ex. 1037
`Ex. 1038
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:14-cv-
`00751, D.I. 100-4 and -5 (Apple Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief Exs. 4 and 5) (E.D. Tex.)
`Random House Webster’s Computer & Internet Dictionary 3d
`ed. 1999
`U.S. Patent No. 7,966,626 (“Kieffer”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/180,378
`Macworld Mac OS 9 Bible, IDG Books, 1999
`Microsoft Introduces Microsoft Mobile Explorer
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 5th
`ed.1993
`Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms 5th ed. 1996
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics 7th ed. 1999
`U.S. Patent No. 6,121,968 (“Arcuri”)
`Declaration of Scott S. Taylor
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Brad A. Myers
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`The Board correctly found at institution that Petitioner established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving Cls.1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16
`
`unpatentable. Pap.7, 36. Because the Petition demonstrates obviousness, PO’s
`
`Response ignores the references’ disclosures, instead urging unsupported
`
`constructions (not sought in litigation (Ex.1023)) inconsistent with BRI. PO fails
`
`to rebut Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`PO construes “application” (Opp.14-18) without tying it to any issue: no
`
`“application” (cls.1, 16)
`
`construction is needed, but if construed its BRI is “a program or group of programs
`
`working together to provide access to functions and data.” This is consistent with
`
`‘020, which describes different applications providing access to functions and data
`
`(Ex.1001, 1:33-40, 2:24-25, 3:5-22, Fig.1), and with relevant dictionaries and
`
`contemporaneous use (e.g., Ex.1028 (“application A program or group of
`
`programs designed for end users”); Ex.1029, 1:40-47 (“A web application is little
`
`more than a set of web pages that support different functionalities.”); Ex.1030,
`
`1:17-20; Ex.1031, 4 (“application program Software that enables a computer to
`
`perform a set of related tasks for a specific purpose, such as…Web browsing.”), 5
`
`(“program A set of coded instructions that direct a computer in performing a
`
`specific task”)); see also Ex.1038¶¶6-7; Ex.1003¶30.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`In contrast, PO (Opp.14-18) injects unsupported limitations.1 See In re Van
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The specification does not recite or
`
`describe, and the claims do not require, inter alia, “application-level architecture,
`
`with the application implemented on top of an operating system layer,” “packaged
`
`software,” or “ab[ility] to access APIs.” Opp.16-17. PO’s cite describes a device
`
`only optionally including an operating system. E.g., Ex.1001, 2:40-45 (“may be an
`
`operating system”).2
`
`“function” (cls.1, 16)
`
`B.
`PO construes “function” as “an action to be activated in an application and
`
`performed by a user,” and argues it cannot mean “simply opening a window...”
`
`(Opp.18-20). No construction is needed, as the references teach this limitation
`
`under both BRI and PO’s construction (§§IIA, III.B). If construed, BRI of
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Contrary to PO (Opp.15 n.2), cl.16 does not require an operating system, and
`
`Petitioner’s art discloses operating systems anyway. Further, PO’s arguments
`
`about “multiple threads of execution” (Opp.15) relate to an unclaimed embodiment,
`
`and PO never argues the art fails to teach this.
`
`2 Furthermore, PO’s argument that “the opening of a new window in a launched
`
`application…[is not] tantamount to launching an application” (Opp.17-18) is
`
`unresponsive to Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`“function” is “operation or command,” consistent with ‘020, describing
`
`“function[]” as a “command” (Ex.1001, 1:54-58), and relevant dictionaries (e.g.,
`
`Ex.1028, 6 (“function…used synonymously with operation and command.”)
`
`(emphasis original).
`
`PO’s attempts to narrow “function” (Opp.18-20) contradict ‘020, its
`
`prosecution, and ordinary meaning. PO argues opening a “window of an
`
`application” is not a function. But ‘020 confirms that, upon selection of a function,
`
`the application summary window, the device may “display[] the relevant screen
`
`offering the relevant functionality” where the “function of interest is prominent.”
`
`Ex.1001, 2:35, 3:47-51.3 Indeed, displaying relevant information is a function
`
`(e.g., a command to display). None of PO’s “examples” (Opp.18-19) defines or
`
`limits “function” to exclude opening a window/displaying on a screen. See Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim. v. Medrad., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (applying narrower
`
`Phillips). Nor does ‘020 require a second user action after initiating the function.
