trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984, Paper No. 39
`IPR2015-01985, Paper No. 40
`January 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: December 14, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN
`W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`December 14, 2016, commencing at 3:32 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984, Paper No. 39
`IPR2015-01985, Paper No. 40
`January 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: December 14, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and KEVIN
`W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`December 14, 2016, commencing at 3:32 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`NICHOLAS A. BROWN, ESQUIRE
`HERBERT H. FINN, ESQUIRE
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`
`Four Embarcadero Center
`
`Suite 3000
`
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
`WALTER D. DAVIS, Jr., ESQUIRE
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHERRY: Good afternoon. This is the
`consolidated hearing in IPRs 2015-1984 and 1985, LG
`Electronics Inc versus Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`Counsel, will you please make your appearances.
`MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick
`Brown and with me is Herb Finn both from Greenberg Traurig on
`behalf of LG.
`MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Wayne
`Helge and Walter Davis here for the patent owner.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm
`Judge Cherry. And with me are Judges Lee and McKone. Judge
`McKone, as you know, is in our Midwest regional office in
`Detroit and is appearing remotely. So please speak into the
`microphone, as I am being reminded, so that he can hear us.
`LG, you may begin.
`MR. BROWN: Thank you, Your Honor. I have copies,
`hard copies of the demonstratives. Would you like me to bring
`them forward?
`JUDGE CHERRY: Yes, please.
`MR. BROWN: May it please the Board, the challenged
`patents in this case, the '020 and '476 patents, describe an
`improvement to a user interface. You can see that's on slide 2, an
`improved user interface is in the title of both of the patents. You
`can see on slide 3 the field of the invention explains that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`invention is about an improved user interface. You can see in the
`description of the prior art that the problem being addressed is a
`user interface problem, how to allow the use to navigate quickly
`and efficiently to access data and activate a desired function.
`And you can see on slide 5 in the abstract that the solution
`described is a user interface solution. The present invention
`offers a snapshot view which brings together in one summary
`window a limited list of common functions and commonly
`accessed stored data.
`So we are talking here about a user interface patent.
`The patents are not about what is under the hood. They don't
`provide any specifics about how the user interface improvement
`that they describe should be implemented. They don't describe
`any improvement to software architecture. They don't describe
`any improvement to any hardware. To the contrary, what the
`patents say is that the claimed user interface improvement can be
`implemented in, quote, any computing environment.
`If you look at slide 6, we have relied on the Blanchard
`reference. Figure 2 of the Blanchard reference is on the screen.
`You can see that the Blanchard reference describes the user
`interface for a phone with a small screen. And in particular, on
`the next slide, slide 7, Blanchard describes a specific menu
`structure to be used on a small screen device and it explains that it
`is describing this menu structure to provide flexibility and
`efficiency in navigating through the phone. Blanchard, like the
`'020 and '476 patents, is not about what is under the hood. It
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`specifically states that it makes no attempt to describe the
`software that is used to implement the user interface in a
`particular menu structure that is shown.
`The user interface that Blanchard describes, I'm now on
`slide 8, is virtually identical to the user interface that's described
`in the '020 patents. In both Blanchard and the '020 patent, the
`user begins in a main menu of icons where the icons represent
`applications available on the phone. For example, in the '020
`patent, you have an envelope that represents the messages
`application. In Blanchard, you have a mailbox that represents the
`mailbox application.
`In both Blanchard and the '020 patent, I'm now on the
`next slide, the next step from the main menu is to access a
`summary window that collects in one quickly accessible place
`commonly used functions and data from the application. You can
`see on the left, the '020 patent, this window drops down from the
`messages application icon. You can see on the right in Blanchard
`it's exactly the same thing. The window appears immediately
`beneath the mailbox icon when the mailbox icon is selected.
`Now, patent owner's response to this overwhelming
`similarity between these two user interfaces is to go under the
`hood of the user interface and to argue about what the term
`"application" means. They have focused their attention on the
`single word, "application" and they are arguing that an
`application must first be something which is separate and distinct
`from an operating system and be implemented on top of an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`operating system layer and second, that there be the capability for
`multithreading, in other words, multiple simultaneous threads of
`execution. And they are reading both of these requirements into
`this single word, "application." And their argument is that when
`application is construed in this narrow way, Blanchard does not
`have applications.
`Now, patent owner is wrong for three reasons. First of
`all, their construction of application is unjustifiably narrow.
