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.
`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Issue Date: April 30, 2013
`
`Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for
`Applications
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 8,434,020 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS......................................................................................................iii
`I.
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW.....................................................................................1
`A.
`Notice of Real Party in Interest ....................................................................1
`B.
`Notice of Related Matters..............................................................................1
`C.
`Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information................2
`D.
`Grounds for Standing.....................................................................................2
`E.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested.........................................................2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................3
`A.
`The ’020 Patent ...............................................................................................3
`B.
`The Prosecution History Of The ‘020 Patent.............................................4
`C.
`The Challenged Claims ..................................................................................6
`D.
`The Prior Art...................................................................................................7
`1.
`Blanchard..............................................................................................9
`Schnarel ..............................................................................................10
`2.
`RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT...................................................................................................................12
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................12
`B.
`Claim Construction.......................................................................................12
`1.
`“computing device” ..........................................................................12
`“reached directly from the main menu”.........................................13
`2.
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION..........................................................14
`A.
`Blanchard Renders Obvious All Of The Challenged Claims..................14
`B.
`Schnarel Renders Obvious All Of The Challenged Claims.....................23
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................39
`V.
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.........................................................................................40
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (Issued April 30, 2013), Computing device with
`improved user interface for applications (“the ‘020 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard et al. (“Blanchard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 to Schnarel et al. (“Schnarel”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Rhyne Regarding Invalidity Of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,434,020
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby seeks inter partes review of Claims 1,
`
`2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020. (Ex. 1001 (the “’020
`
`patent”).)
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTESREVIEW
`A. Notice of Real Party in Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), notice is hereby given that the real parties-
`
`in-interest in this petition are the Petitioner and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters
`Petitioner is also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476,
`
`a continuation of the ‘020 Patent. If instituted, Petitioner requests that each of the
`
`related inter partes review proceedings be assigned to the same panel for administrative
`
`efficiency and consistency. Furthermore, the following pending federal district court
`
`litigations may affect or be affected by the decision in this proceeding:
`
`1. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 2:14-cv-911
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (the “Related LG Case”);
`
`2. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple, formerly Civ. No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple, formerly Civ. No. 6:14-cv-00752
`
`(E.D. Tex.), now both pending transfer to the Northern District Of California (the
`
`“Related Apple Cases”).
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), (b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner designates
`
`the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead
`Counsel:
`
`Backup
`Counsel:
`
`Herbert H. Finn (Reg. No. 38,139)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 456-8400
`Fax: (312) 456-8435
`Email: finnh@gtlaw.com; LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com
`
`Richard D. Harris (Reg. No. 27,898)
`Eric J. Maiers (Reg. No. 59,614)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 456-8400
`Fax: (312) 456-8435
`Email: harrisd@gtlaw.com;
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`
`Ashkon Cyrus (Reg. No. 69,832)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`2101 L Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 331-3100
`Email: cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`
`Grounds for Standing
`D.
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’020 patent is available
`
`for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`E.
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of
`
`the ’020 patent (Ex. 1001) be cancelled based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability, explained in detail below.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground A: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard
`
`et al. (“Blanchard”).
`
`Ground B: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 to Schnarel et
`
`al. (“Schnarel”).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`The ’020 Patent
`The ’020 patent describes a “summary window” intended to improve the user-
`
`interface of “small screen devices,” particularly mobile telephones. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract, 1:17-21.) According to the ‘020 patent, which claims priority to July 28,
`
`2000, existing user-interfaces were cumbersome because they required users to
`
`navigate through “many layers” of a menu hierarchy to access the data or function
`
`desired. (Id. at 1:29-46.) Requiring users to “progressively drill down (sometimes
`
`through three or more layers) to complete the required task” made the existing user-
`
`interfaces “slow, complex, and difficult to learn.” (Id. at 1:33-46.)
`
`The ’020 patent purports to improve these user-interfaces by enabling the user
`
`to more “readily and rapidly access the right data/functionality” through the use of
`
`“innovative summary window functionality.” (Id. at 3:23; 1:49-51.) The patent
`
`describes a “snap-shot view of an application” that “brings together, in one summary
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed data,” and allows
`
`the user to “select that data or function” in order to open the application and present
`
`the user with a screen from the application “in which the data or function of interest
`
`is prominent.” (Id. at 2:26-35.)
`
`Figure 1 of the ’020 patent, reproduced
`
`to the right, shows the main menu of a mobile
`
`telephone’s user interface. (Id. at 3:5-17.) If a
`
`user selects “Messages” from this menu, they
`
`are taken the screen shown in Figure 3, also
`
`reproduced to the right, which is a summary window for the “Messages application.”
