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 IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Background ....................................................................................................... 3 
`a.  About U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (the “‘476 patent” or “Martyn”) ................. 3 
`b.  The Challenged Claims all Require a “limited list of data offered within the
`one or more applications” and the “data” must be “seen within the respective
`application” ............................................................................................................. 8 
`c.  Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction Analysis and
`Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the Claim Terms ....................... 12 
`d.  The Petitioner’s View of Schnarel and Aberg is Incorrect ............................ 20 
`e. 
`Introduction to Nason ..................................................................................... 25 
`III.  Argument ........................................................................................................ 28 
`a.  Petitioner’s Proposed Modification of Schnarel is Not Supported by the
`Evidence ................................................................................................................ 28 
`b.  Schnarel Also Fails to Disclose a “limited list of data offered within the one
`or more applications” that is both displayed in an Application Summary and seen
`within the respective Application ......................................................................... 33 
`c.  Schnarel Also Fails to Disclose or Suggest Each Feature of the Challenged
`Dependent Claims ................................................................................................. 36 
`d.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches Data In An
`Application Summary Being Selectable To Launch The Respective Application
`And Enable The Selected Data To Be Seen Within The Respective Application,
`As Required By Claims 1 and 20 ......................................................................... 47 
`e.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches “an application
`summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” As Recited In Claims 1
`and 20 .................................................................................................................... 60 
`f.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches That “the
`application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an
`unlaunched state,” As Recited In Claims 1 and 20 ............................................... 64 
`
`ii 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`g.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason Teaches That “the summary
`further displays a limited list of functions offered in the one or more applications,”
`As Recited In Claims 8 and 29 ............................................................................. 68 
`h.  The Petitioner Fails To Demonstrate That Nason, Alone Or In Combination
`With Wagner, Renders Claim 9 Obvious ............................................................. 71 
`i.  An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight ......................................................... 74 
`IV.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 76 
`
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 .......................................................................... 75
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................... 12
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 ............................................................................ 75
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 74, 75
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 ........................................... 75
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............. 12, 13
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 ................................................................................ 75
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................... 12
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) .................................................... 12, 17
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 .......................................................................... 75
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 .......................................... 75
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 .................................................................... 75
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 ..................................................................... 75
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 76
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 12
`Rules 
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 66
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order on Claim Construction in
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Partial Trial Transcript in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 to Richard (“Richard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to Oommen (“Oommen”)
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016)
`
`Declaration of Scott A. Denning (“Denning”)
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Brad A. Myers (“Myers”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/135,385
`
`
`
`v 
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01899
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476
` 
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` 
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. challenges claims 1, 4, 7-9, 20, 28, and 29 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,713,476 to Martyn (Ex. 1001 or the “’476 patent”) as allegedly
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner primarily relies upon U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,225,409 to Schnarel et al. (“Schnarel” or Ex. 1004) in the first four challenges,
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,593,945 to Nason et al. (“Nason” or Ex. 1007) in the fifth
`
`through eighth challenges. The Petition (“Pet.”) also cites to the Declaration of
`
`Brad A. Myers (“Myers” or Ex. 1003) for evidentiary support. But the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims should be confirmed over these references.
`
`The ‘476 patent’s claims are directed generally to a device that is configured
`
`to display a menu listing at least one unlaunched application. The device is also
`
`configured to display an application summary that can be reached directly from the
`
`main menu. The ‘476 patent specification describes an embodiment’s application
`
`summary as a “snap-shot” view of an application listed in the window that “brings
`
`together, in one summary window, a limited list of common functions and
`
`commonly accessed stored data” associated with that application. ‘476 patent at
`
`2:39-41. Upon selecting a function or data from the application summary, the
`
`device launches the corresponding application. The advantage to this scheme, per
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
` 
`
`the ‘476 patent, is that a user can directly access and select the common functions
`
`or stored data without having to first launch the application and then navigate
`
`through the application’s hierarchies or layers of menus.
`
`Challenged claim 1 is supported by the detailed disclosure and recites, in
`
`relevant part, a “computing device being configured to display … on the screen an
`
`application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the
`
`application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more
`
`applications,” and “the application summary is displayed while the one or more
`
`applications are in an un-launched state.” ‘476 patent at 5:59-6:3. Independent
`
`claim 20 is substantially similar, as will be explained below.
