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
`______________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`“application” (cls.1, 20) ........................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`“function” (cls.1, 20) ............................................................................. 2 
`C. 
`“data” (cls.1, 20) .................................................................................... 4 
`D. 
`“un-launched state” and “reached directly” (cls.1, 20) ......................... 5 
`SCHNAREL .................................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Data Offered Within the
`One or More Applications” (Elements 1.D/20.D); “Data Types”
`(Cl.4) ...................................................................................................... 5 
`Schnarel Renders Obvious “an Application Summary that Can
`Be Reached Directly From the Menu” (Elements 1.C/20.C) .............. 10 
`Schnarel in View of Aberg, Renders Obvious “an Application
`Summary that Can Be Reached Directly From the Menu”
`(Elements 1.C/20.C) ............................................................................ 10 
`Schnarel, or Alternatively, Smith Discloses that “A User Can
`Define What Data Types Are of Interest to That User for the
`Summary for an Application” (Cl.4) ................................................... 13 
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Functions Offered in the
`One or More Applications” (Cls.8, 29) ............................................... 15 
`Schnarel Discloses a “Mobile Telephone” (Cl.9) ............................... 17 
`F. 
`
`A.  Nason Discloses “An Application Summary Window That Can
`Be Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements
`1.C/20.C) ............................................................................................. 18 
`Nason Discloses Selecting Data to “Launch[] the Respective
`Application” and “Enable…Data to Be Seen Within the
`Respective Application” (Elements 1.E/20.F) (Opp.47-60) ............... 22 
`Nason Discloses “the Application Summary Is Displayed While
`the One or More Applications Are in an Un-Launched State”
`(Elements 1.F/20.E) ............................................................................. 24 
`D.  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) ............................................ 28 
`Nason, or Wagner in View of Nason, Discloses “a Mobile
`Telephone” (Cl.9) ................................................................................ 30 
`  CONSTITUTIONALITY .............................................................................. 32 
`
`  NASON .......................................................................................................... 18 III.
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Brad Myers In Support of the Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`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. 8,434,020 File History
`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
`
`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
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`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.)
`Exs. 1025-1027 Reserved
`Ex. 1028
`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
`
`Ex. 1029
`Ex. 1030
`Ex. 1031
`Ex. 1032
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`Ex. 1036
`Ex. 1037
`Ex. 1038
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`The Board correctly found at institution that Petitioner established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving Cls.1, 4, 7-9, 20, and 28-29
`
`unpatentable. Pap.7, 34-35. Because the Petition demonstrates obviousness, PO’s
`
`Response ignores the references’ disclosures, instead urging unsupported
`
`constructions (not sought in litigation (Ex.1020)) inconsistent with BRI. PO fails
`
`to rebut Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
` A.
`PO construes “application” (Opp.13-17) without tying it to any issue: no
`
`“application” (cls.1, 20)
`
`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 ‘476, which describes different applications providing access to
`
`functions and data (Ex.1001, 1:43-50, 2:34-36, 3:17-33, 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”)); Ex.1038¶¶6-7; Ex.1003¶32.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`In contrast, PO (Opp.13-17) injects unsupported limitations.1 See In re Van
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). ’476 does not recite or describe, and
`
`the claims do not require, “application-level architecture, with the application
`
`implemented on top of an operating system layer,” “packaged software,” or
`
`“ab[ility] to access APIs.” Opp.16. PO’s cite describes a device only optionally
`
`including an operating system. E.g., Ex.1001, 2:54-55 (“may be an operating
`
`system.”).2
`
` “function” (cls.1, 20)
`
` 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.17-19). No construction is needed; the references teach this limitation under
`
`both BRI and PO’s construction (§§II.E, III.D). If construed, “function”’s BRI is
`
`“operation or command” consistent with ‘476’s describing “function[]” as a
`
`1 Contrary to PO (Opp.14 n.2), claim 11 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.16) is
`
`unresponsive to Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`“command” (Ex.1001, 1:64-2:1), and relevant dictionaries (e.g., Ex.1028, 6
`
`(“function…used synonymously with operation and command.”) (emphasis
`
`original).