`Second, even under their improperly narrow construction,
`Blanchard still renders obvious the claimed user interface. As I
`mentioned, Blanchard is silent on the implementation of the
`software behind the user interface. It says it can be implemented
`with known programming techniques. Their expert has now
`admitted that the particular architecture that they claim is
`required, this OS application architecture, was known to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art. And in fact, the '020 patent itself
`shows that that is true, that the particular architecture that they are
`arguing is required by the term "application," that that was
`already known.
`When you put those two things together, as our expert
`testified from the beginning, it is clear that it is obvious, it would
`have been obvious to implement Blanchard using this application
`OS architecture.
`Third, the patent owner has already repeatedly admitted,
`both in its preliminary response in this IPR and repeatedly in the
`litigation which went on for years, that Blanchard contained
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`applications. And they should not be permitted to reverse
`position now and to take a completely contrary position.
`So I would like to begin with how Blanchard discloses
`applications under the broadest reasonable construction of
`application. As you can see, I'm now on slide 11. As I already
`mentioned, in both Blanchard and the '020 patent, you start in a
`menu with icons which represent applications available on the
`phone. Now, Blanchard doesn't use the specific word
`"application." What Blanchard does, and you can see I'm now on
`slide 12, Blanchard discloses a program memory 112. And what
`Blanchard says, and I'm now on slide 13, Blanchard says that
`there are -- that the terminal includes a program memory 112
`which provides instructions, and it explains those instructions are
`for controlling the various operating features and functions
`originating at the terminal. It then emphasizes later in this
`passage that there is a data memory utilized for storing and
`accessing data associated with, and here is the critical part,
`performing the various functions and features programmed in the
`program memory. So what it's telling you is it contains programs
`for performing functions.
`Now, when we look at the ordinary definitions, these
`are, I have put up on the screen on slide 14, citations from the
`IEEE dictionary that we cited in our papers. And if you look at
`these definitions, you can see that what they say an application is,
`is one of them is a computer program that performs some desired
`function. That's exactly what Blanchard discloses, a definition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`for a software program consisting of one or more processes and
`supporting functions.
`On the next slide, slide 15, software designed to fulfill
`specific needs of a user. Again, I would submit that Blanchard's
`disclosure, even though it is sparse on this topic, because it's
`about the user interface and not about what is under the hood, it
`meets the definition set forth in this IEEE dictionary.
`So let's talk about patent owner's construction. I have
`put up on slide 17 the two critical components that appear to be
`part of their definition. We didn't find in their brief a specific
`place where they set forth exactly what they were saying the
`definition was. But as best we can tell, the application under their
`position must be implemented on top of an operating system and
`it must permit multiple threads of execution. And those citations
`are on slide 17.
`So talking first about the operating system, this attempt
`to argue that an application must be running on top of a separate
`operating system is inconsistent with the disclosure of the patent
`itself. You can see on slide 18 that what the patent says is that a
`computer program is provided to enable the device to operate in
`accordance with the above aspects of the invention. In other
`words, there's some program which presents the menu and which
`presents the application summary window which is the
`supposedly inventive part of this patent. It then goes on to say
`the program may be an operating system. That is not saying that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`the menu has to be provided by a separate operating system. It's
`saying that it may be provided by it.
`Similarly, I'm now on slide 20, if you look at claims 16
`and 17, in claim 16, you have a claim which requires computer-
`readable code which when running on the computer performs
`steps which are essentially identical to the claims that are at issue
`in this case, in other words, present the application summary
`window, et cetera. Claim 17, which is a dependent claim,
`requires that computer-readable code comprises an operating
`system.
`
`So again, you can see that the operating system is
`optional. It is not a requirement. And so to try to read this
`optional -- something that's described as optional in the
`specification and something that is described as optional in a
`dependent claim into every single claim through the term
`"application" is clearly incorrect, not to mention the fact that they
`knew what an operating system was, they knew how to set it forth
`and they used the word "application" instead.
`Third, I would point out that none of the IEEE
`dictionary definitions that we looked at required an operating
`system or required multithreading. They simply said it's a
`program that performs a function.
`Fourth and perhaps most importantly, as I emphasized
`at the beginning, these are user interface patents. They are not
`patents about the software architecture that underlies that user
`interface. And patent owner's argument is attempting to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`transform what they disclose, this user interface invention, into
`something about a software architecture improvement which is
`not described and can't possibly be what they have claimed.
