`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 40
`Filed: March 15, 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
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,434,020 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’020 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or
`“Pet.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined that the Petition
`showed a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16, and we instituted
`an inter partes review of these claims on certain asserted grounds of
`unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper
`21 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`Paper 23 (“Reply”). An oral hearing was held on December 14, 2016,
`pursuant to requests by both parties. Paper 39 (“Tr.”); see Papers 27, 28, 32.
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner
`has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10,
`11, 13, and 16 of the ’020 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’020 patent is involved
`in, at least, the following lawsuits: Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.), Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex.), and Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.).
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2. Petitioner indicates that the cases involving Apple, Inc.
`are being transferred to the Northern District of California. Pet. 1. The ’020
`patent is also the subject of IPR2015-01898. Paper 5, 2. A related patent,
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476, is at issue in IPR2015-01899 and IPR2015-
`01985. Patent Owner also indicates that pending U.S. Application
`No. 13/860,143 is a continuation of the application that issued as the ’020
`patent. Paper 5, 1.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`B. THE ’020 PATENT
`The ’020 patent relates to a computing device with an improved user
`interface for applications. Ex. 1001, 1:14–15. The ’020 patent describes a
`“snap-shot” view of an application that brings together, in one summary
`window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored
`data. Id. at 2:26–30. Preferably, where the summary window for a given
`application shows data or a function of interest, the user can select that data
`or function directly, which causes the application to open and the user to be
`presented with a screen in which the data or function of interest is
`prominent. Id. at 2:31–35. The ’020 patent explains that this summary
`window functionality saves the user from navigating to the required
`application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to
`enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.
`Id. at 2:35–39. Figure 2 of the ’020 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an implementation of the summary window (at 3) of the
`’020 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:31–32.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Claim 1, a device claim, and claim 16, a computer program product
`claim, are the only independent claims of the ’020 patent. The remaining
`challenged claims, claims 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 13, all depend, directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter in this
`proceeding, and is reproduced below (formatting added).
`1. A computing device comprising a display
`screen,
`the computing device being configured to display
`on the screen a main menu listing at least a
`first application, and
`additionally being configured to display on the
`screen an application summary window that
`can be reached directly from the main menu,
`wherein the application summary window displays
`a limited list of at least one function offered
`within the first application,
`each function in the list being selectable to launch
`the first application and initiate the selected
`function, and
`is
`wherein
`the application summary window
`displayed while
`the application
`is
`in an
`unlaunched state.
`
`Id. at 5:42–63.
`
`D. INSTITUTED GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`We instituted an inter partes review of the ’020 patent on the ground
`that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Blanchard (Ex. 1002, U.S. Patent
`No. 6,415,164 B1, issued July 2, 2002, filed March 17, 1999).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`We interpret claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we presume
`that a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption may be overcome by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms which are in
`controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “limited list”
`Neither party proposes a construction for this phrase. However,
`Patent Owner contends that this phrase “requires that any functions shown in
`the ‘limited list’ are fewer than all the functions available in an application.”
`PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner relies on the following testimony of Petitioner’s
`declarant, Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III, at his first deposition in this
`proceeding:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2002, 49:8–15. Dr. Rhyne reiterated this understanding at his second
`deposition. See Ex. 2011, 85:14–22 (“I thought everybody had interpreted
`the limited list of functions to mean that you wouldn’t have all of the
`functions that were available in that one window for some application.”).
`Petitioner accepts this construction in its Reply. See Reply 22–25
`
`(discussing why Blanchard’s application summary window includes fewer
`than all functions).
`
`We agree with the parties that the phrase “limited list” requires that
`any functions shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions
`available in an application. We conclude that this construction is consistent
`with the language of claims 1 and 16. Moreover, it is consistent with the
`Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“a limited list of common
`functions and commonly accessed stored data”); 2:66–3:2 (“Once the
`summary window is launched, core data/functionality is displayed . . . .”);
`3:27–30 (“The App Snapshot for any given application is a window which
`includes commonly requested data associated with that application and links
`to common functionality in that application.”); 3:31–35 (“The App Snapshot
`. . . includes the number of new messages (‘0’) and links to the two most
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`common functions (as defined by the system designer, or selected by the
`user, or learned by the device) . . . .”).