`
`PO’s attempts to narrow “function” (Opp.17-19) contradict ‘476, its
`
`prosecution, and ordinary meaning. PO argues opening a “window of an
`
`application” is not a function. But ‘476 confirms, upon selection of a function, the
`
`application summary window may “display[] the relevant screen offering the
`
`relevant functionality” where the “function of interest is prominent.” Ex.1001, 2:46,
`
`3:58-62.3 Indeed, displaying relevant information is a function (e.g., a command to
`
`display). None of PO’s “examples” (Opp.18) 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 ‘476 require second user action after initiating the function. Indeed, during
`
`prosecution of USPN 8,434,020, PO admitted and the Examiner confirmed merely
`
`displaying a certain view of the application is a function. Ex.1018, 197, 187;
`
`Ex.1036, Fig.2A, 8:13-15. POSITA would understand “function” includes at least
`
`opening a certain window/view of an application. Ex.1038¶¶8-9; Ex.1003¶¶32,
`
`86-91, 125-128.
`
`3 PO argues ‘476’s specification discloses code to display, but its citations do not
`
`support that assertion. Opp.4.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`“data” (cls.1, 20)
`
` C.
`While both parties agree no construction is needed (Opp. 19), PO suggests
`
`“data” is limited to information that “is both displayed in a list in the ‘application
`
`summary’ and is ‘seen within the respective application.’” Opp.19-20, 35;
`
`Ex.1001, 5:8-15; Denning¶36. PO’s only ‘476 citation in support relates to
`
`information about “date and time the message arrived and the first line/subject of
`
`the message.” Opp.35. But this example does not describe what is displayed in
`
`the “App Snapshot” (the claimed “application summary”); instead, this passage
`
`merely describes date and time information being displayed in a “highlight [that]
`
`expands to cover this extra information” after data is displayed in the Messages
`
`view and “the highlight rests on a message entry.” Ex.1001, 5:8-15. The date and
`
`time information is not a menu and cannot be clicked on to open the file. Id. PO
`
`ignores the actual data examples (e.g., “0 new messages,” “1 Chat ongoing”) in
`
`‘476’s application summary window, and PO’s construction is inconsistent with
`
`that disclosure. See Ex.1038¶15.
`
`Further, while ‘476 does not expressly define “data,” it explains “commonly
`
`requested data associated with [an] application” is displayed in the “App Snapshot”
`
`(the claimed “application summary”), and, when “selected…the device displays
`
`the relevant data in the application details view.” Ex.1001, 3:38-41, 3:58-61. For
`
`example, Figs.2-3 show “data” includes an indication of the presence and type (e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`email, SMS) of new messages. Ex.1001, 3:38-50. In view of the foregoing and
`
`because ‘476 does not limit “data” to a specific type of “data,” the BRI includes
`
`any “data” “offered within the one or more applications” and selected “to be seen
`
`within the respective application,” as required by the claims’ plain language.
`
`“un-launched state” and “reached directly” (cls.1, 20)
`
` D.
`PO never states it endorses these recited LG litigation constructions
`
`(Opp.13), but none is needed—the art renders the claims obvious regardless.4
`
`
`II.
`
`SCHNAREL
` A.
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Data Offered Within the
`One or More Applications” (Elements 1.D/20.D); “Data Types”
`(Cl.4)
`
`PO incorrectly argues Schnarel does not teach these elements because
`
`message viewers are not part of the message center application. Opp.33-35, 37-38.
`
`But the viewers, in at minimum some embodiments, are not applications, and are
`
`part of the message center application regardless.5 Ex, 1034, 3; Ex.1035, 3.
`
`
`4 Because Petitioner was not a party there, and the BRI standard is different,
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to argue different constructions in litigation.
`
`5 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¶¶68-72, 78-83), and
`
`with the fact it is launched and the message viewer displayed when a message
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`The message icons (Ex.1004 (in green), 7:41-54; Pet.24-26) as well as the
`
`“caller log” (Ex.1004, 8:56-59; Pet.25, 35) and/or “fax” (Ex.1004, 8:46-50; Pet.25,
`
`35) buttons appear on the “message summary pane”—a summary window
`
`displaying functionality from its “parent application,” the “message center.”
`
`Ex.1004, 13:42-48; Pet.27, cf. Opp.34.
`
`
`
`
`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, 7:57-60; Ex.1003¶¶69-76; Pet.26-37;
`
`Ex.1038¶13). Dr. Myers confirmed this. Ex.1003¶¶64-68, 90; Ex.2012, 103:3-7.
