`Patent 8,434,020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD MYERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby responds to each of PO’s observations on the November 3,
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`
`
`2016 cross-examination testimony of Dr. Brad Myers (Pap. 32):
`
`Responses to Observations #1 and #2. PO’s citation to Dr. Myers’ testi-
`
`mony is incomplete, misleading, and irrelevant and does not address the subject
`
`matter in Ex.1038 ¶16, which PO cites as the basis for relevance. Ex.1038 ¶16 re-
`
`lates to viewing a particular screen, not selecting operations from that viewed
`
`screen. PO’s observation is also incomplete, ignoring, e.g., Dr. Myers’ testimony
`
`regarding PO’s own questioning about ¶16, explaining that selecting “caller log
`
`and fax buttons [of Schnarel] … will … cause the corresponding viewer to be dis-
`
`played” and “that’s analogous to ‘020 and ‘476…where when you click on the en-
`
`ter chat room menu item, it…shows the chat room viewer,” (Ex.2014, 72:6-74:14),
`
`which is consistent with Ex.1038 ¶16. See also Ex. 1001, 3:31-35; Ex.1004,
`
`10:55-61, 4:24-27; Ex.2014, 14:17-16:13, 31:9-35:8, 36:18-40:18; Ex.1038 ¶¶8-9
`
`(citing Ex.1003¶¶30, 64-70, 72-73, 113-119, 121, 132; Ex.1028, 6; Ex.1001, 1:54-
`
`58, 3:47-51; Ex.1002, 197, 187; Ex.1036, Fig. 2A, 8:13-15); Ex.2012, 103:3-7,
`
`127:8-17, 24:21-25:11.
`
`With respect to “management operations” PO ignores Dr. Myer’s testimony
`
`regarding managing messages by entering a PIN (Ex.1038 ¶17 (citing Ex.1004,
`
`8:50-59, 10:55-61, Fig. 5; Ex.1003 ¶¶17, 37, 38, 64-68; Ex.1001, 2:8); PO Resp.
`
`19; Ex.2014, 74:15-75:16), and that “pressing the caller log button…generally
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`launches the messages application…displays the viewer…[a]nd it enables the user
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`to do those managing operations,” (Ex.2014, 49:7-53:3), including operations such
`
`as “move and delete” (Ex.2014, 48:7-15), which is consistent with his other testi-
`
`mony. See, e.g., Ex.1038 ¶17 (and citations therein); PO Resp. 19; see also
`
`Ex.2014, 45:6-46:3; Ex.2012, 116:8-20. To the extent PO’s observations purport
`
`to argue the “function” must be completed in a single step, such argument is new,
`
`waived, and should be expunged and not considered. To the extent considered, it
`
`is incorrect; as Dr. Myers’ explained, ‘020 describes that the “[u]ser doesn’t actual-
`
`ly have to have already done the functionality, it just has to offer the relevant func-
`
`tionality.” Ex.2014, 21:3-22:1, 26:18-28:3.
`
`Response to Observation #3. PO’s observation is incomplete and improp-
`
`erly mischaracterizes Dr. Myers’ testimony. Dr. Myers explained Schnarel’s
`
`“viewers, at least in some embodiments, are not applications.” Ex.1038 ¶11;
`
`Ex.1038 ¶12 (“message viewers (at least in the COM embodiment) are not individ-
`
`ual applications”) (citing Ex.1004, 12:50-13:20, 10:55-61, Fig. 7; Ex.1003 ¶¶64-68;
`
`Ex.2012, 103:3-7); Ex.1038 ¶12 (and citations therein) (Dr. Myers testifying why
`
`“caller log”/“fax” are part of message center application); Ex.2014, 66:20-68:6.