`With respect to multithreading, I'm now on slide 21,
`their argument on multithreading, as I understand it, is based
`entirely on this passage which is set forth on slide 21. And in this
`passage, the '020 patent, and there's the same passage in the '476
`patent, describes a further possible feature. And it goes on to talk
`about how you may have a previously or currently open calendar
`application and how you may then invoke the summary window
`after having been in a previously or currently open calendar
`application.
`As I understand the argument, in this further possible
`feature, if there was a currently open calendar application and
`then you invoked an application summary window on top of that,
`according to them, that would require multithreading, and that's
`the basis for their argument that the term "application" requires
`multithreading.
`So that argument is wrong for multiple reasons. First of
`all, this is a further possible feature. Reading into the term
`"application" in the claim on the basis of a paragraph in the
`specification that's described as a further possible feature is
`improper.
`Second of all, as Dr. Rhyne has explained, the technical
`basis of their argument is incorrect. And in particular, this is a
`cite from paragraph 35. I apologize for the error on my slides.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`It's paragraph 35 of Dr. Rhyne's reply declaration, and he says a
`single threaded processor could display a snapshot on top of a
`window from an open but currently suspended calendar
`application. So not only is it legally impermissible to import this
`limitation, it's technically incorrect.
`The next point that I would like to make, and I'm now
`on slide 23, is that the Blanchard reference renderers obvious the
`claimed improvement to a user interface even under the
`improperly narrow construction that they have argued for.
`Blanchard explains, and I have put a portion of Blanchard on the
`screen here, it's from column 5, that the known telephone systems
`utilize a variety of hardware and programming techniques and no
`attempt is made to describe the details of the program used to
`control the telephone terminal. Instead, it goes on to explain that
`the invention it describes, the user interface improvement must be
`blended into the overall structure of the system in which it is used
`and tailored to mesh with other features and operations of the
`system.
`
`It is, I believe, undisputed from that -- that passage
`means that Blanchard is intentionally silent about the software
`that is used to implement the user interface that it describes. Dr.
`Rhyne explained that from this intentional silence, and this is
`paragraph 9 in his reply declaration, a person of ordinary skill
`would recognize from this that Blanchard's user interface could
`be implemented using known hardware and programming
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`techniques, which as of July 2000 included applications layered
`on top of an operating system.
`Mr. Denning, I'm now on slide 25, this is patent owner's
`expert, he has now admitted that that application operating
`system architecture was known prior to the filing of the '020
`patent. I asked him, and this is page 55, lines 2 to 7, prior to the
`filing of the '020 patent, were both of those options known to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art for use in a mobile telephone.
`And he said yes. As you can see from the previous answer which
`I have included there, the options that he was referring to are the
`application operating system architecture that is supposedly
`required and the monolithic architecture that under patent owner's
`argument is what Blanchard describes.
`So it is now conceded that the application operating
`system architecture was known to a person of skill in the art for
`use in a mobile telephone. When you combine that with
`Blanchard's intentional silence on the point, it is clear from not
`just Dr. Rhyne's testimony, but also from Mr. Denning's
`testimony that it would be obvious to implement Blanchard using
`that known architecture.
`On top of that, the '020 patent itself confirms that it was
`known prior to the filing to use this application OS architecture. I
`have already shown you that it describes the use of an operating
`system. Here on slide 26, there's a portion of the description of
`the prior art in the '020 patent. And in the middle of the passage
`on the screen it refers to a mobile telephone that includes several
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`different applications, e.g., a message application, contacts,
`address book application, a calendar application and a telephone
`application. So what the '020 patent is admitting was known in
`the prior art was the use of applications on a mobile telephone.
`What this means is that even under their limited construction,
`Blanchard renders obvious the challenged claims.
`I would also like to just briefly point out here, as we
`explained in our reply, that it is now undisputed that Blanchard
`operates in the same way as the '020 patent with respect to all of
`the explicit claim limitations. So if I can go back to slide 10,
`which has claim 1 of the '020 patent, it requires in particular that
`the application summary window displays a limited list of at least
`one function offered within the first application, and then each
`function in the list means selectable to launch the first application
`and wherein the application summary window is displayed while
`the application is in an unlaunched state.
`So I asked Mr. Denning about these issues, and Mr.