`
`See also Ex.1004, 8:48-60, 10:55-59.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig.2. Contrary to PO (Opp.22-23, 34-35), Fig.7 shows the message
`
`viewers as part of the “message center” (Ex.1038¶¶10-11):
`
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig.7; 10:35-39, 10:35-39 (listing “[t]he application programs” in Fig.7
`
`as including “the message center” but not message viewers); 9:1-6 (listing “all
`
`applications…available,” but not message viewers), Figs.1-2; 12:50-13:20
`
`(message viewers are COM components); 10:55-61; Ex.1003¶¶39, 58-63, 82, 91.
`
`Thus, in at least some embodiments, the message viewers are not applications.
`
`Ex.1038¶11; Ex.2012, 103:3-7, 137:14-138:10.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Even if the viewers were “separate plugin applications,” as PO claims
`
`(Opp.34), they are nevertheless part of the parent message center application,
`
`“plug[ing] 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¶12). Indeed, a single application can be a program or group of programs
`
`(e.g., Outlook application with mail and calendar programs). Thus, even if
`
`message viewers are programs or “separate plugin applications,” they are part of it.
`
`Ex.1038¶12. 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. Ex.1038¶14; Ex.1003¶¶142.6
`
`In addition, contrary to PO (Opp.35, 37), the “type of data” in ‘476’s
`
`application summary window and seen within the application is “preview data”
`
`(though the claims are not so limited). See §I.C. Even if PO’s “data” construction
`
`6 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.
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`applies, Schnarel teaches the information on the application summary menu (e.g.,
`
`“
`
`”) is also seen within the respective application (e.g., Fig.5,“
`
`”). Ex.1004,
`
`7:41-60, Fig.5; Pet.25, 28. And, in any case, it would be obvious to show how
`
`many messages a user has on the application summary screen (e.g., “
`
`”). Doing
`
`so would advantageously allow the user to know, for example, if the user knew the
`
`first message was not important, the existence of more messages might inform him
`
`of the need to check the new message contents. Ex.1038¶¶15-18; Ex.1003¶¶78-80.
`
`Schnarel also teaches this limitation under the BRI. E.g., Pet.24-26, §I.C.
`
`Consistent with ‘476, which describes listing data indicating the presence and type
`
`(e.g., email, SMS) of new messages in the application summary (e.g., Ex.1001,
`
`Abstract, 2:61-62, 3:38-50, Figs.2, 3), Schnarel’s icons indicating the presence and
`
`type (e.g., notepad, answering machine, e-mail, etc.) of new messages displayed in
`
`the message summary pane are a “limited list of data offered within the one or
`
`more applications.” See Ex.1004, 7:41-54, 6:33-35, Fig.3; Pet.24-26;
`
`Ex.1003¶¶68-76. Schnarel further teaches selecting an icon (e.g., “
`
`”) in the list
`
`enables the data (e.g., information about the presence of a new message and what
`
`type of message, e.g., “
`
`”) to be seen in the message application. See Ex.1004,
`
`7:41-60, Fig.5; Pet.25, 28; Ex.1003¶¶81-83.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
` B.
`
`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.32-33. First, PO does not dispute Petitioner’s other reasons
`
`Schnarel alone renders this limitation obvious, which the Board correctly found
`
`provide “adequate rationale.” Pet.28-30; Ex.1003¶¶62-63; 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 frustrate its purpose (Ex.1004, 6:33-35, cf.32-33), as PO
`
`asserts. 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.1038¶19; 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 that Can Be Reached Directly From the Menu”
`(Elements 1.C/20.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.30-32. But
`
`PO ignores Petitioner’s mapping (Pet.17-18, 24) and Aberg’s express teachings of
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`placing the “SPECIAL” menu as a “sub-menu of any top level…menu,” “reached
`
`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.3.7
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, Fig.3. PO 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.31.
`
`Indeed, POSITA would not have expected the “SPECIAL” menu to include every
`
`
`7 These same teachings belie any supposed “inconsisten[cy]” in including a
`
`summary window in Schnarel anywhere but at the “highest level” (Opp.32). See
`
`also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`option in, e.g., the “PHONEBOOK” menu; otherwise, it would duplicate an
`
`already-existing menu.
`
`PO argues Aberg does not teach an “application summary window” because
`
`“SPECIAL menu 300 is not associated with any ‘application.’” (Opp.31).