`
`This is further consistent with Dr. Myers’ testimony that “even if the message
`
`viewers are themselves individual programs . . . , they provide functions for the
`
`message center application, and are part of the message center application.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1038 ¶13 (citing Ex.1004, 10:55-59, Fig. 7; Ex.1003 ¶68; Ex.1034, 3; Ex.1035,
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`3); Ex.2014, 59:18-60:15 (Dr. Myers testifying “to the extent [message viewers]
`
`are considered applications…they’re part of the message center application” and
`
`“it’s the message center application which is actually launched…[and the viewer]
`
`plugins provide functions…”); see also id. 41:12-42:8.
`
`Response to Observation #4. PO’s cited questions regarding the “rea-
`
`son…for having separate applications” are irrelevant to Dr. Myers’ testimony that,
`
`while Schnarel discloses the message viewers are part of the message center appli-
`
`cation (Ex.1038 ¶¶10-14), alternatively, “including Schnarel’s message viewers as
`
`part of the message center application would be an obvious design choice and ad-
`
`vantageous.” Ex.1038 ¶15 (citing Ex.1003 ¶143). PO’s citation to Dr. Myers’ tes-
`
`timony is also incomplete and misleading and omits his testimony that having sep-
`
`arate applications results in “a larger and slower application” and “it would be a
`
`simple design choice to build some of the viewers into the message center applica-
`
`tion.” Ex.2014, 66:11-68:6; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(disclosure of other desirable alternatives does not negate a motivation to combine).
`
`Responses to Observations #5, #6, #7. PO’s citation of testimony is in-
`
`complete, irrelevant, and misleading and omits, inter alia, Dr. Myers’ testimony
`
`that “it’s clear that the ‘020 Patent lists PIN -- entering a PIN security number as
`
`a function that one can initiate. And the Schnarel reference mentions that if you
`
`3
`
`
`
`have security enabled, then when you push some of the other buttons, it will, in
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`fact, also allow you to enter a password or a pass code.” Ex.2014, 74:15-75:13;
`
`75:14-16 (“Q. And so your opinion is that those are analogous? A. Yes.”);
`
`Ex.1038 ¶17 (Ex.1004, 8:50-59, 10:55-61, Fig. 5; Ex.1003 ¶¶17, 37, 38, 64-68;
`
`Ex.1001, 2:8). PO also incorrectly asserts that “Dr. Myers agreed that there is no
`
`disclosure in the ‘020 patent that a PIN security number is entered…to provide ac-
`
`cess to some underlying feature.” Dr. Myers instead testified that “certainly one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art reading [the ’020/’476] patents would assume that you
`
`wouldn’t bother entering a PIN number unless it was for something” (Ex.2014,
`
`76:7-18) and one “would not think that [entering a PIN in ‘020 is] just to unlock
`
`the phone, but certainly it could be for a variety of other activities” (Ex.2014, 77:6-
`
`77:21). That a user could enter a PIN to turn on password protection is irrelevant.
`
`To the extent PO is arguing the “button itself” must be “labeled” in a particular
`
`way (Observation #7), such an argument is new, waived, and should be expunged
`
`and not considered. To the extent considered, ‘020 does not require that the button
`
`for selecting a function be labeled with certain text. Ex.1001. Moreover, Dr. Myers
`
`never testified that “the ultimate alleged function…is to view the caller log,” as PO
`
`incorrectly asserts, but testified instead that the caller log button “has at least two
`
`operations or actions. One is to cause the user to log in, and the other is to then
`
`launch the application and display the viewer.” Ex.2014, 79:10-16.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Response to Observation #8. PO’s observation misrepresents Dr. Myers’
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`testimony, is irrelevant, and incomplete. Dr. Myers did not “agree[] that…it is
`
`preferable that the user knows what to do just by looking at the screen,” as PO in-
`
`correctly asserts, but instead testified that “where you can make it clear to the user
`
`what to do by seeing it on the screen, that’s preferred to making it so the user
`
`doesn’t know what to do. But there are always tradeoffs of different design alter-
`
`natives. And when doing any design, you have to balance the different constraints.”