`
`However, the Board should confirm the patentability of these challenged
`
`claims over the Petitioner’s challenges. Schnarel’s message pane 206, which the
`
`Petitioner relies upon to disclose the claimed “application summary,” includes no
`
`such “data” required by the claims. And while Petitioner concedes that Schnarel
`
`fails to disclose every feature of the challenged claims on its own, the proposed
`
`modifications (either in view of a secondary reference or just the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)) have no basis outside of
`
`impermissible hindsight and contorted teachings of the asserted references.
`
` Nason also comes up short. For example, Nason fails to teach “each of the
`
`data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`selected data to be seen within the respective application.” Instead, the alleged data
`
`relied on by Petitioner are merely operable to cause changes to Nason’s control
`
`bar. In addition, of the items that Petitioner specifically relies on as the
`
`“application” that is launched when the “data” is selected, none can be
`
`characterized as an “application.”
`
`As will be explained in more detail below with support from the Declaration
`
`of Scott A. Denning (Ex. 2011 or “Denning”), the Petition is deficient in its
`
`challenges of independent claims 1 and 20, and also of various dependent claims,
`
`including claims 4, 8, 9, and 29. For these reasons, the Board should conclude this
`
`proceeding with a final written decision that confirms the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims in view of Schnarel, Nason, and the various secondary
`
`references presented in the Petition
`
`II.
`
`Background
`
` 
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (the “‘476 patent” or “Martyn”)
`The ‘476 patent issued on April 29, 2014 from a continuation application
`
`No. 14/063,544 filed from national stage application 10/343,333, which claimed
`
`priority from and the benefit of PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/03387 filed on
`
`July 27, 2001 and British application No. GB 0019459.7 filed on July 28, 2000.
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`As such, the critical date for the purposes for the Board’s obviousness analysis is
`
`July 28, 2000.
`
`As the ‘476 patent explains, the “disclosed embodiments relate to a
`
`computing device with an improved user interface for applications.” ‘476 Patent at
`
`1:23-24. As of the date of invention of the ‘476 patent, mobile telephones
`
`possessed small screens and required users to launch an application and then
`
`navigate through “several hierarchies of functions” within the launched application
`
`in order to locate and activate a desired function. Id. at 1:42. A similar lengthy
`
`process was necessary for certain “stored data” to be displayed to the user. Id. at
`
`1:53-54. At the time, limited shortcuts were available, but required a user to
`
`memorize “various keyboard input sequences.” Id. at 2:7.
`
`As an improvement to the then-existing menus of “available options” and
`
`“limited shortcuts”, the ‘476 patent disclosed and claimed a device configured to
`
`display an “application summary” and the code to cause the device to display it. Id.
`
`at 1:64-2:6; 4:6-11; 5:59-6:3; 7:9-22. The ‘476 patent describes such a window as a
`
`“snap-shot” view of an application that “brings together, in one summary window,
`
`a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data.” Id. at
`
`2:37-41.
`
`In the detailed description, the ‘476 describes an “Application Launcher”
`
`and an “App Snapshot.” Id. at 3:17-18; 3:28. The Application Launcher includes a
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`list of applications, and from the Application Launcher, an App Snapshot may be
`
`opened to display certain data or functions of an application shown in the
`
`Application Launcher. Id. at 3:34-41. An App Snapshot may open in response to
`
`an exemplary selection process occurring at the Application Launcher menu. For
`
`example, the App Snapshot may be opened if a highlight rests on a specific
`
`application in the Application Launcher for a set amount of time. Id. at 3:34-38.
`
`As other examples, the App Snapshot can be opened in response to “voice
`
`activation,” “softkey selection,” a “right scroll function,” “a press and hold of the
`
`select function,” or “using a right cursor key on a highlighted application name.”
`
`Id. at 3:49-55. In each disclosed embodiment, the App Snapshot is being opened
`
`from the Application Launcher based on a selection process occurring at the
`
`Application Launcher.
`
`Further, as the ‘476 patent explains, the App Snapshot displays “data from
`
`an application and functions of that application without actually opening the
`
`application up: only once a user has selected an item in the App Snapshot
`
`associated with a given application does that application have to be opened.” Id. at
`
`3:64-4:2.
`
`The Figures of the ‘476 patent display an exemplary App Launcher in Fig. 1,
`
`and exemplary App Snapshots for the Messages application in Figs. 2-3:
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`
`
`As shown, the App Snapshots are opened in Figs. 2-3 based on a selection of
`
`the Messages application occurring at the Application Launcher screen of Fig. 1.
`
`In Fig. 2, the App Snapshot indicates that there are no (0) new messages, and lists
`
`“the two most common functions” available in the Messages application. Id. at
`
`3:43-44. In Fig. 3, the App Snapshot indicates the number of new emails, SMS
`
`messages, and outgoing chats, and once again links to the functions shown in Fig.
