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
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Background ....................................................................................................... 7 
`a.  About U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (the “‘020 patent” or “Martyn”) ................. 7 
`b.  The Challenged Claims all Require an “application” and Specifically an
`“application … in an un-launched state” .............................................................. 12 
`c.  Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction Analysis and
`Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the Claim Terms ....................... 16 
`d.  Blanchard is not Directed to Software Architecture, but Only to a Graphical
`User Interface for Accessing Device Features ...................................................... 24 
`III.  Argument ........................................................................................................ 34 
`a.  Blanchard Fails to Disclose or Suggest Each Recited Feature of the
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................................ 34 
`b.  Blanchard Fails to Disclose any “application” ............................................... 34 
`c.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose or Suggest any “application … in an un-
`launched state” ...................................................................................................... 38 
`d.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose a “limited list of at least one function” and
`an “application summary window” ...................................................................... 44 
`e.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose an “application summary window” that is
`“reached directly” from a “main menu” ............................................................... 48 
`f.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose Each Feature of the Challenged Dependent
`Claims ................................................................................................................... 50 
`g.  Dr. Rhyne’s Testimony on the State of the Art as of July 28, 2000 is
`Unreliable and Entitled to Little to No Weight .................................................... 58 
`h.  An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight ......................................................... 64 
`IV.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 66 
`
`
`
`ii 
` 
`
`

`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 .......................................................................... 65
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 16
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 ............................................................................ 65
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 64, 65
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 ........................................... 65
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 17
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 ................................................................................ 65
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) ........................................................... 17
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 17
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 .......................................................................... 65
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 .......................................... 65
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 .................................................................... 65
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 ..................................................................... 65
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 66
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 16
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Scott A. Denning (“Denning”)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, III, dated
`April 28, 2016 (“Rhyne”)
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order on Claim Construction in
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Partial Trial Transcript in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`User Manual for Ericsson R380 dated October 2000
`
`User Manual for Motorola StarTAC 3000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,392,337 to Baals et al. (“Baals”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 to Richard (“Richard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to Oommen (“Oommen”)
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01984
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
` 
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` 
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. challenges claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13,
`
`and 161 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 to Martyn (Ex. 1001 or the “’020 patent”) as
`
`allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to
`
`Blanchard et al. (Ex. 1002 or “Blanchard”) alone. Petitioner supported its
`
`challenges with the Declaration of Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III (“Rhyne” or Ex.
`
`1004). However, the Board should confirm the patentability of these challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard because Blanchard fails to disclose or suggest every feature
`
`of the challenged claims, and Rhyne’s conclusory analysis fails to shore up the
`
`gaps in Blanchard’s disclosure. These deficiencies are explained in depth below,
`
`with support from the Declaration of Scott A. Denning (Ex. 2001 or “Denning”).
`
`The ‘020 patent’s claims are directed generally to a device that is configured
`
`to display a main menu listing at least one unlaunched application. The device is
`
`also configured to display an application summary window that can be reached
`
`directly from the main menu. The ‘020 patent specification describes an
`                                                            
`1 Page 3 of the Petition (“Pet.”) identifies claim 14 rather than claim 16, but the
`
`Petition includes no analysis of claim 14 and the Board did not institute on claim
`
`14.
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`embodiment’s application summary window as a “snap-shot” view of an
`
`application listed in the window that “brings together, in one summary window, a
`
`limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data” associated
`
`with that application. ‘020 patent at 2:26-30. Upon selecting a function or data
`
`from the application summary window, the device launches the corresponding
`
`application. The advantage to this scheme, per the ‘020 patent, is that a user can
`
`directly access and select the common functions or stored data without having to
`
`first launch the application and then navigate through the application’s hierarchies
`
`or layers of menus.
`
`Challenged claim 1 is supported by the detailed disclosure and recites, in
`
`relevant part, a “computing device 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,” and “the application summary
`
`window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state.” ‘020 patent
`
`at 5:33-43. Independent claim 16 is substantially similar, as will be explained
`
`below.
`
`Blanchard’s failures to disclose or suggest all features of the challenged
`
`claims are numerous, but most glaring is Blanchard’s failure to disclose any
`
`application, much less an application that is un-launched. Blanchard generally
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`
`describes a user interface for a telephone terminal. This user interface has a series
`
`of windows with “selectable sub-level menu choices” for each of the five icons
`
`identified in the top row of the disclosed screens. Blanchard at 3:54-63.