`
`Thus, we construe “limited list” as requiring that any functions shown
`in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions available in an
`application.
`
`2. Remaining Terms
`We determine that no construction is necessary for any other term at
`
`this time.
`
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, AND 16 OVER
`BLANCHARD
`
`
`
`The sole instituted ground alleges that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13,
`and 16 of the ’020 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Blanchard.
`Pet. 14–23; Inst. Dec. 7–15.
`1. Blanchard (Ex. 1002)
`Blanchard, titled “Arrangement for Dynamic Allocation of Space on a
`Small Display of a Telephone Terminal,” discloses a telephone terminal
`configurable for accessing features available on the terminal through an
`interactive display arrangement. Ex. 1002, 1:11–14. In particular,
`Blanchard describes a user-interface for a mobile telephone, which is based
`on a “parent menu,” and has a window with selectable sub-level menu
`choices for each of the five options in the “parent menu.” Id. at 3:54–63.
`Figure 3 of Blanchard provides a display screen flow diagram and is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates the various display screens of one embodiment of
`Blanchard.
`
`The top row of Figure 3 illustrates the top level of the menu in five
`parent screens 210, 320, 330, 340, and 350. Id. at 5:39–41. Each of the five
`screens corresponds to one of the five options in the “parent menu,” which is
`the row of icons containing “[t]he Icon Home symbol 213, the Icon Phone
`Book symbol 214, the Icon Mailbox symbol 215, the Icon Lock symbol
`216[,] and the Icon Tools symbol.” Id. at 3:54–63. The user presses the
`“Left” or “Right” arrow keys to cycle through these screens. Id. at 5:39–46.
`In the leftmost screen, which is displayed when the “Home” symbol is
`selected in the parent menu, the window below that menu provides the name
`of the cellular service provider, the time and date, and two “selectable menu
`choices”: “Last Number” and “View Own Number.” Id. at 6:47–64.
`Similarly, in the middle screen, which is displayed when the “Mailbox”
`symbol is selected in the parent menu, the window provides three selectable
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`menu choices, which are used to access “voice messages, text messages, and
`call logs,” respectively. Id. at 3:67–4:3. In each screen, “the Up and Down
`arrow keys 222 and 224 can be used to move the darkened elliptical cursor.”
`Id. at 6:7–15. The darkened elliptical cursor identifies the function in the
`sub-level menu that will be activated if the user presses “Select.” Id. at
`6:42–44.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner identifies Figure 3 of Blanchard as disclosing the “main
`menu” and “application summary window that can be reached directly from
`the main menu,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 14–15. For the “main menu,”
`Petitioner relies on “parent menu” of Blanchard, which includes icons for
`what Petitioner characterizes as “applications.” Id. at 14. The icons that
`Petitioner specifically identifies as “applications” include “Home,” “Phone
`Book,” “Mailbox,” “Security,” and “Tools.” Id. As for the “application
`summary window,” Petitioner identifies the “window with selectable sub-
`level choices” for each application icon in the main menu, e.g., Windows
`210, 211 for “Home” and Windows 320–324 for “Phone Book.” Id. at 15
`(citing Ex. 1002, 4:17–34).
`Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the application summary
`window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first
`application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first
`application and initiate the selected function.” Ex. 1001, 5:38–41. Claim 16
`has a similar limitation. Id. at 6:27–30. In the Petition, Petitioner submitted
`that “[e]ach ‘window with selectable sub-level menu choices’ in Blanchard
`displays a limited list of functions offered within the application
`corresponding to the highlighted main menu icon, and each listed function is
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`selectable to launch the application and initiate the selected function.”
`Pet. 15–16. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “when the ‘Home’ icon . . .
`is highlighted, the functions ‘Last Number’ and ‘View Own Number’ are
`displayed.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:36–42). Petitioner also identifies
`the “Mailbox” and “Phone Book” windows as showing such a list. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:15–18, 3:67–4:3, 6:7–15).