`
`Ex.2014, 95:5-16; see In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`
`Pap.7 at 15. This is consistent with Dr. Myers’ testimony (omitted by PO) that “it
`
`would be obvious to make the sub menu or the application summary window di-
`
`rectly reached from the main menu as a result of having different design considera-
`
`tions…such as a smaller screen” and “one of the motivations would be to avoid
`
`cluttering the display with too much information while still providing easy access
`
`to functions and data offered in an application.” Ex.2014, 96:2-100:8; Ex.1003
`
`¶¶58-59; Ex.1038 ¶19.
`
`Response to Observation #9. PO’s observation regarding Dr. Myers’ tes-
`
`timony is incomplete and mischaracterizes Dr. Myers’ testimony, focusing on
`
`AOL’s mail feature, but ignoring Dr. Myers’ opinion that the “AOL web applica-
`
`tion is a collection of webpages that provides various functionality, including e.g.,
`
`‘Mail,’ ‘AOL Netfind,’…” Ex.1038 ¶29 (citing Ex.1007, Fig. 10, 4:34-37; Ex.1003
`
`5
`
`
`
`¶¶116-119); Ex.2014, 115:12-116:3 (Dr. Myers testifying “AOL and Lycos and
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`Amazon…are applications”); Ex.1038 ¶27 (citing Ex.2012, 72:8-17; 72:22- 73:21).
`
`Dr. Myers’ testimony is further consistent with his opinion (omitted by PO) that
`
`“even if the ‘mail feature’ is operable as an individual application, it provides func-
`
`tionality for and is displayed on and accessed from the AOL web application—and
`
`is therefore…part of the AOL web application.” Ex.1038 ¶29; Ex.2014, 117:3-7;
`
`115:12-116:3. Further, the testimony cited by PO is not relevant: what is ultimate-
`
`ly relevant is whether, e.g., the AOL mail feature, is a function of AOL, and Dr.
`
`Myers testified that it is. Ex.1038 ¶29.
`
`Response to Observation #10. PO’s citation of Dr. Myers’ testimony is in-
`
`complete and misleading, omitting, e.g., Dr. Myers’ testimony that “the idea that
`
`an application requires an operating system…I don’t agree with. Because they
`
`were uncommon, but still known situations in which applications could run com-
`
`pletely independent of operating systems.” Ex.2014, 124:14-125:13. Moreover,
`
`PO’s counsel’s questions were directed to Exs. 1028 and 1031, not just to Ex.1028
`
`(cited by PO), and Ex. 1031 defines “application program” as “[s]oftware that ena-
`
`bles a computer to perform a set of related tasks for a specific purpose...” Ex.2014,
`
`124:1-13; Ex.1031. Indeed, Dr. Myers testimony is consistent with his opinion
`
`(cited by PO) that “application” is “a program, or group of programs working to-
`
`gether, designed to provide access to functions and data.” Ex.1038 ¶¶6-7 (citing
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex.1003¶30; Ex.1001, 1:33-40, 2:24-25, 3:5-22, Fig.1; Ex.1028, 5; Ex.1031, 4, 5;
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`
`Ex.1029, 1:40-47); Ex.2014, 125:22-126:22; Ex.2012, 17:2-20. Nor does this tes-
`
`timony show construction of this term is necessary, or how PO’s construction is
`
`relevant to any issue in this case. Reply, 1.
`
`Dated: November 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /J. Steven Baughman/
` J. Steven Baughman (lead counsel)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-01898
`Patent 8,434,020
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD MYERS was served on November 29,
`
`2016, to the following Counsel for Patent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’
`
`agreement concerning service:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905) (Lead Counsel)
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137) (Backup counsel)
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
`
`Alan A. Wright (Reg. No. 40,438) (Backup counsel)
`Email: awright@dbjg.com
`
` /Ginny Blundell/
`Ginny Blundell
`Ropes & Gray LLP