IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`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
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD MYERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`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
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD MYERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby responds to each of PO’s observations on the November 3,
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`
`
`
`2016 cross-examination testimony of Dr. Brad Myers (Pap. 32):
`
`Responses to Observations #1 and #2. PO’s citation to Dr. Myers’
`
`testimony is incomplete, misleading, and irrelevant and does not address the
`
`subject matter in Ex.1038 ¶25, which PO cites as the basis for relevance. Ex.1038
`
`¶25 relates to viewing a particular screen, not selecting operations from that
`
`viewed screen. PO’s observation is also incomplete, ignoring, e.g., Dr. Myers’
`
`testimony explaining that selecting “caller log and fax buttons [of Schnarel] …
`
`will … cause the corresponding viewer to be displayed” and “that’s analogous to
`
`‘020 and ‘476…where when you click on the enter chat room menu item,
`
`it…shows the chat room viewer,” (Ex.2014, 72:6-74:14), which is consistent with
`
`Ex.1038 ¶25. See also Ex. 1001, 3:42-46; Ex.1004, 10:55-61, 4:24-27; Ex.2014,
`
`14:17-16:13, 31:9-35:8, 36:18-40:18; Ex.1038 ¶¶8-9 (citing Ex.1003¶¶32, 86-91,
`
`125-128; Ex.1028, 6; Ex.1001, 1:64-2:1, 3:58-62; Ex.1018, 197, 187; Ex.1036, Fig.
`
`2A, 8:13-15); Ex.2012, 103:3-7, 127:8-17, 24:21-25:11.
`
`With respect to “management operations” PO ignores Dr. Myer’s testimony
`
`regarding managing messages by entering a PIN (Ex.1038 ¶26 (citing Ex.1004,
`
`8:50-59, 10:55-61, Fig. 5; Ex.1003 ¶¶17, 39-40; Ex.1001, 2:18); PO Resp. 18;
`
`Ex.2014, 74:15-75:16), and that “pressing the caller log button…generally
`
`launches the messages application…displays the viewer…[a]nd it enables the user
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`to do those managing operations,” (Ex.2014, 49:7-53:3), including operations such
`
`as “move and delete” (Ex.2014, 48:7-15), which is consistent with his other
`
`testimony. See, e.g., Ex.1038 ¶26 (and citations therein); PO Resp. 18; see also
`
`Ex.2014, 45:6-46:3; Ex.2012, 116:8-20. To the extent PO’s observations purport
`
`to argue the “function” must be completed in a single step, such argument is new,
`
`waived, and should be expunged and not considered. To the extent considered, it
`
`is incorrect; as Dr. Myers’ explained, ‘020 describes that the “[u]ser doesn’t
`
`actually have to have already done the functionality, it just has to offer the relevant
`
`functionality.” Ex.2014, 21:3-22:1, 26:18-28:3.
`
`Response to Observation #3. PO’s observation is incomplete and
`
`improperly mischaracterizes Dr. Myers’ testimony. Dr. Myers explained
`
`Schnarel’s “viewers, at least in some embodiments, are not applications.” Ex.1038
`
`¶10; Ex.1038 ¶11 (“message viewers (at least in the COM embodiment) are not
`
`individual applications”) (citing Ex.1004, 12:50-13:20, 10:55-61, Fig. 7; Ex.2012,
`
`103:3-7); Ex.1038 ¶11 (and citations therein) (Dr. Myers testifying why “caller
`
`log”/“fax” are part of message center application); Ex.2014, 66:20-68:6. This is
`
`further consistent with Dr. Myers’ testimony that “even if the message viewers are
`
`themselves individual programs . . . , they provide functions for the message center
`
`application, and are part of the message center application.” Ex.1038 ¶12 (citing
`
`Ex.1004, 10:55-59, Fig. 7; Ex.1003 ¶64-68, 90; Ex.1034, 3; Ex.1035, 3); Ex.2014,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`59:18-60:15 (Dr. Myers testifying “to the extent [message viewers] are considered
`
`applications…they’re part of the message center application” and “it’s the message
`
`center application which is actually launched…[and the viewer] plugins provide
`
`functions…”); see also id. 41:12-42:8.
`
`Response to Observation #4. PO’s cited questions regarding the
`
`“reason…for having separate applications” are irrelevant to Dr. Myers’ testimony
`
`that, while Schnarel discloses the message viewers are part of the message center
`
`application (Ex.1038 ¶¶10-13), alternatively, “including Schnarel’s message
`
`viewers as part of the message center application would be an obvious design
`
`choice and advantageous.” Ex.1038 ¶14 (citing Ex.1003 ¶142). PO’s citation to Dr.
`
`Myers’ testimony is also incomplete and misleading and omits his testimony that
`
`having separate applications results in “a larger and slower application” and “it
`
`would be a simple design choice to build some of the viewers into the message
`
`center application.” Ex.2014, 66:11-68:6; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (disclosure of other desirable alternatives does not negate a
`
`motivation to combine).