`
`However, Aberg’s “SPECIAL” menu is “customized by the user…to add and
`
`delete menu items,” (Ex.1005, 2:55-62; Pet.23-25), and POSITA would
`
`understand Aberg teaches configuring its “SPECIAL” menu for one (or more)
`
`applications. Ex.1003¶¶41, 62-67; Ex.1038¶¶22-23. 8 See also Ex.1004 9:1-6,
`
`Figs.1, 2; Ex.1005, 6:6-24, Claim 3
`
`8 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 the knowledge of POSITA. Pet.2-3, 28-30; Ex.1003¶¶62-64,
`
`Ex.1038¶¶20-21. See Ex.1006 (Smith), 8:12-35, Fig. 7A; 1015 (Blanchard), 5:30-
`
`6:38, Figs.2, 4. POSITA would also have found 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¶¶66-67; In re
`
`Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
`
`(CCPA 1981). Ex.1038¶22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`PO argues without support that “Schnarel’s area 104…does not allow
`
`navigation” providing a choice to either launch an application or further navigating
`
`to a menu associated with it (Opp.31). But as the Board correctly found,
`
`“relocating a window…and making it accessible through interaction with the
`
`menu…is within [POSITA’s] ability.” IPR2015-01898, Pap.7, 19-20, 13;
`
`Ex.1003¶¶39-41, 58-63, 66-67; Pet.18-19. 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¶¶20-21; Pet.16-19, 24,
`
`Ex.1003¶¶39-41, 58-67. Indeed, Aberg itself teaches (1) “easily access[ing]”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 (Pet.29-30); Ex.1038¶21.
`
` D.
`
`Schnarel, or Alternatively, Smith Discloses that “A User Can
`Define What Data Types Are of Interest to That User for the
`Summary for an Application” (Cl.4)
`
`PO does not dispute that a “system implementer” as taught by Schnarel “can
`
`define what data types are of interest to that user,” but asserts Schnarel’s “system
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`implementer” is not a “user.” Opp.36-37. However, nothing in Schnarel precludes
`
`a “system implementer” from being a “user”; to the contrary, Schnarel indicates
`
`“[t]he user may customize the user interface by…creating custom panes.” Ex.1004,
`
`3:26-27.
`
`With respect to Smith, PO asserts it does not disclose that the “date/time
`
`stamp” stamp is displayed in an application summary. Opp.37. But Petitioner
`
`relies on Smith’s undisputed teaching of allowing a user to specify the displayed
`
`data types (e.g., whether to display a date/time stamp indicating when a message
`
`was received)—not Smith’s teaching of an application summary—in implementing
`
`the summary pane of Schnarel’s telephone. Pet.19. Nonetheless, Smith teaches its
`
`“integrated message center 6100” provides a summary window for displaying
`
`messages of different types when the “message-type specific applications” are not
`
`yet launched. Ex.1006, 1:60, 2:26-31, 8:27-35, Figs.7A,7B.
`
`Further, Dr. Myers’ testified about the benefit of “allow[ing] a user to
`
`quickly view types of information (data) in the summary window that a particular
`
`user is most interested in seeing,” and PO has not rebutted that showing.
`
`Ex.1003¶83. To the extent PO is arguing Smith must itself provide the motivation
`
`to combine, motivation to combine may be found outside the cited references.
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Limited List of Functions Offered in the
`One or More Applications” (Cls.8, 29)
`
` E.
`
`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.39-40. This is incorrect. See §II.A.
`
`Applying its erroneous “function” construction, PO argues Schnarel’s
`
`message viewers merely “open[] an application window or viewer.” Opp.42. 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. 9
`
`Further, even under PO’s construction, Schnarel discloses that pressing the
`
`caller log/fax buttons “provides the functionality for displaying and managing
`
`messages.” Ex.1004, 10:55-61, 4:24-27; Pet.34-36. Thus, Schnarel does not
`
`merely teach opening an application window/viewer, as PO asserts; instead,
`
`
`9 Such functions are not limited to faxes and caller logs, and include messages such
`
`as voicemail and email. See, e.g., Pet.23 (citing, e.g., Ex.1004, 6:43-44, 8:60-62),
`
`Pet.25 (citing Ex.1004, 6:27-44), Pet.35-36 (citing Ex.1004, 10:45-61, 24:47-53);
`
`Ex.1003¶¶39, 88 (“‘messages pane…display[s]…general-user messages…faxes,
`
`caller logs, and voice mail messages’”).