`
`(Id. at 3:5-44.) This “Messages” summary window presents the user with data from
`
`the Messages application: “3 unread emails,” “2 new SMS,” and “1 Chat ongoing.”
`
`(Id. at 3:35-37.) It also presents the user with “the two most common functions …
`
`in the Messages application—‘Create Messages’ and ‘Enter chat room.’” (Id. at 3:31-
`
`34.) When the user selects a function (e.g., “Create Message”) or data (e.g., “1 Chat
`
`Ongoing”) from the summary window, the corresponding application is launched and
`
`the selected function is initiated or the selected data is displayed. (3:51-53.)
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History Of The ‘020 Patent
`
`The ’020 patent claims priority to July 28, 2000, on the basis of a British
`
`application filed on that date and a PCT application filed on Jul. 27, 2001.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`The prosecution of the ’020 patent culminated in an appeal of an obviousness
`
`rejection, where the Patent Owner successfully argued that the prior art cited by the
`
`Examiner did not disclose that the “application summary window is displayed while
`
`the application is in an unlaunched state.” (Ex. 1005 at 307-8(2009-08-31 Appeal Brief
`
`at 8-9); Ex. 1005 at 332-3(2010-01-11 Appeal Reply at 2-3).) Patent Owner pointed
`
`out that the primary reference (“Allard”), only described windows available while an
`
`application was running (i.e. launched). Patent Owner argued that the secondary
`
`reference (“Krause”) did not render obvious the “unlaunched state” limitation
`
`because it described a window for previewing a file without launching the application
`
`associated with that file, which is “conceptually very different to a user selecting an
`
`application and causing functionality of that application to be displayed.” (Id.)
`
`The Board accepted Patent Owner’s argument and reversed the rejection. The
`
`Board first found that the primary reference did not disclose “the application
`
`summary window being displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state.”
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 466 (2012-10-24 Board Decision at 3).) The Board then found that the
`
`claims were not obvious because the secondary reference’s disclosure of “previewing
`
`files without opening them … is different from the claimed feature of allowing the
`
`application to be launched and a certain functionality initiated.” (Id. at 467.)
`
`The claims were then allowed on the basis of the Board’s decision. (Ex. 1005
`
`at 472(2013-01-04 Notice of Allowance).)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`The Challenged Claims
`C.
`There are two challenged independent claims. Claim 1 is set forth below.
`
`Claim 16 is identical, except it is directed to “computer readable storage medium.”
`
`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.
`
`Thus, claims 1 and 16 require: a computing device with a screen; an application
`
`that is listed in a main menu, and that has at least one function; and an application
`
`summary window that (i) can be reached directly from the main menu, (ii) displays a
`
`limited list of functions that are each selectable to launch the application and initiate
`
`the selected function, and (iii) is displayed while the application is in an unlaunched
`
`state.
`
`The challenged dependent claims all depend directly from claim 1. Claims 5-7
`
`require the summary window to display “functionality” that either: “the user can
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`define” as “of interest” (claim 5), “varies with the environment of the device” (claim
`
`6), or “varies with the actions of the user” (claim 7). Claim 10 requires the summary
`
`window to display a “list of data stored in [the] application.” Claim 11 requires the
`
`computing device to be “a mobile telephone.” Finally, claims 2, 8, and 13 make more
`
`specific some of the existing requirements of claim 1: claim 2 requires actually
`
`“selecting” the “selectable” function of claim 1 to open the application and activate
`
`the function; claim 8 requires that opening the summary window for an application
`
`“does not result in that application being opened,”; and claim 13 requires the “limited
`
`list” of functions in the summary window to be a “sub-set” of the functions in the
`
`application.
`
`The Prior Art
`D.
`The subject matter of the challenged claims was all well-known before the ’020
`
`patent’s July 28, 2000 priority date. Both the specific feature that Patent Owner relied
`
`on to obtain allowance—an application summary window that is “displayed while the
`
`application is in an unlaunched state”—and the subject matter of the claims as a
`
`whole, were known user interface concepts that were used in a wide variety of devices.
`
`As background, and to illustrate the ubiquity of the ’020 patent’s user interface
`
`concepts, consider the Windows 98 operating system. In Windows, a user could drag
`
`bookmarks (i.e.