`
`Indeed, during prosecution PO admitted and the Examiner confirmed merely
`
`displaying a certain view of the application is a function. Ex.1002, 197, 187;
`
`Ex.1036, Fig.2A, 8:13-15. A POSITA would thus understand “function” includes
`
`
`
` 3
`
` PO argues ‘020’s specification discloses code to display, but its citations don’t
`
`support that assertion. Opp.5.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`at least opening a certain window/view of an application. Ex.1038¶¶8-9;
`
`Ex.1003¶¶30, 64-70, 72-73, 113-119, 121, 132.
`
`“data stored in that application” (cl.10)
`
`C.
`This term needs no construction. If construed, however, its BRI is “stored
`
`data associated with that application,” as ‘020 expressly describes “data stored in
`
`that application” (Ex.1001, 2:20-25, 3:64-67) as “data associated with that
`
`application” (Ex.1001, 3:27-30).
`
`PO’s construction, rewriting this to “data stored by that application”
`
`(Opp.20, 45), is unsupported by the specification (Ex.1001, 3:27-30 (describing
`
`data “associated with th[e] application”); 4:36-37 (saying nothing about
`
`“‘data’…caused to be stored by an application in a memory location…allocated
`
`specifically to the application” (Opp.20) (emphasis in original))). PO’s
`
`requirement of storing the data in memory allocated specifically to the application
`
`is also inconsistent with ‘020 (Ex.1001, 3:5-7, 5:9-10 (describing data “stored in a
`
`device”)). And cl.10’s language is not limited to “data types,” as PO asserts.
`
`Ex.1001, cl.10; cf. Ex.1001, cls.4-7, 20-24. 4 Finally, PO’s conclusory assertions
`
`cannot justify these unsupported limitations. Ex.2011¶35 (merely reciting PO’s
`
`construction).
`
`
`
` 4
`
` PO emphasizes “types” (Opp.20), but never explains its significance.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`“environment of the device” (cl.6)
`
`D.
`PO does not explicitly construe “environment of the device,” but assumes it
`
`excludes “the presence and type of accessory attached…or SIM card inserted” into
`
`the device. Opp.43-44. But, as Petitioner demonstrated (Pet.19-21, 30-34;
`
`Ex.1003¶¶74-86), a POSITA would understand its BRI includes at least device
`
`hardware, software and/or location: ‘020 says App Snapshot contents may change
`
`depending on hardware and system software (e.g., if device is “Bluetooth-enabled”
`
`with Bluetooth hardware and software) or location (i.e., “vicinity”). Ex.1001,
`
`4:47-52; 5:25-32 (discussing “comput[er] environment”); Pet.11, 30-34, 51-53;
`
`Ex.1003¶¶31, 74-86, 122-125. Dictionaries also confirm this (Ex.1033, 6
`
`(“environment…[COMPUT SCI] The computer system…including the hardware
`
`and system software….”)), while PO offers no support for its construction.
`
`E.
`“un-launched state” and “reached directly” (cls.1, 16)
`PO never states it endorses the recited litigation constructions5 (Opp.13), but
`
`none is needed—the terms are obvious regardless.
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Because Petitioner was not a party there, and the BRI standard is different,
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to seek different constructions in litigation.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`SCHNAREL
`A.
`
`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)
`
`PO incorrectly argues Schnarel’s caller log and fax buttons are “separate
`
`applications” from the message center application, and thus are not message center
`
`functions. Opp.30-32, 43. But the viewers, in at minimum some embodiments, are
`
`not applications, and are part of the message center application regardless.6
`
`The caller log and fax buttons appear on the “message summary pane”
`
`(Ex.1004, 8:46-59; Pet.25)—a summary window displaying functionality from its
`
`
`
` 6
`
` This is consistent with message center application (708)’s stated purpose 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 with the
`
`fact it is launched and the message viewer displayed when a message viewing
`
`button is selected (see Ex.1004, 7:56-60 (“a procedure associated with the icon
`
`launches a message center application program, which displays the appropriate
`
`message viewer.”); 8:46-59; see also Ex.1003¶¶69-70); Pet.26-37; Ex.1038¶14.
