`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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD A. MYERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated March 17, 2016 (Paper 8), Patent
`
`Owner timely moves for observations on cross-examination in light of Patent
`
`Owner’s cross-examination of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Brad A. Myers on
`
`November 3, 2016. The transcript of Dr. Rhyne’s cross-examination testimony is
`
`being filed as exhibit 2014 (“Ex. 2014”). The exhibits used at the deposition of Dr.
`
`Myers are already of record in this proceeding and are not included as part of Ex.
`
`2014.
`
`
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`1. Ex. 2014 at 47:16-48:6; 49:7-50:3: Dr. Myers testified that “just pushing
`
`the caller log button by itself does not perform the example managing
`
`operations that we discussed.” This testimony is relevant to his opinion
`
`that “Schnarel does not merely teach opening an application
`
`window/viewer; it also teaches executing functions under any proposed
`
`construction of that term.” Ex. 1038 at ¶25.
`
`2. Ex. 2014 at 50:4-51:6: Dr. Myers testified that for a user to perform
`
`management operations using the caller log and fax viewers of Schnarel,
`
`there are a variety of things the user would have to do, including first
`
`selecting the message of interest, and then clicking or tapping on a button
`
`to perform the operation. This testimony is relevant to his opinion that
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`“Schnarel does not merely teach opening an application window/viewer;
`
`it also teaches executing functions under any proposed construction of
`
`that term.” Ex. 1038 at ¶25.
`
`3. Ex. 2014 at 57:3-16; 57:22-61:3: Dr. Myers testified that “The caller log
`
`viewer and the fax viewer are a program that provides access to functions
`
`and data. And so one could certainly interpret them as meeting my
`
`definition of application.” This testimony is relevant to his opinion that
`
`Schnarel’s viewers are not applications. Ex. 1038 at ¶¶10-11.
`
`4. Ex. 2014 at 70:22-71:17: Dr. Myers agreed that the reasoning detailed at
`
`column 12, lines 18-21 of Schnarel is an acceptable reason to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for having separate applications instead of a
`
`single application. This testimony is relevant to his opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement
`
`Schnarel’s message viewers as part of Schnarel’s message center
`
`application. Ex. 1038 at ¶14.
`
`5. Ex. 2014 at 75:17-76:18: Dr. Myers testified that when the security
`
`feature in Schnarel is enabled, the user is prompted for a user ID and
`
`password before being allowed to enter the corresponding viewer.
`
`Conversely, Dr. Myers agreed that there is no disclosure in the ‘476
`
`patent that a PIN security number is entered in order to provide access to
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`some other underlying feature. This testimony is relevant to his opinion
`
`that Schnarel’s security feature is analogous to the ‘476 patent’s “enter a
`
`PIN security number” function. Ex. 1038 at ¶26.
`
`6. Ex. 2014 at 77:22-78:15: Dr. Myers agreed that a reasonable example for
`
`why one would want to enter a PIN is turning on a password protection
`
`feature where a user needs to enter a PIN security number that thereafter
`
`protects the phone. This testimony is relevant to his opinion that
`
`Schnarel’s security feature is analogous to the ‘476 patent’s “enter a PIN
`
`security number” function. Ex. 1038 at ¶26.
`
`7. Ex. 2014 at 78:16-80:1: Dr. Myers testified that Schnarel’s caller log
`
`button itself is labeled caller log, and the ultimate alleged function as a
`
`result of pushing the caller log button is to view the caller log, not
`
`password protection. This testimony is relevant to his opinion that
`
`Schnarel’s security feature is analogous to the ‘476 patent’s “enter a PIN
`
`security number” function. Ex. 1038 at ¶26.
`
`8. Ex. 2014 at 95:5-16: Dr. Myers agreed that in the field of human-
`
`computer interaction, it is true that it is preferable that the user knows
`
`what to do just by looking at the screen. This testimony is relevant to his
`
`opinion configuring Schnarel so that its summary pane is reached directly
`
`from the main menu would not frustrate Schnarel’s purpose of allowing
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`users to quickly discover whether or not they have new messages and
`
`quickly access these new messages. Ex. 1038 at ¶19.
`
`9. Ex. 2014 at 113:11-118:10: Dr. Myers testified that “it’s certainly
`
`possible that AOL’s mail feature would qualify as a web application,”
`
`using his definition of web application. This testimony is relevant to his
`
`opinion disagreeing with Patent Owner’s position that “things like ‘Web
`
`Search’ are applications, not functions.” Ex. 1038 at ¶31.
`
`10. Ex. 2014 at 124:7-13;127:7-19: Dr. Myers testified that the definition of
`
`“application” that he provided in Exhibit 1028 is “the way that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand application,” where the
`
`definition in Exhibit 1028 indicates that an application sits on top of
`
`systems software because it is unable to run without the operating system
`
`and system utilities. This testimony is relevant to his opinion that Patent
`
`Owner’s construction for application (which recognizes that an
`
`“application” exists in a particular software architecture having an
`
`operating system) is incorrect. Ex. 1038 at ¶¶6-7.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY,
`LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
`
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 10, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD A. MYERS and EXHIBIT 2014 is being served via
`
`email to the Petitioner at the correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Megan Raymond
`Nicole Jantzi
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`Steven.Baughman@ropesgray.com
`Megan.Raymond@ropesgray.com
`Nicole.Jantzi@ropesgray.com
`ApplePTABService-Core@ropesgray.com
`
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`