`
`links to specific web pages) to the “start menu,” where each
`
`bookmark would be represented by an icon. Selecting the icon would launch the
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`browser application, and cause it to initiate the function of navigating to the link
`
`represented by the selected desktop icon. This simple and well-known functionality
`
`satisfies all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 when performed on a computer with a
`
`shortcut icon for the browser application on its desktop, and the browser is not open
`
`(i.e. is in an un-launched state): Windows runs on a computing device with a screen;
`
`has an application (the browser) that has at least one function (navigating to a link)
`
`and is listed on a main menu (the desktop); and has an application summary window
`
`(the start menu) that (i) can be reached directly from the main menu (by clicking the
`
`“Start” button), (ii) displays a limited list of functions (the bookmarks placed in the
`
`start menu) that are each selectable to launch the application and initiate the selected
`
`function (clicking a bookmark in the start menu launches the browser application and
`
`causes it to navigate to the bookmarked link), and (iii) is displayed while the
`
`application is in an unlaunched state (the start menu is displayed while the browser
`
`application is not running). This aspect of Windows 98 also satisfies many of the
`
`limitations of the dependent claims.
`
`This Petition relies primarily on two specific prior art references, Blanchard and
`
`Schnarel. While only one of the challenged claims is limited to a telephone, for
`
`simplicity both of the prior art references relied on by this Petition describe telephone
`
`user-interfaces.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`Blanchard
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard claims priority to a U.S. application
`
`filed on December 31, 1996. (Ex. 1002.) Blanchard is prior art to the ’020 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Blanchard was not considered during the prosecution of
`
`the ’020 patent.
`
`Blanchard describes a user-interface for a mobile telephone. Blanchard’s user-
`
`interface 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.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:54-
`
`63.) Figure 3 of Blanchard provides a flow chart illustrating these two interface
`
`features.
`
`The top row of Figure 3, which is reproduced above, shows five screens. Each
`
`of the five screens corresponds to one of the five options in the “parent menu,”
`
`which is the row of icons containing “the Home symbol, the Phone Book symbol, the
`
`Mailbox symbol, the Lock and the Tools symbol.” (Ex. 1002 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
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Number” and “View Own Number.” (Id. at 6:36-42.) Similarly, in the middle screen,
`
`which is displayed when the “Mailbox” symbol is selected in the parent menu, the
`
`window provides three selectable 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 “the Up and Down arrow keys 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; 6:7-15; 5:4-9; Fig. 3.) In the example of the screen 210 in Figure 3, the
`
`highlighted function is “Last Number.” It can be selected to open the telephone-
`
`dialer and cause it to dial the last number previously dialed: “pressing the Select key
`
`redials the last number previously dialed.” (Id. at 6:36-42.)
`
`2.
`
`Schnarel
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 to Schnarel et al. issued from an application filed on
`
`August 25, 1999. (Ex. 1003.) Schnarel is prior art to the ’020 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Schnarel was not considered during
`
`the prosecution of the ’020 patent.
`
`Schnarel describes “a
`
`‘start’ or
`
`‘home’ screen of a telephony device.” (Ex.
`
`1003 at 4:17-19; 2:5-22.) This start screen
`
`is shown in Figure 1. It includes “a button
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`bar”, numbered 104, “with control buttons that the user may select to initiate
`
`application programs,” such as “a web browser, address book, or answering
`
`machine/e-mail message retrieval application.” (Id. at 2:22-30; 4:34-47; 9:7-19.)
`
`Schnarel also describes a “messages pane” that allows users to “quickly
`
`discover whether or not they have new messages and quickly access these new
`
`messages. (Id. at 6:26-31.) The messages pane is displayed in the portion of the start
`
`screen numbered 102. (Id. at 4:34-46.) The “messages pane” works with a “parent
`
`application program” that “notifies the message pane program when state changes
`
`occur, such as the arrival of a fax, e-mail or answering machine message.” (Id. at 2:64-
`
`3:7.) “The message pane displays an indicator of the type of message that has arrived
`
`in the pane.” (Id.)
`
`In the messages pane, when the user selects a “user-specific messages button
`
`(308), the button’s procedure launches a message viewer application.” (Id. at 6:62-
`
`7:1.) The viewer application that is chosen depends on the type of new messages
`
`available. (Id. at 7:1-12.) Similarly, the controls in the “general messages area enable
`
`the user to launch a task associated with the control”: e.g., upon “selecting an active
`
`fax button, the messages application is launched and a fax viewer is displayed,” and
`
`“pressing an active call logger button causes the messages application to launch, and a
`
`call log viewer to be displayed.” (Id. at 8:46-67.)
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`In addition to the buttons listed within the messages pane, Schnarel provides
`
`many other examples of lists of buttons representing functions within an application
`
`that may be selected to launch the application and initiate the selected function. (E.g.