`
`Dr. Myers confirmed this. Ex.1003¶¶64-68; Ex.2012, 103:3-7.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`“parent application,” the “message center.” Ex.1004, 13:42-48; Pet.27; cf. Opp.30-
`
`33.7
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig.2. Contrary to PO (Opp.23-24), Fig.7 further shows the various
`
`message viewers are part of the “message center”:
`
`
`
` 7
`
` Such functions are not limited to faxes and caller logs, and include messages like
`
`voicemail and email. See, e.g., Pet.13 (citing, e.g., Ex.1004, 6:43-44, 8:60-62),
`
`Pet.26 (citing Ex.1004, 6:27-44), Pet.27 (citing Ex.1004, 10:45-61, 24:47-53);
`
`Ex.1003¶¶37, 65 (“‘messages pane…display[s]…general-user messages (such as
`
`faxes, caller logs, and voice mail messages.’)”).
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig.7, 10:35-39 (listing “[t]he application programs” in Fig.7 as including
`
`“the message center” but not message viewers); see also id. 9:1-6 (listing “all
`
`applications…available,” but not message viewers), Figs.1-2; 12:50-13:20
`
`(message viewers are COM components). Thus, in at least some embodiments, the
`
`message viewers are not applications. Ex.1038¶¶10-12; Ex.1003¶¶37, 38, 64-68;
`
`Ex.2012 103:3-7.
`
`Even if the viewers were “separate plugin applications,” as PO claims
`
`(Opp.32), they are nevertheless part of the parent message center application,
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`“plug[ging] into” the message center to “provide[] functionality for
`
`displaying…messages” (Ex.1004, 10:56-58). When a plugin is plugged into
`
`another application, it becomes part of it. Ex.1034/1035, 3 (defining plug-ins as
`
`accessory programs providing additional functions for a main application);
`
`Ex.1038¶13; Ex.1003¶68. Indeed, a single application can be a program or group
`
`of programs (e.g., Outlook application with mail and calendar programs). Id.8
`
`Thus, even if message viewers are programs or “separate plugin applications,” they
`
`are part of the message center application. Alternatively, it would be an obvious,
`
`advantageous design choice for Schnarel’s message viewers to be part of its
`
`message center application, simplifying design of the application program(s),
`
`eliminating the need to design separate interfaces, and ensuring interoperability. 9
`
`Ex.1038¶15; Ex.1003¶143.
`
`
`
` 8
`
` Despite PO’s arguments about button 308 (Opp.33), Petitioner does not rely on it
`
`for these limitations. Regardless, button 308 causes a particular view of the
`
`message center application to open. Ex.1004, Fig.5, 6:62-7:13.
`
`9 PO has not contested the message center application and associated viewers exist
`
`in a particular software architecture having an operating system that can manage
`
`multiple executables, meeting PO’s “application” construction. See Ex.1004, Fig.7
`
`(702), 10:18-44; Opp.14.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Applying its erroneous “function” construction, PO argues Schnarel’s
`
`message viewers merely “open[] an application window or viewer.” Opp.34. But
`
`under BRI (§I.B), Schnarel’s disclosure of selecting caller log/fax buttons to
`
`activate the operation/command of viewing a caller log/fax message activates a
`
`“function.” Ex.1004, 10:55-61 (“message viewer…provides the functionality for
`
`displaying…messages.”), 4:24-27.
`
`Even under PO’s construction, Schnarel discloses pressing the caller log/fax
`
`buttons “provides the functionality for displaying and managing messages.”
`
`Ex.1004, 10:55-61; Ex.1003¶¶64-68; Pet.27. Thus, Schnarel does not merely teach
`
`opening an application window/viewer, as PO asserts; instead, 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). Ex.1038¶¶16-17; Ex.1004, 4:24-27.10
`
`This is analogous to PO’s admitted function of “enter chat room.” Opp.19;
`
`
`
`10 PO argues ‘020’s reference to “address book function” means displaying cannot
`
`be a function. First, Petitioner does not rely on “address book” functionality.
`
`Second, ‘020’s reference to “address book function” does not mean “opening the
`
`address book itself wouldn’t count as…functions that are supported.” Ex.2012
`
`119:11-120:11; Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`Ex.1001, 3:33-35; Ex.1038¶¶16-17. Schnarel further discloses selecting the
`
`fax/caller log “button may…prompt[] the user to identify herself” and, “[i]f the
`
`selected user is security enabled,…prompting the user to enter a password.”