`
`2.
`
`Generally, the ‘476 patent explains that the summary view can include
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types.” Id. at 4:47-48 (emphasis added). Implicit
`
`in this disclosure is that there are different types of data that could be displayed in
`
`the App Snapshot. As already discussed, the App Snapshot shown in Fig. 3
`
`indicates the number of new emails, SMS messages, and outgoing chats.
`
`However, other types of data are described in the ‘476 patent.
`
`For example, the App Snapshot may display certain information where other
`
`applications are simultaneously active. “[I]f the mobile telephone has an active
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`Calendar application, and the user opens the App Snapshot for Contacts, then the
`
`Contacts App Snapshot may include contact information for parties in the
`
`previously or currently open Calendar application.” Id. at 4:66-5:3 (emphasis
`
`added). But if the Phone application was active rather than the Calendar
`
`application, the Contacts App Snapshop could display “contact information of the
`
`most called party, or a missed call party, or a party whose call the user is auto-
`
`replying to.” Id. at 5:3-7 (emphasis added). The Contacts App Snapshot could also
`
`“display phone numbers and email addresses which may be ‘fired’ (i.e. a phone
`
`number is dialed, an email address is seeded into a new message).” Id. at 5:17-20
`
`(emphasis added). Additionally, the Messages App Snapshot could display “further
`
`information” on a message, such as the “date and time it arrived and the first
`
`line/subject of the message.” Id. at 5:8-11. This data can be referred to generally
`
`as “preview data” since it previews the contents of or information about the
`
`message. Denning ¶36.
`
`Finally, the ‘476 patent provides context for its disclosure of applications
`
`relative to an operating system. In the SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT
`
`INVENTION section, the ‘476 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with the above aspects of the
`
`invention,” where those aspects include displaying an application summary
`
`window “comprising a limited list of (i) common functions offered within an
`
`7 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`application and/or (ii) data stored in that application.” Id. at 2:51-54; 2:33-36.
`
`This computer program is identified separately from the “application,” and “may
`
`be an operating system.” Id. at 2:54-55. Similarly, claim 12 explains that claim
`
`11’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on
`
`the screen an application summary” “comprises an operating system program.” Id.
`
`at 6:35-37; 6:44-46. Thus, the software to implement the graphical user interface
`
`can be incorporated into an operating system, while the unlaunched applications
`
`listed in the main menu are separate (and claimed separately) from the operating
`
`system. While the ‘476 patent also explains briefly that the “invention can also be
`
`used in systems which do not have a concept of separate applications as such” (id.
`
`at 5:31-35), this disclosure does not rewrite the claims, which each require “the one
`
`or more applications” to be in an “un-launched state.”
`
`b. The Challenged Claims all Require a “limited list of data offered
`within the one or more applications” and the “data” must be
`“seen within the respective application”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1, 4, 7-9, 20, 28,
`
`and 29. Of these, claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a
`
`“computing device” that is “configured to display on the screen a menu listing one
`
`or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an
`
`application summary … .” Claim 20 recites, inter alia, a “method” comprising
`
`“displaying, on a computing device having a display screen, a menu listing one or
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`more applications; [and] displaying an application summary that can be reached
`
`directly from the menu … .” Additionally, in both independent claims, the
`
`“application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-
`
`launched state.” Without disclosing or teaching all claimed elements, a prior art
`
`reference such as Schnarel or Nason cannot anticipate or render these claims
`
`obvious.
`
`Claim 1 is presented below in full for reference:
`
`1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the
`computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu
`listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to
`display on the screen an application summary that can be reached
`directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a
`limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each
`of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective
`application and enable the selected data to be seen within the
`respective application, and wherein the application summary is
`displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched
`state.
`(emphasis added). For the purposes of this proceeding and the arguments presented
`
`below, independent claim 20 includes features substantially similar to the features
`
`of claim 1.
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`While the patentability of all challenged claims can be confirmed based on
`
`the features of independent claims 1 and 20 alone, Patent Owner also discusses the
`
`independent patentability of dependent claims 4, 8, 9, and 29 over Schnarel and
`
`Naon, each in view of Petitioner’s alleged secondary references and POSITA
`
`knowledge. As such, the features of these dependent claims are also presented
`
`here, in three groups.
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`
`First, claim 4 of the ‘476 patent recites features related to user-based
`
`customization of the application summary. Per claim 4, the user can define the
`
`“data types [that] are of interest to that user for the summary for an application.”