`
`id. at 5:44-49; 5:51-57; 6:17-25.)
`
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘020 patent is a person
`
`who has, through formal education or extensive practical experience, the equivalent of
`
`a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering and 2-3 years of
`
`experience in graphical user interfaces. Ex 1004 ¶ 27
`
`Claim Construction
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the claims in inter partes review are given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” For the purposes of
`
`this proceeding, Petitioner requests that each of the various claim terms be given their
`
`plain meaning. Petitioner proposes specific constructions for several terms below:
`
`1.
`“computing device”
`Each of the challenged claims requires the claimed “application summary
`
`window” to appear on the screen of a “computing device.” Only claim 11 requires
`
`the claimed “computing device” to be a “mobile telephone.” Claim 12 requires “The
`
`computing device of claim 1, being a PC.” (Id. (emphasis added).) While the ’020
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`patent describes the invention as “particularly useful for mobile telephones,” it also
`
`states that the invention may be “used in environments outside of mobile telephony.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:25-27.) The ’020 patent also specifically states that “desktop and laptop
`
`PCs may also benefit from the present invention.” (Id. at 5:27-30.) This confirms that
`
`under the ordinary meaning of “computing device,” the claims of the ’020 patent
`
`include PCs, mobile phones, and any other type of computing device.
`
`2.
`“reached directly from the main menu”
`All the challenged claims require “an application summary window that can be
`
`reached directly from the main menu.” The broadest reasonable construction of this
`
`claim language merely requires that the user be able to navigate from the main menu
`
`to the application summary window without needing to use an intervening menu,
`
`window, or button. However, this claim language does not require
`
`the main menu and the application summary window to appear on
`
`different screens. Confirming this, the preferred embodiment of
`
`the ’020 patent describes a summary window that appears on the
`
`same screen as the main menu. Specifically, as shown in Figures 1
`
`and 2, the summary window “drops down” from the main menu
`
`when the highlight rests on an application in that menu: “should
`
`the highlight rest on the name an application in the App Launcher
`
`for a certain amount of time … the summary window … drops
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`down from the highlight bar.” (Id. at 3:23-27.) Thus, “reached directly from the main
`
`menu” should be construed to include windows that are part of the same screen as
`
`the main menu, so long as they can be navigated to without needing to use an
`
`intervening menu or window.
`
`IV.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`A.
`Blanchard Renders Obvious All Of The Challenged Claims
`As described below, Blanchard alone renders all of the challenged claims
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`[1a] “1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing
`device being configured …”
`Blanchard describes a user interface for a
`
`mobile telephone, as shown for example in
`
`Figure 2 to the right. The mobile telephone has
`
`a display screen. (Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1, Fig. 2, at
`
`1:11-14, 2:52-3:2.) Blanchard also discloses that
`
`the mobile telephone has a CPU and memory, and thus is a computing device. Id.
`
`Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [1a]. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 38.)
`
`[1b] “… to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first
`application”
`Blanchard discloses a main menu (called a “parent menu”) that lists
`
`applications using icons such as “Phone Book,” “Mailbox,” and “Home” (which
`
`represents the telephone application). (Ex. 1002 at 5:39-46, 3:54-63.) These
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`applications have at least one function: the telephone application, for example, has the
`
`functions “Last Number” (to redial the last number previously dialed) and “View
`
`Own Num,” (to display the user’s phone number). (Id. at 6:44-46; 6:57-64, Fig. 3.)
`
`Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [1b]. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 39-40.)
`
`[1c] “… and additionally being configured to display on the screen an
`application summary window that can be reached directly from the main
`menu,”
`
`Blanchard also describes an application summary window (“window with
`
`selectable sub-level menu choices”) for each application icon in the main menu. (Ex.
`
`1002 at 4:17-34.) These windows are reached directly from the main menu, because
`
`they appear when their corresponding icon in the main menu is highlighted. (Ex. 1002
`
`at 4:17-34.). . This is exactly how the preferred embodiment of the ’020 patent
`
`describes navigating from the main menu to the summary window: “should the
`
`highlight rest on the name an application in the App Launcher for a certain amount of
`
`time … the summary window … drops down from the highlight bar.” (Ex. 1001. at
`
`3:23-27.) Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [1c]. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 41-42.)