`Patent Owner argues, however, that none of this discussion in the
`Petition identifies or explains how Blanchard discloses a “limited list” of the
`functions available within each application. PO Resp. 44–48. Patent Owner
`submits, and Petitioner’s expert agreed, that the term “limited list” requires
`that any functions shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions
`available in an application. Id. at 45 (quoting Ex. 2002, 49:8–15). Patent
`Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing on this
`element because there is no evidence of functions beyond the sub-menus
`shown in Figure 3 of Blanchard. Id. Patent Owner contends that
`Dr. Rhyne’s declaration contains only conclusory assertions that this
`limitation is accounted for by Blanchard, but has no analysis or evidence to
`support this contention. Id. at 46–47. Instead, Patent Owner submits, the
`weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Figure 3 of Blanchard
`does not show a limited list of functions, but rather shows all of the features.
`Id. at 48.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that
`Blanchard accounts for the requirement that the application summary
`window (or summary window of claim 16) display “a limited list of at least
`one function offered within the first application.” As we explained above in
`Section II.A.1, this phrase requires that the list of functions displayed in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`application summary window be fewer than all of the functions offered
`within each respective application. We agree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner has provided no evidence that the applications shown in the menu
`of Figure 3 of Blanchard, which Petitioner relies on as disclosing the
`“application summary window,” offer any functions other than the functions
`shown. Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade us otherwise.
`To begin with, the Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration only contain
`conclusory assertions that Blanchard accounts for the “limited list.” See
`Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43–45. There is no explanation in either the
`Petition or Dr. Rhyne’s declaration why the functions “Last Number” and
`“View Own Number” under the “Home” icon or the functions listed under
`the “Mailbox” or “Phone Book” icons are a limited list. See id. Indeed, the
`Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration are completely silent about what other
`functions are offered by the applications corresponding to the “Home” icon,
`the “Mailbox” icon, or the “Phone Book” icon Moreover, the Petition’s
`passing assertion that the “Home” icon is the “telephone application” has no
`support in the cited portion of Blanchard. See Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002,
`6:36–42). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Rhyne provides any other explanation
`or support for this assertion that “Home” icon is the “telephone application.”
`Thus, we decline to infer from Petitioner’s attempt to rename the “Home”
`screen that the application corresponding to the “Home” icon has any other
`functions associated with it.
`In the Reply, Petitioner offers several theories for why Blanchard
`accounts for this limitation. Reply 22–24. None of them are persuasive.
`First, Petitioner argues that “the phone in Blanchard does have functions that
`are not listed in the menus in Fig. 3.” Reply 23. Petitioner contends that
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Scott A. Denning, admitted that a person of ordinary
`skill would have understood that the phone described in Blanchard included
`the ability to make a call and send a text message. Id. (citing Ex. 1016,
`15:3–19, 14:4–7, 13:11–15). However, this contention ignores the claim
`language. It is not enough that the device offer other functions. The
`“limited list” must be of functions “offered within the first application.”
`Petitioner provides no evidence or argument tying the allegedly missing
`functions to any particular application or any particular application summary
`window. The testimony cited of Mr. Denning does nothing to remedy this
`failure. Instead, this testimony, at best, suggests that there may be some
`functions offered by the telephone terminal of Blanchard that are not
`accessed through the menu shown in Figure 3. But this testimony does not
`establish that these functions are “offered within” any of the applications
`identified within the Petition. Petitioner’s argument simply asks us to
`speculate about what Blanchard does and where those functions are offered.
`But speculation cannot carry Petitioner’s burden of proof. See In re
`Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Board’s language that
`limitation was “probably satisfied” by prior art “is speculative and therefore
`does not establish a prima facie case of unpatentability.”).
`Second, Petitioner argues that several of the applications identified in
`Figure 3 “have more selectable options than can fit [into] a single summary
`window.” Reply 23. Petitioner submits that “screen 320 [of Figure 3 of
`Blanchard] shows three options in the application summary window for
`Phone Book, and screen 323 shows two different options.” Id. Petitioner
`contends that “[t]his shows that the ‘limited list’ limitation is satisfied: the
`two options shown in screen 323 are not displayed in the application
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`summary window shown in screen 320.” Id. Petitioner asserts that Patent
`Owner’s understanding of screens 320 and 323 as a single application
`summary window requires an “unnatural reading of ‘window.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 55–57). Patent Owner and its expert contend that screens 320–
`324 together constitute a single summary window for the Phone Book
`application because there is no logical separation in the window. PO
`Resp. 47; Ex. 2001 ¶ 54.