`
`The full text of claim 4 is provided below:
`
`4. The computing device of claim 1 in which a user can define
`what data types are of interest to that user for the summary for an
`application.
`
`Claims 8 and 29
`
`Second, claims 8 and 29 of the ‘476 patent recite that the application
`
`summary, which “displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more
`
`applications” per claims 1 and 20, respectively, further displays “a limited list of
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`functions offered in the one or more applications.” The full text of claims 8 and 29
`
`is provided below:
`
`8. The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary
`further displays a limited list of functions offered in the one or more
`applications.
`29. The method of claim 20, further comprising displaying in
`the application summary a limited list of functions offered in the one
`or more applications
`
`
`Claim 9
`
`Third, claim 9 of the ‘476 patent further defines the claimed “computing
`
`device” of claim 1 as a “mobile telephone.” The full text of claim 9 is provided
`
`below:
`
`
`
`9. The computing device of claim 1, being a mobile telephone.
`
`Petitioner alleges that each of the challenged claims is rendered obvious by
`
`Schnarel and Nason separately in combination with the knowledge of a POSITA or
`
`specific secondary references. But as will be explained below, these challenged
`
`claims are all patentable over Petitioner’s challenges.
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`c. Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction
`Analysis and Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the
`Claim Terms
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘476 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). However, any construction must still be consistent with and supported
`
`by the disclosure. See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications
`
`RF, LLC, Case No. 2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (Ex. 2010) at 10-11;
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`During litigation between Patent Owner and LG Electronics, Inc.1 on the
`
`‘476 patent, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued three
`
`claim constructions, albeit under the framework established by Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Prior to trial, the Court ruled that
`
`                                                            
`1 LG filed two related co-pending petitions in IPR2015-01984 and IPR2015-01985.
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`“additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary
`
`that can be reached directly from the menu,” from claims 1 and 20, has its “plain
`
`and ordinary meaning and no further construction [is] necessary.“ Ex. 2003 at 36-
`
`44. Then, during trial, the Court heard argument on “un-launched state” and
`
`“reached directly.” Ex. 2004 at 3-23. At the conclusion of this argument, the
`
`Court decided to construe “unlaunched state” as “not displayed,” and “reached
`
`directly” as “reached without an intervening step.” Id. at 23. Though these
`
`constructions were reached under the Phillips framework, they are also consistent
`
`with the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the ‘476 patent
`
`disclosure.
`
`Three other terms require the Board’s attention in this case, however, to
`
`ensure that these terms are not construed “so broadly that [their] constructions are
`
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles”: application, function,
`
`and data. Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1298.
`
`
`
`Construction of “application”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, the Board did not specifically provide a
`
`construction of “application.” In accordance with the ‘476 patent, an “application”
`
`exists in a particular software architecture having an operating system that can
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`manage multiple executables (e.g. applications), whereby an application can be
`
`launched to access its associated functions and data. Denning ¶¶23, 29.
`
`As discussed above, the ‘476 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with certain aspects of the invention,”
`
`including displaying an application summary window comprising “a limited list of
`
`(i) common functions offered within an application and/or (ii) data stored in that
`
`application.” Id. at 2:51-54; 2:33-36. This “program may be an operating system.”
`
`Id. at 2:54-55. Similarly, claim 12 explains that claim 11’s “computer-readable
`
`code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on the screen an application
`
`summary” “comprises an operating system program.” Id. at 6:35-37; 6:44-46.2
`
`Separate from an operating system, Martyn provides examples of
`
`applications “such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’”
`
`applications. ‘476 Patent at 3:17-19. Prior to the claimed “application summary,” a
`
`user would have to “open” the application and then navigate “within that
`
`                                                            
`2 It does not follow from the doctrine of claim differentiation that claim 11’s
`
`computing device could be implemented without an operating system. Rather,
`
`computing device’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device
`
`to display on the screen an application summary” could be a second, separate
`
`application on top of the operating system. Denning ¶23.
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be
`
`activated.” Id. at 2:46-50. Further, the background of the ‘476 patent refers
`
`specifically to a mobile telephone that “includes several different applications” that
`
`must be started/opened in order to navigate to the desired function. Id. at 1:48-55.
`
`Further, the ‘476 patent’s disclosure that an “application” may be in an un-
`
`launched state informs a POSITA that the disclosed device operating system
`
`permits multiple threads of execution. Denning ¶13. For example, the ‘476 patent
`
`discloses at 4:64-5:3 that the App Snapshot can be opened for a Contacts
`
`application while there is “an active Calendar application,” and further refers to a
`
`“previously or currently open Calendar application.” ‘476 patent at 4:64-5:3.