`
`[1d] “… 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,”
`Each “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 selectable to launch the
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`application and initiate the selected function. For example, when the “Home” icon
`
`that corresponds to the telephone application is highlighted, the functions “Last
`
`Number” and “View Own Number” are displayed. (Id. at 6:36-42.) Each of the
`
`functions in this limited list is selectable to activate (i.e. “launch”) the corresponding
`
`application and initiate the selected function. For example, “pressing the Select key
`
`227 redials the last number previously dialed.” (Id. at 6:40-46). Similarly, selecting one
`
`of the menu choices in the “Mailbox” window allows the user to “access” one of the
`
`three displayed “features”: “voice messages, text messages, and call logs.” (Id. at 6:15-
`
`18; 3:67-4:3; see also id. at 6:7-15 (selection of menu choices in the “Phone Book”
`
`window).) Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [1d]. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 43-45.)
`
`[1e] “… and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the
`application is in an unlaunched state.”
`Blanchard does not discuss the concept of an application being in an “un-
`
`launched” state using those words. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that Blanchard’s “window with selectable sub-level menu
`
`choices” is displayed while the application corresponding to those choices is in an un-
`
`launched state. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 46.) Blanchard describes a phone as having “program
`
`memory,” and discloses several as well-known mobile-phone programs, such as a
`
`telephone-dialer, phone book, and mailbox. (Ex. 1002 at 2:52-67, 5:39-46; 6:7-64.)
`
`These programs are separate from the user interface. (Id. at Fig. 1 and 2:52-3:2
`
`(showing that both “program memory 112” and “data memory 114” are distinct from
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`“user interface 200”); Ex. 1004 at ¶ 47.) Thus, when Blanchard describes a menu
`
`choice in the user interface being used to “access” a function defined in the program
`
`memory (e.g. at 6:15-18; 3:67-4:3), a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that this meant the phone would switch from using the “user interface
`
`200” in order to launch the application containing that function from the “program
`
`memory 112,” and use it to initiate the selected function. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 47.) For
`
`example, Blanchard explains that when the function “Last Number” is highlighted,
`
`“pressing the Select key 227 redials the last number previously dialed.” (Id. at 6:40-
`
`46). A person of ordinary skill would have understood that this describes launching
`
`the telephone-dialer application when the user presses the select key to activate the
`
`“Last Number” function, and that the telephone-dialer program was in un-launched
`
`state prior to that point, i.e. when the user was navigating the menus of the user
`
`interface. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 48.)
`
`Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [1e]. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 46-49.)
`
`In the alternative that the Board finds that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of this element is not disclosed by Blanchard, Blanchard renders this
`
`element obvious. The mobile phones of the time normally had only one application
`
`“launched” at a time, due to hardware constraints such as battery life and memory
`
`capacity. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 49.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to implement the mobile phone of Blanchard in the manner that was normal
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`and routine at the time: by having the applications in “program memory 112” be in an
`
`un-launched state while the user was navigating the menus provided by the separate
`
`“user interface 200,” and to launch them only when the user selected a function to be
`
`performed, such as “Last Number.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 50.) This would have been the
`
`predictable result of combining known elements performing their known functions,
`
`consistent with the architecture of the Blanchard mobile phone, which has separate
`
`structure for the “program memory” and the “user interface” containing the
`
`application summary window. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 50.)
`
`
`
`[2] “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.”
`When Blanchard describes a menu choice in the user interface being used to
`
`“access” a function defined in the program memory (e.g. at 6:15-18; 3:67-4:3), a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this meant the phone would switch
`
`from using the “user interface 200” in order to launch the application containing that
`
`function from the “program memory 112,” and use it to initiate the selected function.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at ¶ 51.) For example, Blanchard explains that when the function “Last
`
`Number” is highlighted, “pressing the Select key 227 redials the last number
`
`previously dialed.” (Id. at 6:40-46). A person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`that this describes launching the telephone-dialer application when the user presses
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`the select key to activate the “Last Number” function, and that the telephone-dialer
`
`program was in un-launched state prior to that point, i.e. when the user was navigating
`
`the menus of the user interface. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 51.)
`
`See also IV.A.[1e], supra. Thus, Blanchard discloses limitation [2].
`
`[5] “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.”
`
`Blanchard teaches that the “terminal” (i.e., the mobile telephone) “includes
`
`suitable coding for assigning a priority to either the status or header-type information
`
`or to the menu type-item information” and that in response, “the desired information
`
`is suitably displayed in each of the display screens.” (Ex. 1002 at 6:65-7:3) As
`
`Blanchard explains, “[t]he advantage of this arrangement is that it provides a very
`
`flexible manner in organizing and presenting information.” (Id. at 7:4-5.) Thus,
`
`Blanchard discloses that by assigning priorities to the different types of information
`
`displayed in the