`______________
`
`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
`______________
`
`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
`IPR2015-01899
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`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. 8,713,476 (“the
`
`‘476 patent”) in this proceeding, IPR2015-01899. 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 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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” (cls. 1/20)
`
`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. 13-14. I disagree.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`As my opening declaration makes clear, I applied the plain and
`
`7.
`
`ordinary meaning of “application” under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(BRI) consistent with the specification in forming my opinions. Ex.1003 ¶ 32. In
`
`my opinion, such interpretation of the term “application” is “a program, or group
`
`of programs working together, designed to provide access to functions and data.”
`
`The ‘476 specification does not specifically define the term “application” but
`
`describes different applications that provide access to certain functions and data.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:43-51, 2:34-36, 3:17-33, 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.
`
`“function” includes opening a certain window of an application
`(Cls. 1/20)
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`The patent owner (PO) proposes that “function” cannot include
`
`8.
`
`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 ¶¶ 32, 86-91, 125-128. Such interpretation of
`
`“function” includes an “operation or command” and is not limited to an “an action
`
`that a user is to perform within the corresponding application.” Opp. 18. 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 ‘476
`
`specification mentions “commands” in explaining its functions. (e.g., 1:64-2:1).
`
`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, 3:58-62. Additionally, in my
`
`opinion, even PO’s cited “examples” (Opp. 18), 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
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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.1018, 197, 187; Ex.1036, Fig. 2A, 8:13-15. Thus, in my opinion, the ‘476
`
`specification describes “function” to include opening a certain window/view of an
`
`application.
`
`C.
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Data Offered Within the
`One or More Applications” (Elements 1.D/20.D); “Data Types”
`(Claim 4)
`10. PO asserts that Schnarel does not teach these elements because
`
`message viewers are not part of the message center application. Opp. 33-35. I
`
`disagree. As explained below, in my opinion, Schnarel discloses a “limited list of
`
`data offered within the one or more applications” and “data types” as offered
`
`through, e.g., its email icon button displayed on the message summary pane. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`11. As discussed in my opening declaration, the message icons (Ex.1004
`
`(in green), 7:41-54; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 68-72) as well as the “caller logger” and/or “fax”
`
`buttons appear on the “message summary pane”—a summary window displaying
`
`functionality from its “parent application,” the “message center.” Ex.1004, 8:46-
`
`59, 13:42-48; Ex.1003 ¶ 90.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 10:55-61, Fig. 7; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 82, 91.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`
`Ex.1004 Fig.7. Notably, while enumerating “[t]he application programs”in Fig. 7,
`
`Schnarel includes “the message center” but not separate “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 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.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.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`And, the inability to view messages would also make it difficult if not impossible
`
`to respond to messages.
`
`12. 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 ¶
`
`64-68, 90. 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.
`
`34-35. 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`”separate plugin applications,” as PO contends), they provide functions for the
`
`message center application, and are part of the message center application.
`
`13. 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 ¶¶ 68-72, 78-83), 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; 1003 ¶¶73-76.
`
`14. That said, having Schnarel’s message viewers to be part of the
`
`message center application would also be an obvious design choice and
`
`advantageous because, when part of the larger message center application, the
`
`viewer windows would display much faster than if it was 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
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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 ¶ 142.