`
`Blanchard’s intention is to provide an “arrangement” of “status or header-type
`
`information as well as menu item-type information.” Id., Abstract. However,
`
`Blanchard does not disclose that selecting a sub-menu choice would launch an
`
`application. Rather, Blanchard explains that a user selection just advances the user
`
`to a corresponding “screen display option.” Blanchard 5:2-3. Blanchard is
`
`completely and intentionally silent on the make-up of the software behind the user-
`
`interface and the features selected in that interface. Blanchard specifically never
`
`refers to any of its selectable options as functions or data associated with an
`
`“application,” and in fact never discloses or suggests the concept of an
`
`“application” as recited in the challenged claims. Rather, Blanchard lumps all
`
`software into a set of monolithic “instructions” to control the terminals’ features
`
`and functions; this software does not disclose or suggest the concept of
`
`“applications.”
`
`Moreover, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Rhyne provided any analysis to support
`
`their argument that Blanchard discloses or suggests “applications.” This gap in the
`
`Petition is noteworthy because Blanchard expressly discloses that “no attempt is
`
`made to describe the details of the program used to control the telephone terminal.”
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`
`Blanchard at 5:15-16. Further, Blanchard explains that the “invention must be
`
`blended into the overall structure of the system in which it is used and must be
`
`tailored to mesh with other features and operations of the system.” Id. at 5:17-20.
`
`By these disclosures, Blanchard makes clear that it is not directed to the “details of
`
`the program used to control the telephone terminal;” had Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne
`
`conducted a thorough analysis of Blanchard, they would have realized that
`
`Blanchard is directed to an entirely different subject matter from the ‘020 patent.
`
`Further, a complete analysis of Blanchard must explain its invention can be
`
`“blended into the overall structure of the system in which it is used and must be
`
`tailored to mesh with other features and operations of the system.” Id. Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Rhyne never provided this necessary analysis. Instead, Dr. Rhyne
`
`assumed, erroneously and without basis, that Blanchard discloses “applications,”
`
`and reached this conclusion while simultaneously opining that Blanchard’s
`
`“instructions” would not include an operating system:
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 2002 at 90:2-14.
`
`Both Petitioner and Rhyne draw unsupported conclusions that Blanchard’s
`
`menu screens and icons correspond to different applications, even though
`
`Blanchard expressly disclaims any disclosure of a software structure. As Rhyne
`
`testified at deposition, his conclusion is based on Blanchard’s arrangement of icons
`
`on the screens. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 at 97:8-98:11. Further, while Petitioner
`
`concedes that “Blanchard does not discuss the concept of an application being in
`
`an ‘un-launched’ state using those words,” Petitioner disregards that Blanchard
`
`fails to disclose any concept of applications, any concept of separate applications,
`
`and even any “operating system” that would be necessary to launch an application,
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`
`as Dr. Rhyne agreed at deposition. Instead, Blanchard’s software is presented as
`
`monolithic software referred to only as “instructions.” Further, Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Rhyne ignore the fact that as of July 28, 2000, it was common for a conventional
`
`mobile station to be implemented with a “conventional monolithic operating
`
`program” having subroutines or “modules for … providing services to users”
`
`rather than applications on top of a separate operating system. See U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,993,328 to Oommen (Ex. 2009) (“Oommen”) at 1:20-24; Fig. 1.
`
`Additionally, because Blanchard fails to disclose any “application,” it is
`
`error for Dr. Rhyne or the Petitioner to conclude that Blanchard’s Fig. 3 displays a
`
`“function” of any “application,” or to conclude that the selections provided in
`
`Blanchard’s Fig. 3 represent a “limited list of at least one function offered within
`
`the first application.” Though Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne look solely to Blanchard’s
`
`detailed description for these features, Blanchard does not support their
`
`conclusions. In summary, the disclosures of Blanchard, even combined with Dr.
`
`Rhyne’s deficient analysis, cannot and do not disclose or suggest all features of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`As will be explained in more detail below, the Petition is deficient in its
`
`challenges of independent claims 1 and 16, and also of various dependent claims,
`
`including claims 2, 5-8, and 10. For these reasons, the Board should conclude this
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`
`proceeding with a final written decision that confirms the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims in view of Blanchard.
`
`II.
`
`Background
`
` 
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (the “‘020 patent” or “Martyn”)
`The ‘020 patent issued on April 30, 2013 from a national stage application
`
`claiming priority from and the benefit of PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/03387
`
`filed on July 27, 2001 and British application No. GB 0019459.7 filed on July 28,
`
`2000. As such, the critical date for the purposes for the Board’s obviousness
`
`analysis is July 28, 2000.