`
`Ex.1004, 8:50-59; Pet.26-27; Ex.1003¶¶17, 37- 38. This is analogous to ‘020’s
`
`“enter[ing] a PIN security number” example. Opp.18; Ex.1001, 2:8; Ex.1038¶17.
`
`PO also speculates, without support, that pressing pane 206 caller log/fax
`
`buttons might open the same window as pane 104 “Messages,” supposedly
`
`“confirm[ing]” the buttons do not provide access to “functions.” Opp.36-37. But
`
`the claims don’t require that functions take users to different screens, and PO
`
`ignores Schnarel’s disclosures that pressing the call logger and fax buttons does
`
`display different screens. Ex.1004, 8:46-59. Further, even under PO’s hypothetical,
`
`if “Caller Log” under a “default” mode brought the user to the same window as
`
`“Messages,” “Fax” in the “Messages” window would open a different, non-
`
`“default” view. Ex.1038¶18.
`
`B.
`
`Schnarel Renders Obvious “an Application Summary Window
`that Can Be Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements
`1.C/16.C)
`
`PO complains “Petitioner’s proposed modification of Schnarel” so pane 206
`
`“can be reached directly from the main menu” is “more than a mere rearrangement
`
`of parts.” Opp.41-42. First, PO does not dispute Petitioner’s other reasons
`
`Schnarel alone renders this limitation obvious, which the Board correctly found
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`provide “adequate rationale.” Pet.28-29; Ex.1003¶¶58-59; Pap.7, 12-15. As to
`
`design choice, it was known to place a summary window “anywhere [in] the menu
`
`hierarchy, i.e. as a sub-menu…” (e.g., Ex.1005, 7:25-29). Configuring Schnarel
`
`accordingly would not, as PO asserts, frustrate its purpose (Ex.1004, 6:33-35): a
`
`user could still quickly discover/access new messages by reaching the summary
`
`pane in one step, instead of multiple steps drilling down through several message
`
`application layers. Ex.1003¶¶58-59; Ex.1038¶19; Ex.1004, Fig.5, Pap.7, 14-15
`
`(citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)); In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d
`
`1237, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`C.
`
`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)
`
`PO argues Aberg does not disclose a summary window “that can be reached
`
`directly from the main menu,” and “specifically encourages placing the dynamic
`
`SPECIAL menu 300 at the highest level, rather than burying it.” Opp.38-41. But
`
`PO ignores Petitioner’s mapping (Pet.16-17) and Aberg’s express teachings of
`
`placing the “SPECIAL” menu as a “sub-menu of any top level…menu,” “reached
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`directly” from the “main menu” by selecting “SPECIAL.” Ex.1005, 2:63-3:3, 4:66-
`
`5:5, 5:62-65, 7:25-29, Fig.3.11
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, Fig.3. PO further argues Aberg “teaches nothing about how to structure a
`
`relationship between Schnarel’s message pane 206…and application selection area
`
`104,” but analyzes the “PHONEBOOK” menu, not the “SPECIAL” menu.
`
`Opp.40. A POSITA would not have expected the “SPECIAL” menu to include
`
`every option found in, e.g., the “PHONEBOOK” menu; otherwise, it would
`
`duplicate an already-existing menu.
`
`
`
`11 These same teachings belie any supposed “inconsisten[cy]” in including a
`
`summary window in Schnarel anywhere but at the “highest level” (Opp.41). See
`
`also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`PO also argues Aberg does not teach an “application summary window”
`
`because “SPECIAL menu 300 is not associated with any ‘application’….”
