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
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................... iii
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`Argument .................................................................................................................... 2
`II.
`A.
`Patent Owner No Longer Contests Several Of The Board’s Initial
`Findings ........................................................................................................... 2
`Construction Of “Application” .................................................................... 3
`Blanchard Discloses The Claimed “Applications” ..................................... 8
`1.
`Patent Owner, and its litigation expert, admitted that
`
`Blanchard describes “applications.” ................................................. 8
`Blanchard discloses “applications” to a POSITA. ........................ 12
`The Oommen patent relied on by Patent Owner actually
`contradicts its arguments. ................................................................ 18
`Blanchard “launches” software when a menu item is
`selected, it does not merely cause the phone to “advance to
`another screen.” ................................................................................ 21
`Blanchard Discloses The Claimed “Limited List.” .................................. 22
`Blanchard Satisfies The “Reached Directly” Limitation. ........................ 24
`Blanchard Renders Obvious Claims 2 and 8. ........................................... 26
`Blanchard Renders Obvious Claims 5, 6 and 7. ....................................... 26
`1.
`Claim 5 .............................................................................................. 26
`
`2.
`Claim 6 .............................................................................................. 27
`
`3.
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 31
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 (Blanchard)
`
`Core Wireless’s Sur-Reply To LG’s Rule 56 Motion For
`Judgement Of Invalidity, Dkt. No. 332 in Case No. 2:14-cv-
`911-JRG-RSP
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Mark Mahon, Exhibit A
`
`Excerpt from 12/99 issue of Popular Science
`
`User’s Guide for Ericsson R380s
`
`Press release dated 3/18/99 from Open Mobile Alliance
`
`Article dated 3/18/199 from EE Times
`
`Excerpts from Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms (2000)
`
`Rebuttal Declaration Of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`Transcript of September 7, 2016 Deposition of Scott Denning
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner has changed course in its efforts to distinguish the Blanchard
`
`reference from its claims. Patent Owner initially argued that Blanchard was
`
`different from its invention because Blanchard’s applications were “launched”
`
`while its menus were displayed, and because Blanchard did not describe an
`
`“alternative” means of launching applications. In its Response, Patent Owner
`
`abandons both of these arguments, and now focuses on arguing that Blanchard is
`
`different because it does not have any “applications.” This argument is
`
`inconsistent with Patent Owner’s position in the underlying litigation, as well as
`
`with its initial arguments in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner’s “applications” argument is also substantively wrong, both
`
`because it depends on an artificially narrow construction of the term “application,”
`
`and because it fundamentally misreads the Blanchard reference. Patent Owner
`
`argues that while Blanchard has software in its “program memory,” this software
`
`does not include “applications” because in the context of the ’020 patent, the term
`
`“applications” requires a particular software architecture, where there is a distinct
`
`“operating system,” and where the underlying computer system is multi-threaded.
`
`This overly-restrictive interpretation of “applications” should be rejected.
`
`Moreover, Blanchard renders the claimed “applications” obvious regardless
`
`of how that term is construed. Patent Owner fundamentally misreads Blanchard
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`when it asserts that its disclosure is limited to a “monolithic operating program.”
`
`Blanchard, like the ’020 patent, describes a user interface for a mobile phone.
`
`Blanchard does not specify that its user interface is implemented using any
`
`particular software architecture—to the contrary, it is intentionally silent on that
`
`topic. Patent Owner’s expert conceded both that Blanchard’s user interface could
`
`be implemented using any of the known software configurations for mobile
`
`phones, and that the architecture of “applications layered on top of an operating
`
`system” was known to those of skill in the art at the time of alleged invention.
`
`Thus, even if the term “application” did require “applications layered on top of an
`
`operating system,” Blanchard would render the claims obvious.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner No Longer Contests Several Of The Board’s Initial
`Findings
`In its Institution Decision,1 the Board rejected Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`Blanchard did not meet the “unlaunched state” limitation. Patent Owner had
`
`argued that in Blanchard, the user “can take only one action with respect to the
`
`applications listed on the menu (i.e., phone book, mail box, lock and tool
`
`
`1 Decision at 13-14.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`applications),” and that “this action must be interpreted as the launching of the
`
`application.”2 Patent Owner has dropped this argument from its Response.
`
`The Board also rejected Patent Owner’s argument that Blanchard did not
`
`disclose the claimed “application summary window” limitation.3 Patent Owner
`
`argued that the “application summary window” must be an “alternative” means of
`
`launching an application, and that Blanchard was deficient because it disclosed
`
`“only one means by which an application function may be invoked.”4 Patent
`
`Owner has dropped this argument as well.