`
`As the ‘020 patent explains, the “invention relates to a computing device
`
`with an improved user interface for applications.” ‘020 Patent at 1:14-15.
`
`Specifically, as of the date of invention of the ‘020 patent, mobile telephones
`
`possessed small screens and required users to launch an application and then
`
`navigate through “several hierarchies of functions” within the launched application
`
`in order to locate and activate a desired function. Id. at 1:30-46. A similar lengthy
`
`process was necessary for certain “stored data” to be displayed to the user. Id. At
`
`the time, limited shortcuts were available, but required a user to memorize “various
`
`keyboard input sequences.” Id. at 1:64.
`
`7 
` 
`
`

`
`As an improvement to the then-existing menus of “available options” and
`
`“limited shortcuts”, the ‘020 patent disclosed and claimed a device configured to
`
`display an “application summary window” and the code to cause the device to
`
`display it. Id. at 1:54; 1:62; 5:33-43; 6:20-32. The ‘020 patent describes such a
`
`window as 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.
`
`In the detailed description, the ‘020 describes an “Application Launcher”
`
`and an “App Snapshot.” Id. at 3:5-6; 3:27. The Application Launcher includes a
`
`list of applications, and from an application listed on the Application Launcher, an
`
`App Snapshot may be opened to display certain data or functions associated with
`
`that application. Id. at 3:23-35. As described, an App Snapshot may open in
`
`response to an exemplary selection process occurring at the Application Launcher
`
`menu. For example, the App Snapshot may be opened if a highlight rests on a
`
`specific application in the Application Launcher for a set amount of time. Id. at
`
`3:24-27. As other examples, the App Snapshot can be opened in response to
`
`“voice activation,” “softkey selection,” a “right scroll function,” “a press and hold
`
`of the select function,” or “using a right cursor key on a highlighted application
`
`name.” Id. at 3:38-44. In each disclosed embodiment, the App Snapshot is being
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`
`opened from the Application Launcher based on a selection process occurring at
`
`the Application Launcher.
`
`Further, as the ‘020 patent explains, the App Snapshot displays “data from
`
`an application and functions of that application without actually opening the
`
`application up: only once a user has selected an item in the App Snapshot
`
`associated with a given application does that application have to be opened.” Id. at
`
`3:53-58.
`
`The Figures of the ‘020 patent display an exemplary App Launcher in Fig. 1,
`
`and exemplary App Snapshots for the Messages application in Figs. 2-3:
`
`
`
`As described above, the App Snapshots are opened in Figs. 2-3 based on a
`
`selection of the Messages application occurring at the Application Launcher screen
`
`of Fig. 1. In Fig. 2, the App Snapshot indicates that there are no (0) new messages,
`
`and lists “the two most common functions” available in the Messages application.
`
`Id. at 3:31-33. In Fig. 3, the App Snapshot indicates the number of new emails,
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`
`SMS messages, and outgoing chats, and once again links to the functions shown in
`
`Fig. 2.
`
`Generally, the ‘020 patent explains that the summary view can include
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types.” Id. at 4:36-37 (emphasis added). Implicit
`
`in this disclosure is that there are not only different data that could be displayed in
`
`the App Snapshot, but also different types of data that could be displayed in the
`
`App Snapshot. As already discussed, the App Snapshot shown in Fig. 3 of the
`
`‘020 patent indicates the number of new emails, SMS messages, and outgoing
`
`chats. However, other types of data are described in the ‘020 patent.
`
`For example, the App Snapshot may display certain information where other
`
`applications are simultaneously active. “[I]f the mobile telephone has an active
`
`Calendar application, and the user opens the App Snapshot for Contacts, then the
`
`Contacts App Snapshot may include contact information for parties in the
`
`previously or currently open Calendar application.” Id. at 4:55-59 (emphasis
`
`added). But if the Phone application was active, rather than the Calendar
`
`application, the Contacts App Snapshop could display “contact information of the
`
`most called party, or a missed call party, or a party whose call the user is auto-
`
`replying to.” Id. at 4:59-63 (emphasis added). The Contacts App Snapshot could
`
`also “display phone numbers and email addresses which may be ‘fired’ (i.e. a
`
`phone number is dialed, an email address is seeded into a new message).” Id. at
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`
`5:5-9 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Messages App Snapshot could display
`
`“further information” on a message, such as the “date and time it arrived and the
`
`first line/subject of the message.” Id. at 4:64-67.