`
`15. PO asserts that “the only type of data in the ‘476 patent that is both
`
`seen within the application and also displayed in the application summary is the
`
`preview data . . . namely the ‘date and time [the message] arrived and the first
`
`line/subject of the message.’. . . [and Schnarel] do[es] not disclose any information
`
`that is also seen in a respective application.” Opp. 35. I disagree. As shown in
`
`Fig. 2, Schnarel’s message summary pane displays, e.g., “[n]ew messages icon list
`
`(312)” (Ex.1004, 6:60) (i.e., the “list of data”) to indicate “when a new message
`
`exists” and “[i]f no new user-specific messages exist for a particular user, then the
`
`text ‘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 “new messages icon list (312)” is a list of data offered within and
`
`associated with the message center application, where the data is whether there are
`
`new messages of the various types (0 or more than 0 messages). Indeed, one of the
`
`purposes of the message center is to allow users to “discover whether or not they
`
`have new messages” and to “access these new messages.” Ex.1004, 6:33-35. In
`
`the ‘476, a POSITA would understand that selecting “1 Chat ongoing” (Ex. 1001,
`
`Fig. 3) would take you to the ongoing chat itself, selecting “0 new messages” (Id.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`Fig. 2) would take the user to their inbox (which would not show any new
`
`messages, and would not say “0 new messages”), and selecting “3 unread emails”
`
`(Id. Fig. 3) would take the user to their inbox, which would list the emails and
`
`highlight the new ones in some way, but not necessarily include the text “3 unread
`
`emails.”
`
`16. Schnarel teaches that the data on the application summary menu (e.g.,
`
`whether there are new messages or not: “
`
`”) is also seen within the respective
`
`application (e.g., Fig. 5,“
`
`”). Ex.1004, 7:41-60, Fig. 5; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 68-76. In
`
`my opinion, this is the same “selected data [] seen within the respective
`
`application” as required by the claims, since in the ‘476 it describes that the data in
`
`FIG. 3 such as “‘2 new SMS’ messages” (Ex.1001, 3:48) can be selected and will
`
`display “the relevant data in the application details view, or displays the relevant
`
`screen offering the relevant functionality” (Ex.1001, 3:61-62), the same as
`
`Schnarel. There is no requirement in the ‘476 or even hint that the display in the
`
`application details view must be identical to the display in the app snapshot. Thus,
`
`in my opinion, PO’s assertion that the icons showing new messages are not data
`
`offered within the message center application is plain wrong and should be
`
`rejected. Moreover, as discussed above, PO and Mr. Denning are wrong that the
`
`“message viewers,” even as “separate applications” are not part of the message
`
`center application.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`17. Alternatively, it would also be obvious to show how many messages a
`
`user has on the application summary screen (e.g., showing something like “
`
`”)
`
`because it would advantageously allow a user to know, for example, if the user has
`
`more messages than the last time the user checked, for example, if the user knew
`
`the first message was not important, the existence of a second message might
`
`inform the user of the need to check the contents of the new messages. See also
`
`Ex.1003 ¶¶ 81-83.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, Schnarel also teaches “types of data” under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). E.g., Ex.1003 ¶¶ 78-80. For example, the
`
`‘476 specification describes listing data indicating the presence and type (e.g.,
`
`email, SMS, or Chat) of new messages in the application summary window. See
`
`e.g., Ex.1001, 2:61-62, 3:38-50, Figs. 2, 3. This is similar to Schnarel’s icons that
`
`indicate the presence and type (e.g., notepad, answering machine, e-mail, etc.) of
`
`new messages displayed in the message summary pane area. Thus, in my opinion,
`
`Schnarel’s icons showing new messages are a “limited list of data offered within
`
`the one or more applications,” as claimed. See Ex.1004, 7:41-54, Fig. 3; Ex.1003
`
`¶¶ 68-72, 78-83. Schnarel further teaches that selecting an icon (e.g., “
`
`”) in the
`
`list enables the data (i.e., information about the presence of a new message and
`
`what type of message, e.g., “
`
`”) to be seen in the message center application.
`
`Ex.1004, 7:41-60, Fig. 5; Ex.1003¶¶ 68-72.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Schnarel Renders Obvious “an Application Summary that Can Be
`Reached Directly From the Menu” (Elements 1.C/20.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. 33. 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 ¶¶ 62-63. 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 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
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`
`
`“
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`”). 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 “
`
`,” “
`
`,” “
`
`”). See also Ex.1003 ¶¶ 58-63.
`
`E.