`Denning conceded that when the user is navigating through the
`menus in Blanchard, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the code for the menus was running. And he
`conceded that when you selected an option from the menu, what
`would happen is there would be a call to the code that performed
`the function associated with the option that was selected. And
`then when you selected it, that is the point where that code would
`begin running. So Mr. Denning has now conceded that
`functionally what is going on here is exactly the same thing in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`Blanchard and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that.
`I would like to turn now to the third reason to reject
`patent owner's position on applications. And that is, as I said
`before, they have already repeatedly conceded that what
`Blanchard shows are applications. So here on slide 27 I have put
`up citations from their preliminary response where they expressly
`say that there are applications listed on the menu, i.e., phone
`book, mailbox, lock and tool applications. There are several
`other quotes. On slide 27 there's another one. There are several
`more on 28.
`As the Board may recall, the argument at the time was
`not that Blanchard didn't have applications. It was that Blanchard
`didn't have an application summary window because an
`application summary window needed to be an alternative means
`of accessing the application. The Board preliminarily rejected
`that argument in the institution. That argument has been
`abandoned and it's been deemed waived under the orders that
`were mentioned in the hearing earlier this afternoon. And they
`have pivoted their argument to argue now that there are no
`applications.
`Not only did they make those admissions in this IPR,
`they made the same admissions in the litigation. So here we have
`citations from their posttrial briefing in the Eastern District of
`Texas where they explained that the menus displayed in
`Blanchard do not summarize the application. They represent the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`actual application itself. And they talk about how when you are
`navigating the options disclosed in Blanchard, you are navigating
`within the application itself. So these admissions were not just in
`this IPR. They were also in litigation. And they should not be
`allowed to reverse position now and claim that these things are
`not applications.
`I'm also going to very briefly mention the Oommen
`reference. The Oommen reference is not something that we
`relied upon in our petition. The Oommen reference was a piece
`of evidence that was introduced by the patent owner in its reply in
`an attempt to argue that what Blanchard contained was
`monolithic software as opposed to software with an application
`operating system architecture. And I have put up slide 31 which
`summarizes in a way the disclosure in Oommen. So Oommen
`talks about the prior art. Oommen, by the way, is prior art to the
`'020 and '476 patents.
`And Oommen explains that on the left here in Figure 1,
`that's a monolithic structure, and on the right is a different
`structure. And what Oommen explains is it's desirable not to use
`the monolithic structure. It's desirable to use the structure, where,
`for example, the e-mail service object which is e-mail program
`version 1.4, it's also -- clearly that is an application. So going
`back to slide 31, it's desirable to separate the code that provides
`the particular functions from the dynamic agent operating
`program because that way you can separately update each of what
`Oommen calls objects, which are applications. So what Oommen
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`is teaching you is not only was it known to have an application
`operating system architecture, it was desirable to use that instead
`of the monolithic structure that, according to patent owner, is
`what is taught in Blanchard.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Is Oommen, it's not incorporated
`by reference or cited in the '020 or '476 patents, right?
`MR. BROWN: No, Your Honor. As far as I know, it
`was found independently by the patent owner and brought into
`the record that way.
`Unless there are questions on application, I'm now
`going to shift gears and talk about their two other arguments.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I had just one question about the
`Ericsson stuff. I know that there is a motion to exclude, but if we
`adopt petitioner's construction of application, is there any need to
`consider the Ericsson evidence? Is that evidence just related to
`application?
`MR. BROWN: I believe it is, Your Honor. I think you
`can and should find for LG without considering the Ericsson
`evidence. The Ericsson evidence demonstrates that the
`statements made by their expert in his declaration are incorrect.
`It corroborates the testimony of Dr. Rhyne. It corroborates the
`testimony I've just given because it provides an example of a
`phone that was known at the time that had an operating system.
`But I don't think it's necessary given all of the other evidence.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`MR. BROWN: So the next argument that they have
`presented, and really there are only at this point two other
`arguments, the arguments are reach directly and limited list. So
`I'm going to talk first about reach directly. So again, as I
`mentioned, the user interface in the -- and actually, let me go
`back and make sure I'm clear about what I'm talking about.
`So the claim requires that the application summary
`window be reached directly from the main menu. And so when
`you look at the '020 patent and in Blanchard, here on slide 43, in
`both of them there is the main menu, which contains the icons
`that represent the applications. And in both of them, what
`happens is when you select one of those icons, a menu then
`appears from that icon. That menu is the application summary
`window. I have now gone on to slide 44.