`Here, Petitioner has not shown that the screens 320–324 of “Phone
`Book” are separate “windows” or that the screens of “Security” are separate
`“windows.” As an initial matter, this theory was never articulated in the
`Petition and appears to be inconsistent with the Petition’s treatment of
`screens 320–324 as one application summary window. See Pet. 16
`(discussing the “selection of menu choices in the ‘Phone Book’ window”)
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:7–15 (“Up and Down arrow keys 222 and 224 can be
`used to move the darkened elliptical cursor to any of the Phone Book
`features as shown in screens 320 through 323 . . . .”)). Indeed, the Petition
`does not even identify the “Security” screens as showing the limited list.
`See id.
`Moreover, the only evidence provided to support Petitioner’s Reply
`interpretation is Dr. Rhyne’s second declaration. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 55–59. His
`testimony merely states his opinion that these screens 320 and 323 are not
`the same window. Id. ¶ 59. But he offers no reasoning for this conclusion
`besides the fact that the screens display different content and, thus, we give
`his testimony little weight on this point. However, Mr. Denning has offered
`an opinion that screens 320 and 323 are the same window, reasoning that
`“[w]hile some of the screens of Blanchard are too small to display the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`complete list of selectable options, this is due to the relative size of the list
`and the display.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 54. We find Mr. Denning’s testimony to be
`reasoned and persuasive. It is consistent with Blanchard description of
`screens 320 to 324 as a single list of features that can be accessed using Up
`and Down arrow keys 222 and 224 to move the darkened elliptical cursor to
`any of the of the Phone Book features shown in screens 320 through 323.
`Ex. 1002, 6:11–14 Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that this theory of
`multiple screens being different summary windows is not persuasive and,
`accordingly, that Petitioner has not shown this limitation.
`Finally, Petitioner submits that Patent Owner “mischaracterizes
`Blanchard by asserting that ‘the features of Blanchard’s Fig. 3’ are ‘all of the
`features of the telephone terminal’ and citing to ‘Blanchard at 3:21–25.’”
`Reply 24 (quoting PO Resp. 48). Petitioner argues that “Blanchard never
`states that the menus of Fig. 3 represent ‘all of the features’ of the phone.”
`Id. Petitioner asserts that, instead, “Blanchard expressly describes features
`of the phone that are not listed in Figure 3, such as making or ending a call.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 3:39–43).
`Acceptance of this argument would result in misallocation of the
`burden in this proceeding. Patent Owner does not have to prove
`affirmatively that Blanchard has no other functions. Rather, the burden is on
`Petitioner to show that Blanchard accounts for the application summary
`window of the claim. As we explained above, we determine that Petitioner
`has failed to make that showing. Thus, even if Patent Owner
`mischaracterized this one passage of Blanchard, it is not evidence that can
`make up for Petitioner’s failure to meet its required showing. Thus, we find
`that Petitioner has failed to show that Blanchard accounts for the “limited
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`list” requirement of claims 1 and 16. Because this limitation is present in all
`of the claims, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable as
`obvious over Blanchard.
`
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 31),
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion (Paper 33), and Patent Owner’s Reply
`in Support of the Motion (Paper 35). Patent Owner moves to exclude certain
`exhibits and testimony from Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration. In particular,
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1010–1013 and ¶¶ 13–18 of
`Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1015). Paper 31. We did not rely
`on either the testimony to which Patent Owner objects or any of the exhibits
`identified in Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, for this reason, we
`dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons given, based on the arguments and evidence of record,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 16 of the ’020 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Blanchard. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of the ’020 patent
`
`have not been proven unpatentable;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is
`dismissed as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this Decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Herbert Finn
`Richard Harris
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Eric Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@
`harrrisr@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Wayne M. Helge
`Walter D. Davis
`Alan A. Wright
`DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`wdavis@dbjg.com
`awright@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`