`
`Responses to Observations #5, #6, #7. PO’s citation of testimony is
`
`incomplete, irrelevant, and misleading and omits, inter alia, Dr. Myers’ testimony
`
`that “it’s clear that the ‘020 Patent lists PIN -- entering a PIN security number as
`
`a function that one can initiate. And the Schnarel reference mentions that if you
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`have security enabled, then when you push some of the other buttons, it will, in
`
`fact, also allow you to enter a password or a pass code.” Ex.2014, 74:15-75:13;
`
`75:14-16 (“Q. And so your opinion is that those are analogous? A. Yes.”);
`
`Ex.1038 ¶26 (Ex.1004, 8:50-59, 10:55-61, Fig. 5; Ex.1003 ¶¶17, 39-40, 68-72;
`
`Ex.1001, 2:18). PO also incorrectly asserts that “Dr. Myers agreed that there is no
`
`disclosure in the ‘476 patent that a PIN security number is entered…to provide
`
`access to some underlying feature.” Dr. Myers instead testified that “certainly one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art reading [the ’020/’476] patents would assume that you
`
`wouldn’t bother entering a PIN number unless it was for something” (Ex.2014,
`
`76:7-18) and one “would not think that [entering a PIN in ‘476 is] just to unlock
`
`the phone, but certainly it could be for a variety of other activities” (Ex.2014, 77:6-
`
`77:21). That a user could enter a PIN to turn on password protection is irrelevant.
`
`To the extent PO is arguing the “button itself” must be “labeled” in a particular
`
`way (Observation #7), such an argument is new, waived, and should be expunged
`
`and not considered. To the extent considered, ‘476 does not require that the button
`
`for selecting a function be labeled with certain text. Ex.1001. Moreover, Dr. Myers
`
`never testified that “the ultimate alleged function…is to view the caller log,” as PO
`
`incorrectly asserts, but testified instead that the caller log button “has at least two
`
`operations or actions. One is to cause the user to log in, and the other is to then
`
`launch the application and display the viewer.” Ex.2014, 79:10-16.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`Response to Observation #8. PO’s observation misrepresents Dr. Myers’
`
`testimony, is irrelevant, and incomplete. Dr. Myers did not “agree[] that…it is
`
`preferable that the user knows what to do just by looking at the screen,” as PO
`
`incorrectly asserts, but instead testified that “where you can make it clear to the
`
`user what to do by seeing it on the screen, that’s preferred to making it so the user
`
`doesn’t know what to do. But there are always tradeoffs of different design
`
`alternatives. And when doing any design, you have to balance the different
`
`constraints.” Ex.2014, 95:5-16; see In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016); Pap.7 at 15. This is consistent with Dr. Myers’ testimony (omitted by
`
`PO) that “it would be obvious to make the sub menu or the application summary
`
`window directly reached from the main menu as a result of having different design
`
`considerations…such as a smaller screen” and “one of the motivations would be to
`
`avoid cluttering the display with too much information while still providing easy
`
`access to functions and data offered in an application.” Ex.2014, 96:2-100:8;
`
`Ex.1003 ¶¶62-63; Ex.1038 ¶19.
`
`Response to Observation #9. PO’s observation regarding Dr. Myers’
`
`testimony is incomplete and mischaracterizes Dr. Myers’ testimony, focusing on
`
`AOL’s mail feature, but ignoring Dr. Myers’ opinion that “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,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`such as searching the Internet, checking mail, chatting, etc.” Ex.1038 ¶28 (citing
`
`Ex.2012, 72:8-17; 72:22- [73:]21); Ex.2014, 115:12-116:3 (Dr. Myers testifying
`
`“AOL and Lycos and Amazon…are applications”). Dr. Myers’ testimony is further
`
`consistent with his opinion (omitted by PO) that “[e]ven 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.” Ex.1038 ¶31; Ex.2014, 117:3-7; 115:12-116:3.
`
`Further, the testimony cited by PO about “AOL’s mail feature” is irrelevant to
`
`AOL’s “Web Search” feature (which PO asserts is the basis for relevance).
`
`Moreover, what is ultimately relevant is whether, e.g., the AOL Web Search
`
`feature, is a function of AOL, and Dr. Myers testified that it is. Ex.1038 ¶31.
`
`Response to Observation #10. PO’s citation of Dr. Myers’ testimony is
`
`incomplete and misleading, omitting, e.g., Dr. Myers’ testimony that “the idea that
`
`an application requires an operating system…I don’t agree with. Because they
`
`were uncommon, but still known situations in which applications could run
`
`completely independent of operating systems.” Ex.2014, 124:14-125:13.
`
`Moreover, PO’s counsel’s questions were directed to Exs. 1028 and 1031, not just
`
`to Ex.1028 (cited by PO), and Ex. 1031 defines “application program” as
`
`“[s]oftware that enables a computer to perform a set of related tasks for a specific
`
`purpose...” Ex.2014, 124:1-13; Ex.1031. Indeed, Dr. Myers testimony is
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`consistent with his opinion (cited by PO) that “application” is “a program, or group
`
`of programs working together, designed to provide access to functions and data.”
`
`Ex.1038 ¶¶6-7 (citing Ex.1003¶32; Ex.1001, 1:343-51, 2:34-36, 3:17-33, Fig. 1;
`
`Ex.1028, 5; Ex.1031, 4, 5; Ex.1029, 1:40-47); Ex.2014, 125:22-126:22; Ex.2012,
`
`17:2-20. Nor does this testimony show construction of this term is necessary, or
`
`how PO’s construction is relevant to any issue in this case. Reply, 1.
`
`Dated: November 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /J. Steven Baughman/
` J. Steven Baughman (lead counsel)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-01899
`Patent 8,713,476
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BRAD MYERS was served on November 29,
`
`2016, to the following Counsel for Patent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’
`
`agreement concerning service:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905) (Lead Counsel)
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137) (Backup counsel)
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
`
`Alan A. Wright (Reg. No. 40,438) (Backup counsel)
`Email: awright@dbjg.com
`
` / Ginny Blundell /
`Ginny Blundell
`Ropes & Gray LLP
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