`Now, our position is that's plainly reached directly from
`the main menu. You select an icon in the main menu and it
`responds to selection of the icon in the main menu. The
`application summary window appears. There is no intervening
`step. It's directly from the selection of the corresponding icon in
`the main menu.
`As I understand the argument that they are making
`about Blanchard, and I'm going to -- I have turned now to slide 46
`which shows Blanchard's Figure 3. As I understand it, their
`argument is that if you were going, for example, from screen 210,
`which is in the far left, to screen, we'll say, screen 340, the
`security screen, that you have to click through screens 320 and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`330. And that's certainly true because as you are moving right in
`the menu, you are in 210, you have highlighted the home icon in
`the main menu and then you highlight the phone book icon and
`then you highlight the mailbox icon and then you highlight the
`security icon. As I understand their argument, that process of
`clicking through those screens is an intervening step. The reason
`that's not correct, Your Honor, is you are within the main menu.
`The action you are taking is moving through the main menu. It is
`when you get to screen 40 and you are in the main menu with the
`security icons selected that you are reaching the security
`application summary window.
`With limited list, so now I'm on slide 47, the claim
`requires the application summary window to display a limited list
`of at least one function offered within the first application. I don't
`believe any party has offered a construction of limited list, but I
`can explain to you simply why -- there are at least two reasons
`why this limitation is clearly met in Blanchard. If you look, and I
`have gone to slide 48, if you look at the phone book application
`summary window, which is screen 320, it's the first one you
`would get to as you hit right from the original home screen, there
`are three functions available within that phone book summary
`window. Those functions are view all, recall entry and add entry.
`And we know from Blanchard that that must be a limited list of
`the functions within the phone book because you can see on
`screen 323 that there are other options also available within the
`phone book, edit entry and delete entry. So simply right there
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`you can see that the functions available in screen 320 are a
`limited list of the functions within the phone book.
`Now, as I understand patent owner's argument, what
`they are saying is really screen 323 and screen 320 are actually
`part of the same application summary window and therefore, you
`can't reach the conclusion that we have reached. That, Your
`Honor, is plainly incorrect under the ordinary meaning of
`window. There is no ordinary meaning of window. They are two
`completely separate screens. 320 and 323, are the same
`application summary window.
`But even if you were to conclude that those two distinct
`and separate screens were the same window, Blanchard still
`discloses a limited list. So if I go back to Figure 3 and we focus
`on slide 46 which is Blanchard's Figure 3, if you focus on the
`mailbox application, screen 330, you can see that there are three
`options presented there: Voice message, text message and call
`logs. And you can infer from screen 331 where you can now see
`that there are seven text messages available, you can infer from
`that that what this function does is it shows you your available
`text messages.
`Now, their expert has conceded that even though it's not
`shown in any screen in Blanchard, the phone of Blanchard was
`capable of sending text messages. Not just receiving them. But
`that function, the function of sending text messages is nowhere
`illustrated and nowhere discussed in Blanchard. But it is
`conceded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`that the phone could send text messages. So you know that there
`is another function available which is not on this list.
`I think with that --
`JUDGE CHERRY: You say that that the function
`would be compose text message or send text message?
`MR. BROWN: Yes. It would be something like that.
`Again, I don't remember the exact phrasing of their expert's
`admission. I believe it's in our papers, but he admitted that the
`capability would be there. And Dr. Rhyne has certainly
`explained the same thing and has explained why that would
`satisfy the claims.
`So again, unless there are further questions, I will
`reserve the rest of my time.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I did want to get in the '476 patent,
`in terms of the limited list of data, could you address that for a
`moment.
`MR. BROWN: Certainly. So I have put up slide 46
`which has Figure 3. So the simplest place to see the limited list
`of data, Your Honor, is in the mailbox application. So you can
`see that two of the functions there contain data, the number of
`voice messages and the number of text messages available. And
`it's our position that those options, voice message 00 and text
`message 00 and then in the next screen voice message 00, text
`message 07, that those options represent both functions and data
`because it's clear that when you select that option, at least when
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01984 (Patent 8,434,020 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01985 (Patent 8,713,476 B2)
`you select the text message 07 option, you are going to be shown
`the data that is being described there, the seven text messages.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I guess my question, though, is I
`know they made this argument about the limited list. Could you
`explain how that list of data is limited.
`MR. BROWN: Well, for example, it's not
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