`
`Finally, the ‘020 patent provides context for its disclosure of applications
`
`relative to an operating system. In the SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT
`
`INVENTION section, the ‘020 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with the above aspects of the
`
`invention,” where those aspects include displaying an application summary
`
`window “comprising a limited list of (i) common functions offered within an
`
`application and/or (ii) data stored in that application.” Id. at 2:40-43; 2:20-25.
`
`This computer program is identified separately from the “application,” and “may
`
`be an operating system.” Id. at 2:43-44. Similarly, claim 17 explains that claim
`
`16’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on
`
`the screen an application summary window” “comprises an operating system.” Id.
`
`at 6:33-35; 6:25-26. From these disclosures, the ‘020 patent makes clear that the
`
`software to implement the graphical user interface can be incorporated into an
`
`operating system, while the unlaunched applications listed in the main menu are
`
`separate (and claimed separately) from the operating system. While the ‘020
`
`patent also explains briefly that the “invention can also be used in systems which
`
`do not have a concept of separate applications as such” (id. at 5:20-21), this
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`
`disclosure does not rewrite the claims, which each require “at least a first
`
`application” to be in an “un-launched state.” This claimed element is not disclosed
`
`or suggested by a system that possesses a monolithic operating program that is
`
`open and visible. Denning at ¶¶ 13, 24.
`
`
`
`b. The Challenged Claims all Require an “application” and
`Specifically an “application … in an un-launched state”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 11,
`
`13, and 16. Of the instituted claims, claims 1 and 16 are independent, and each of
`
`these challenged claims require not only an “application” but also an “application
`
`summary window [that] is displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`
`state.” Without these elements, a prior art reference such as Blanchard cannot
`
`anticipate or render these claims obvious.
`
`Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a “device” that is “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 … .” Claim
`
`16 recites, inter alia, a “computer program product comprising a computer-
`
`readable storage medium having computer-readable code” that, when running,
`
`causes a “computing device” to display a “main menu” and “application summary
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`
`window.” As noted above, in both independent claims, the “application summary
`
`window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state.”
`
`Claim 1 is presented below in full for reference:
`
`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 wherein the application summary window is displayed
`while the application is in an un-launched state.
`(emphasis added). For this purposes of this proceeding and the arguments
`
`presented below, independent claim 16 includes features substantially similar to
`
`the features of claim 1. For example, claim 16 recites (in relevant part) “wherein
`
`the 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 wherein the application summary
`
`window is displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state.”
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`While the patentability of all challenged claims can be confirmed based on
`
`the features of independent claims 1 and 16 alone, Patent Owner also discusses the
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`
`independent patentability of dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 over Blanchard.
`
`As such, the features of these dependent claims are also presented here, in three
`
`groups.
`
`Claims 2 and 8
`
`First, claims 2 and 8 of the ‘020 patent recite features related to the opening
`
`of an application relative to the opening of an application summary window.
`
`Claims 2 and 8 each depend from claim 1, which requires the “application
`
`summary window [to be] displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`
`state,” and “each function in the list [is] selectable to launch the first application
`
`and initiate the selected function.” Claim 8 clarifies that “opening a summary
`
`window for a given application does not result in that application being opened.”
`
`Claim 2 recites that “selecting a function listed in the [application] summary
`
`window causes the first application to open and that selected function to be
`
`activated.” The full text of claims 2 and 8 is provided below:
`
`2. The computing device of claim 1 in which selecting a
`function listed in the summary window causes the first application to
`open and that selected function to be activated.
`8. The computing device of claim 1 in which opening a
`summary window for a given application does not result in that
`application being opened.
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 7
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`
`Second, claims 5, 6, and 7 of the ‘020 patent recite features related to the
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types” of a summary window. Per claim 5, the
`
`user can define the “functionality and/or stored data types [that] are of interest to
`
`that user for the summary window.” Per claims 6 and 7, the “functionality and/or
`
`stored data types” of the application summary window vary with the environment
`
`of the device or with the actions of the user, respectively. The full text of these
`
`claims 5, 6, and 7 is provided below:
`
`5. The computing device of claim 1 in which the user can
`define what functionality and/or stored data types are of interest to
`that user for the summary window for an application.
`6. The computing device of claim 1 in which the functionality
`and/or stored data types for a summary window for a given
`application varies with the environment of the device.