`
`These operations require multiple threads of execution so that the device can view
`
`the App Snapshot while another application is “currently open.” Id.; see also
`
`Denning ¶13. Specifically, the device must manage an execution thread for the
`
`currently opened Calendar application, and must also simultaneously manage an
`
`execution thread for software causing the App Snapshot to be displayed.3
`
`                                                            
`3 As explained elsewhere, the “program” that allows the device to display an
`
`application summary view such as an App Snapshot can be an operating system. A
`
`POSITA would understand that another implementation of the App Snapshot is via
`
`a separate application layered on the operating system. Denning ¶23.
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`From these disclosures, the ‘476 patent makes clear that an “operating
`
`system” is claimed separately and described differently from an “application.”
`
`This is consistent with the understanding that would have been reached by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the relevant time. Denning ¶29.
`
`Specifically, as of July 2000, it was understood by a POSITA that an
`
`“application” referred to application-level architecture, with the application
`
`implemented on top of an operating system layer. Denning ¶¶23, 29. Further, as
`
`of July 2000, a POSITA would have understood an “application” to be packaged
`
`software for performing user functions, arranged in an application layer and able to
`
`access APIs of an operating system. Id. at ¶¶10, 29. In this manner, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of an “application” was and remains distinguishable from
`
`an operating system, which manages system resources among applications,
`
`oversees memory management, assigns windows to applications requesting them,
`
`and determines which application(s) are allocated system resources to execute code
`
`(and similarly, for how long). Id.
`
`Similarly, an “application” should be distinguished from the windows of the
`
`application. For example, a POSITA would not interpret the opening of a new
`
`window in a launched application (or the opening of a new MS Word document
`
`from within MS Word’s menu) as tantamount to launching an application. Denning
`
`¶30. As of the earliest priority date of the ‘476 patent, it was understood that an
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`application could be assigned more than one window by an operating system, upon
`
`request from the application. Id. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 is the
`
`Richard patent (Ex. 2008 or “Richard”), which was cited during prosecution of the
`
`‘476 patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020. See Ex. 1018 at 171; 180-81. In
`
`Richard, filed on June 28, 2000, the Abstract explicitly acknowledges that an
`
`“indicator” provides a “list of open windows within an application.” Richard,
`
`Abstract (emphasis added). Dr. Myers agrees. Ex. 2012 at 26:21-27:10. Since a
`
`window and an application must be interpreted separately, it is not correct to view
`
`the opening of a new window in a launched application as tantamount to launching
`
`an application.
`
`
`
`Construction of “function”
`
`According to the governing regulations in inter partes review, the Board’s
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of any claim term must still be consistent with
`
`and find support in the specification of the patent-in-suit. See PPC Broadband, Ex.
`
`2010 at 10-11. The proper interpretation of “function” requires a more detailed
`
`analysis of how the term is described in the corresponding specification. Indeed,
`
`the ‘476 patent provides very specific examples of what is meant by “function.”
`
`Examples are included throughout, and consolidated here:
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`Exemplary Function
`
`Citation
`
`“create a new contact entry”
`
`1:53
`
`“open an address book function”
`
`2:17-18
`
`“enter a PIN security number”
`
`2:18
`
`“alter the ring melody”
`
`2:18-19
`
`“Create Message”
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:44-46
`
`“Enter chat room”
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:44-46
`
`
`
`The second example above is particularly revealing; the ‘476 patent does not
`
`describe a “function” as the act of opening an address book. Rather, to constitute a
`
`“function,” the device must “open an address book function.” (emphasis added).
`
`As can be seen from these examples, the ‘476 patent consistently describes a
`
`“function” as something more than simply opening a window or opening an
`
`application. Rather, the ‘476 patent uses the term “function” to refer to an action
`
`that a user is to perform within the corresponding application (e.g. create a new
`
`contact entry, perform an address book function, enter a PIN number, change a
`
`ring tone, create a message, or participate in a chat). The term “function” should
`
`be construed consistently with these examples by the Board.
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`The ‘476 patent also describes functions as options that can be “activated.”
`
`See, e.g., ‘476 patent at 1:38; 2:47-50. The operation of activating a function is
`
`distinguished from the operation of opening an application. Id. at 2:47-50 (“This
`
`[summary window] saves the user from navigating to the required application,
`
`opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of
`
`interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.”). Denning ¶¶31-34.
`
`Accordingly, the term “function” should be construed in this proceeding as
`
`an action to be activated in an application and performed by a user, and should not
`
`be interpreted as simply opening a