`
`(Opp.40). However, Aberg’s “SPECIAL” menu is “customized by the user…to
`
`add and delete menu items.” (Ex.1005, 2:55-62; Pet.25), and a POSITA would
`
`understand Aberg teaches configuring its “SPECIAL” menu for one (or more)
`
`applications. Ex.1003¶60; Ex.1038¶¶22-23; Ex.1003¶¶39, 58-63; Ex.1005, 2:55-
`
`3:3, 6:6-24, Cl. 3.12
`
`
`
`12 Moreover, application summary windows were well-known in the art, and this
`
`limitation would have been obvious based on Schnarel in view of Aberg,
`
`particularly given a POSITA’s knowledge. Pet.2-3, 28-29; Ex.1003¶¶58-59,
`
`Ex.1038¶20; see also Ex.1003¶¶54-63; Ex.1006, 8:12-35, Fig.7A; Ex.1015 5:30-
`
`6:38, Figs.2, 4. A POSITA would also find it obvious to use Aberg’s teachings of
`
`structuring a dynamic window that can be reached directly from the main menu in
`
`implementing Schnarel’s GUI, which itself already uses an application summary
`
`window (see also Pap.7, 19). Pet.16; Ex.1003¶¶62-63; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
`
`1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981);
`
`Ex.1038¶¶20-22; Ex.1003¶¶54-63.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`PO argues without support that “Schnarel’s area 104 does not allow
`
`navigation that would give the user a choice of either launching an application or
`
`further navigating to a menu associated with that application” (Opp.40). But as the
`
`Board correctly found, “relocating a window…and making it accessible through
`
`interaction with the menu…is within [a POSITA’s] ability.” Pap.7, 19-20; see also
`
`id., 13; see also Ex.1003¶¶62-63; Pet.17-18. Applying Aberg’s teachings of
`
`accessing the special menu through main menu interaction, a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to implement Schnarel’s GUI so its “message summary pane” is
`
`reached directly through a main menu option. Ex.1038¶¶20-23; Ex1003¶¶62-63;
`
`see also Ex.1003¶¶37-39, 54-59; Ex.1004, 9:1-6, Figs. 1, 2; Ex.1005, 2:55-3:3,
`
`4:32-33, 4:66-5:5, 6:6-24, 7:25-29, Cl. 3. Indeed, Aberg itself teaches (1) “easily
`
`accessi[ng]” the dynamic/special menu “from the normal menu system,” (2)
`
`accessing a regular application menu (e.g., accessing phonebook by locating menu
`
`and pressing “YES”), and (3) separately accessing a “special menu” (Ex.1005,
`
`2:58-59, 4:32-34, 4:66-5:5, 7:25-29). Schnarel likewise teaches customizing the
`
`GUI (Ex.1004, 5:7-26), and it was well-known to make a main menu selection to
`
`display a summary window (Ex.1038¶21; Pet.28-29).
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Schnarel, Schnarel in View of Aberg, or Alternatively Schnarel in
`View of Yurkovic Discloses or Renders Obvious “the
`Functionality and/or Stored Data Types for a Summary Window
`for a Given Application Varies With the Environment of the
`Device” (Cl.6)
`
`PO does not dispute Schnarel teaches conditioning display of caller log and
`
`fax buttons on whether a caller log or fax “transport” is available (Pet.30-33).
`
`And, contrary to PO (Opp.43-44), whether a particular “transport”—software
`
`allowing users to receive a particular message type—is available is certainly an
`
`aspect of the device’s environment that impacts associated functionality.
`
`Ex.1003¶76; Pet.31; §I.D; Ex.1038¶24.
`
`PO further argues the presence/absence of an accessory or SIM card (in
`
`Aberg) does not impact the device’s “environment.” Opp.44. But again, whether
`
`and what type of accessory or SIM card is attached impacts the device’s
`
`“environment.” Ex.1003¶¶78-83; Pet.31-32; Ex.1001, 4:47-52, 5:25-32;
`
`Ex.1038¶25. PO does not otherwise dispute a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to use Aberg’s teachings in implementing Schnarel’s message summary
`
`pane. See Pet.18-21; Ex.1003¶¶79-83.
`
`PO also does not dispute Yurkovic teaches cl.6’s limitation, even under PO’s
`
`construction; PO simply argues “[t]here is no reason to modify messages pane 206
`
`to include date/time already provided by a separate pane 204.” Opp.44. But PO
`
`fails to address Petitioner’s mapping of the “date and time pane” to a summary
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`window. Pet.33. Because cl.6 requires merely “a summary window” and not “the
`
`summary window,” its summary window can (but need not) be the “message pane”
`
`mapped in cl.1. Thus, contrary to PO, it would have been obvious to implement
`
`Schnarel’s “date and time pane 204” (a summary window (e.g., Ex.1004, 5:43-49;
`
`Pet.21))—using Yurkovic’s teachings of updating information (e.g., date/time)
`
`based on geographic location (e.g., Ex.1018 3:34-41, 3:46-55; Pet.32) to
`
`beneficially avoid needing to manually change or seek out this information.