`7. The computing device of claim 1 in which the functionality
`and/or stored data types for a summary window for a given
`application varies with the actions of the user.
`
`Claim 10
`
`Third, claim 10 of the ‘020 patent recites that the application summary
`
`window, which “displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the
`
`first application” per claim 1, further displays “a list of data stored in that
`
`application.” The full text of claim 10 is provided below:
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`
`10. The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary
`window further display a list of data stored in that application.
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that each of the challenged claims is rendered obvious by
`
`Blanchard. But as will be explained below, Blanchard fails to disclose any
`
`“application” and neither discloses nor suggests each feature of these claims. The
`
`challenged claims are all patentable over Blanchard.
`
`
`
`c. Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction
`Analysis and Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the
`Claim Terms
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘020 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). However, any construction must still be consistent with and supported
`
`by the disclosure. See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`
`RF, LLC, Case No. 2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (Ex. 2010) at 10-11;
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`During litigation between Petitioner and Patent Owner on the ‘020 patent,
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued three claim
`
`constructions, albeit under the framework established by Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Prior to trial, the Court ruled that
`
`“additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary
`
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu,” from claims 1 and 16,
`
`has its “plain and ordinary meaning and no further construction [is] necessary.“ Ex.
`
`2003 at 36-44. Then, during trial, the Court heard argument on “un-launched
`
`state” and “reached directly.” Ex. 2004 at 3-23. At the conclusion of this
`
`argument, the Court decided to construe “unlaunched state” as “not displayed,” and
`
`“reached directly” as “reached without an intervening step.” Id. at 23. Though
`
`these constructions were reached under the Phillips framework, they are also
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the ‘020
`
`patent disclosure.
`
`Three other terms require the Board’s attention in this case, however, to
`
`ensure that these terms are not construed “so broadly that [their] constructions are
`
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles”: application, function,
`
`and data. Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1298.
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`Construction of “application”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, the Board provided guidance on its
`
`interpretation of “application summary window” and “mobile telephone.” Inst.
`
`Dec. at 5-6. However, the Board did not specifically provide a construction of
`
`“application.” From the content of the Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration,
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne make the unreasonably broad assumption that any
`
`selectable feature within software “instructions” is performed by an “application.”
`
`See, e.g., Rhyne at ¶¶ 16, 39; Denning at ¶¶ 14-15, 43.
`
`In evaluating whether any claimed “application” is disclosed by the cited art,
`
`the Board should not interpret an “application” to be indistinguishable from an
`
`“operating system” or a monolithic operating program. Rather, an “application”
`
`exists in a particular software architecture having an operating system that can
`
`manage multiple executables (e.g. applications), and an application can be
`
`launched to access its associated functions and data. Denning at ¶ 33.
`
`As discussed above, the ‘020 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with certain aspects of the invention,”
`
`including displaying an application summary window comprising “a limited list of
`
`(i) common functions offered within an application and/or (ii) data stored in that
`
`application.” Id. at 2:40-43; 2:20-25. This “program may be an operating system.”
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`
`Id. at 2:43-44. Similarly, claim 17 explains that claim 16’s “computer-readable
`
`code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on the screen an application
`
`summary window” “comprises an operating system.” Id. at 6:33-35; 6:25-26.2
`
`Separate from an operating system, Martyn provides examples of
`
`applications “such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’”
`
`applications. ‘020 Patent at 3:5-7. Prior to the claimed “application summary
`
`window,” a user would “open” the application and then navigate “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. Further, the background of the ‘020 patent refers
`
`specifically to a mobile telephone that “includes several different applications” that
`
`must be started/opened in order to navigate to the desired function. Id. at 1:37-40.
`
`Further, the ‘020 patent’s disclosure that an “application” may be in an un-
`
`launched state informs a POSITA that the disclosed device operating system
`
`permits multiple threads of execution. Denning at ¶ 23. For example, the ‘020
`
`patent discloses at 4:53-63 that the App Snapshot can be opened for a Contacts
`                                                            
`2 It does not follow from the doctrine of claim differentiation that claim 16’s
`
`computing device could be implemented without an operating system. Rather,
`
`computing device’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device
`
`to display on the screen an application summary window” could be a second,
`
`separate application on top of the operating system. Denning at ¶ 23.
`
`19 
` 
`
`

`
`application while there is “an active Calendar application,” and further refers to a
`
`“previously or currently open Calendar appli