`
`Schnarel in view of Aberg, Renders Obvious “an Application
`Summary Window that Can Be Reached Directly From the Main
`Menu” (Elements 1.C, 20.C)
`20. PO asserts that Schnarel in view of Aberg does not render obvious
`
`Elements 1.C and 20.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. 31;
`
`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 ¶¶ 62-63; 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
`
`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 ¶¶ 58-67. Relocating Aberg’s SPECIAL menu and making it
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 00015
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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 ¶¶ 62-63; see also Ex.1003 ¶¶ 39-41.
`
`22. PO further asserts that Schnarel in view of Aberg does not render
`
`obvious Elements 1.C and 20.C because Aberg allegedly does not teach an
`
`“application summary window” since the “SPECIAL menu 300 is not associated
`
`with any ‘application’.” Opp. 31; Ex.2011 ¶ 59. I disagree. As I explained in my
`
`opening declaration, a POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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 ¶¶ 64-67.
`
`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 ¶¶ 41, 64-67;
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`menu items from a single application, which would allow a user to access most
`
`often used functions of that application with less effort. See also Ex.1003 ¶¶62-67.
`
`F.
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Functions Offered in the
`One or More Applications” (Claims 8, 29)
`24. PO argues Schnarel’s caller log and fax buttons are “separate
`
`applications” from the message center application, and thus are not message center
`
`functions. Opp. 39-40. I disagree. See discussion in § C above.
`
`25. PO argues Schnarel’s message viewers merely “open[] an application
`
`window or viewer.” Opp. 42. 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 messages) is
`
`displayed. This is analogous to “enter[ing a] 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[ing a] chat room”
`
`is a function. Opp. 18; Ex.1001, 3:44-46. 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 . . .
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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.”).
`
`26. 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, 39-40.
`
`Schnarel’s teaching of “identify[ing] herself/himself” and “enter[ing] a password”
`
`is analogous to “enter[ing] a PIN security number,” which the ‘476 specification
`
`describes as an example of a function. Ex.1001, 2:18. In my opinion, Schnarel’s
`
`teaching is analogous to the ‘476 teachings because “enter[ing] a PIN security
`
`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 ¶¶ 68-72. 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
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`messages of a particular type for a particular user, such as, “Chip” in Schnarel’s
`
`Fig. 5).
`
`27. 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. 45-46. I disagree. First, I note that the
`
`‘476 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 ‘476 specification. Further, in my
`
`opinion, even if selecting the caller log button under a “default” mode brought the
`
`user to the same 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.
`
`G. Nason Discloses Selecting Data to “Launch[] the Respective
`Application” and “Enable…Data to Be Seen Within the
`Respective Application” (Elements 1.E/20.F)
`
`28.
`
` I understand that PO asserts, and Mr. Denning says, that Lycos, AOL,
`
`and Amazon applications are “websites,” not “applications,” thus no application is
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`Page 00020
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`launched to display the “data” (e.g., ticker text in a cartridge) selected from
`
`Nason’s summary window. Opp. 56-60; Ex.2011 ¶¶ 81, 112. I disagree. As I
`
`explained in my deposition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), 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; see also id.,
`
`72:22-21. Thus, in my opinion, each of the Lycos, AOL, and 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.
`
`29. 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. 56-60; 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.
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`Page 00021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`H. Nason Discloses a “Limited List of Functions Offered in the One
`or More Applications” (Cls.8, 29) and an Application Summary
`Window with Data (Cls.1, 20)
`
`30.
`
` PO asserts that Lycos, America Online, and Amazon are not
`
`“applications.” I disagree. See discussion in §G above.
`
`31. PO asserts that things like “Web Search” are applications, not
`
`functions. Opp. 70. I disagree. Even if the “Web Search” is operable as an
`
`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. 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 obvious. Ex.1003 ¶¶ 113-117, 125-129, 136, 140. 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. Id.
`
`I.
`
`Nason, or Wagner in View of Nason, Discloses “a Mobile
`Telephone” (Cl. 9)
`32. PO argues that a POSITA would not be motivated to implement
`
`Nason’s GUI on a mobile telephone, such as the phone taught