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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¶¶24-25; Opp.18.10 This is analogous to PO’s admitted function of
`
`“enter[ing] a chat room.” Opp.18; Ex.1001, 3:44-46; Ex.1038¶¶26-27. Schnarel
`
`further discloses that 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.35-36. This is analogous to
`
`‘476’s “enter[ing] a PIN security number” example. Opp.18; Ex.1001, 2:18. See
`
`also Ex.1003¶¶17, 39-40, 68-72.
`
`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.45-46. But
`
`the claims do not require that functions take users to different screens, and PO
`
`ignores Schnarel’s disclosures that pressing the call logger and fax buttons does
`
`10 PO argues ‘476’s reference to “address book function” means displaying cannot
`
`be a function. First, Petitioner does not rely on “address book” functionality.
`
`Second, ‘476’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.
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`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¶27.
`
`Schnarel Discloses a “Mobile Telephone” (Cl.9)
`
` F.
`PO reargues that Schnarel does not disclose a “mobile telephone.” Opp.46-
`
`47; Pap. 6, 14. But Schnarel expressly discloses its user interface applies to, e.g.,
`
`“telephones with screen displays (e.g., screen phones)” and “other telephony
`
`devices…such as…personal digital assistants.” Ex.1004, Abstract, 2:7-12; Pet. 35,
`
`Pap.7, 15. And the Board correctly found (and PO does not dispute) ‘476’s
`
`“mobile telephone[s]” include “PDAs.” Pap.7, 6.
`
`PO nonetheless argues “Schnarel fails to disclose which aspects of the
`
`invention apply to other telephony devices” (Opp.47), but Schnarel expressly states
`
`in the same paragraph that “[t]he invention provides a user interface and related
`
`telephone program architecture for telephony devices,” and explains that such a
`
`telephony device is a “personal digital assistant.” Ex.1004, 2:7-12; Pet.35;
`
`Ex.1003¶92. In view of the foregoing, PO’s argument that “[t]here is no evidence
`
`of record or analysis” to support Schnarel’s disclosure of a “mobile telephone”
`
`should be rejected. Indeed, while “aspects of the invention are particularly well-
`
`suited with screen displays” those aspects nevertheless also apply to PDAs.
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`Ex.1004, 2:7-12. And, PDAs have “screen displays” in any case. Ex.1012¶77;
`
`Ex.1003¶129.
`
` NASON
`III.
` A.
`
`Nason Discloses “An Application Summary Window That Can Be
`Reached Directly From the Main Menu” (Elements 1.C/20.C)
`
`In arguing Nason does not disclose “an application summary that can be
`
`reached directly,” PO fails to address Nason’s disclosures (see, e.g., Pet.45-46) of
`
`menu 70’s implementation through Nason’s GUI cartridges. Instead, PO focuses
`
`on additional teachings not relied on by Petitioner that “menu 70” may be a “help”
`
`function. Opp.63 (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.60-61), Nason teaches a GUI 28 (e.g., Fig.2) including
`
`a main menu comprising one or more cartridges for different applications. Pet.37-
`
`38, 42-45.
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`Nason’s GUI 28 includes bar 38 (title area 40, rotators 44 and 48, buttons 46, 50,
`
`and 54, and ticker 52). Ex.1007, 2:35-44; Pet.39-40, 46-47, 49. The title
`
`button/rotators (Ex.1007, 3:25-33; Pet.40) “initiate rotation about long axis L of
`
`the display area.” Thus, “[t]he summary window is directly reached from the main
`
`menu through the use of rotators…which change the set of buttons and tickers
`
`displayed,” and the main menu and summary window are different menus. Pet.40,
`
`42-46; Ex.1003¶¶105-111. Contrary to PO’s suggestions (61-62), there is no claim
`
`requirement that the summary window be displayed on top of or obscure the main
`
`menu. Ex.1001, 3:62-67 (“the summary does not have to be presented within any
`
`kind of frame. Any manner of presenting the common functions...will constitute a
`
`‘window’”).
`
`An example GUI is in Ex.1007, Fig.10 for “America Online”:
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`United States Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`
`
`Pet.40, 46. Nason’s GUI 28 “may include one or more…cartridges such as
`
`cartridge 86 of