`
`Pet.21-22; Ex.1003¶86; Pap.7, 20-22.
`
`PO also improperly limits Yurkovic as applying only to “News or Weather
`
`Information” (Opp.44), ignoring its teachings of modifying date, time, or other
`
`information (e.g., Ex.1018, 3:46-4:34, 5:10-47; Pet.21-22, 33) based on device
`
`location, which is directly relevant to Schnarel’s message application using date,
`
`time, and other information (e.g., Ex.1004, Figs.2, 5). And in arguing “Petitioner
`
`offers no proposed modification of Schnarel that would modify the content of
`
`messages pane 206” (Opp.44), PO ignores “it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to vary the data types (such as date and time information) displayed
`
`in…([a] ‘message pane’) of Schnarel’s device.” Pet.32-33; Ex.1003¶77. This
`
`would advantageously allow a user to see, e.g., the date and time of the last fax.
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Schnarel Discloses “Display[ing] a List of Data Stored in That
`Application” (Cl.10)
`
`E.
`
`PO argues Schnarel does not disclose displaying a list of “data stored in that
`
`application” under its construction, because, while Schnarel plainly shows
`
`displaying data associated with the message center application in the message
`
`summary pane (e.g., Fig.2, annotated below), the data displayed is purportedly not
`
`“stored by the messaging center.” (Opp.45-46, 20). But, a POSITA would
`
`understand the message center itself necessarily, and thus inherently, stores data
`
`associated with the message—e.g., storing status change information once a new
`
`message is received. Ex.1004, 13:61-14:10. At minimum, doing so would have
`
`been obvious base don these disclosures. Further, Schnarel teaches message
`
`transports receive messages of a particular type and save them to persistent storage.
`
`Ex.1004, 10:54-55. A POSITA would recognize the message center application
`
`would have to cache this data to display it using a message viewer, and would
`
`therefore be storing it, at least temporarily (e.g,. in the RAM or registry associated
`
`with message center application). Ex.1038¶26.
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Under the proper construction (§I.C), Schnarel expressly discloses this
`
`limitation. Pet.34-35; Ex.1003¶¶89-91. Schnarel’s Fig.2 message summary pane
`
`displays “new messages icon list (312)” (Ex.1004, 6:60) (i.e., “list of data”) to
`
`indicate “when a new message exists” and “[i]f no new user-specific messages
`
`exist…‘No new messages’ is displayed” (Ex.1004, 7:40-50). As the message
`
`summary pane is a summary window for the message center application (Ex.1004,
`
`13:42-48), the “[n]ew messages icon list (312)” is a list of data stored in and
`
`associated with that application. Cf. Ex.1001, 5:9-10, 3:5-7 (data associated with
`
`application is “stored in a device”). Indeed, the message center’s purpose includes
`
`allowing users to “discover whether or not they have new messages” and to
`
`“access these new messages.” Ex.1004, 6:32-34.
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`III. NASON
`A. Nason Discloses “An Application Summary Window That Can Be
`Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements 1.C/16.C)
`
`IPR2015-01898
`United States Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`In arguing Nason does not disclose “an application summary window that
`
`can be reached directly…,” PO fails to address Nason’s disclosures (see, e.g.,
`
`Pet.46-47) of menu 70’s implementation through GUI cartridges. Instead, PO
`
`focuses on additional teachings (not relied on by Petitioner) that “menu 70” may
`
`be a “help” function. Opp.62 (citing Ex.1007, 4:54-56); see Ex.1007, 4:50-56
`
`(“parallel GUI 28 may also include a help function”).
`
`Contrary to PO (Opp.59-60), Nason teaches a GUI 28 (e.g.,Fig.2) including
`
`a main menu comprising one or more cartridges for different applications. Pet.39,
`
`44-47.
`
`
`
`GUI 28 includes bar 38 (title area 40, rotators 44 and 48, buttons 46, 50, and 54,
`
`and ticker 52). Ex.1007, 2:35-38; Pet.47; see also Ex.1007, 2:40-44; Pet.40, 46,
`
`48. The title button/rotators (Ex.1007, 3:25-33; Pet.4