`
`B.
`Construction Of “Application”
`Despite spending four pages discussing
`
`the alleged “proper claim
`
`construction” of “application,” Patent Owner never articulates a construction for
`
`that term. This is because Patent Owner is attempting to import numerous
`
`limitations into that term. Patent Owner asserts that an “application”:
`
`1. “exists in a particular software architecture having an operating
`
`system that can manage multiple executables” or “threads of
`
`execution”;
`
`
`2 Preliminary Response at 21-22.
`3 Decision at 12-13.
`4 Preliminary Response at 12.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`2. “packaged software for performing user functions”;
`
`3. “able to access APIs of an operating system”;
`
`4. “distinguishable from an operating system”; and
`
`5. “implemented on top of an operating system layer.”
`
`While Petitioner agrees that an “application” is “software for performing
`
`user functions,” it would be improper to construe “application” to require any of
`
`the other limitations above.5 For example, as Patent Owner notes, the ’020 patent
`
`states that the “computer program” that enables a mobile phone to operate as
`
`described “may be an operating system.”6 Thus, the use of an “operating system”
`
`is optional, not required. The fact that dependent claim 17 refers to an operating
`
`system likewise suggests that an “operating system” is not required.
`
`The term “application” also does not require multiple threads of execution.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that displaying a “Contacts App Snapshot” when there is a
`
`“currently open Calendar application” requires multiple threads of execution—one
`
`for the Calendar application and one to display the App Snapshot.7 This argument
`
`is not technically correct, because a single-threaded system could provide the
`
`
`5 See Ex. 1015 (Rhyne Rebuttal Declaration) at ¶¶ 27-46.
`6 Ex. 1001 at 2:43-44 (emphasis added).
`7 Response at 20.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`described functionality.8 Moreover, a few sentences in the specification about a
`
`“possible feature” is not a proper basis for adopting such a limiting construction of
`
`the term “application.”9
`
`Finally, and most importantly, the ’020 patent is about an improvement to a
`
`user interface.10 It contains no details about how to implement that user
`
`interface.11 The argument that the invention must be implemented in a system that
`
`“permits multiple threads of execution” and has a separate “operating system
`
`layer” is inconsistent with the overall nature of the ’020 patent’s disclosure.12 The
`
`way the specification uses the term “application” is best illustrated by its
`
`description of the problem it addresses:
`
`[T]he small display size of mobile telephones has conventionally
`meant that several hierarchies of functions have to be offered to a
`user. The interface can be thought of as having many layers, with the
`user having to first locate the correct top level function and then,
`within that function, progressively drill down (sometimes through 3 or
`more layers) to complete the required task. Where a mobile telephone
`
`8 Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 32-38.
`9 E.g. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`10 Ex. 1001 at 2:14-15.
`11 Ex. 1016 at 99:22-100:10, 100:19-101:4.
`12 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`includes several different applications (e.g. a message application, a
`contacts/address book application, a calendar application and a
`telephone application), then the user normally has to first of all locate,
`then start/open the required application and then may need to navigate
`to the required function (e.g. create a new contact entry) or cause the
`required stored data (e.g. display names beginning with the letter ‘A’)
`to be displayed.
`
`This part of the ’020 patent describes an “application” as being a “top level
`
`function” of the phone, e.g. contacts, calendar, and messages. Patent Owner’s
`
`expert admitted that the menu options that the ’020 patent describes as
`
`“applications” are the “top-level functions” of the phone.13 This shows that Patent
`
`Owner’s “applications” argument are a specific type of software that must run on a
`
`multi-threaded system, have a separate “operating system layer,” and access to the
`
`APIs of the operating system, is inconsistent with the more general way that the
`
`term is actually used in the specification: to describe the software that performs a
`
`set of user functions that are grouped together under a top-level function, such as
`
`contacts, calendar, and messages.
`
`
`13 Ex. 1016 at 93:18-21 (Denning testifying that the “messages, contacts, calendar,
`and phone” shown in Figure 1 of the ’020 patent are “top-level functions”); see
`also id. at 84:10-14.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`The specification’s use of the term “application” is consistent with the
`
`definitions provided by the 2000 edition of the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`
`Standards Terms. That dictionary provides several definitions of “application,”
`
`one of which is “[a] computer program that performs some desired function.”14 It
`
`also defines “application software” as “[s]oftware designed to fulfill specific needs
`
`of a user.”15 None of the definitions of “application” mention operating systems or
`
`multithreading.
`
`Thus, the Board should construe the term “application” as referring to
`
`software that has a particular function, not as software that must be layered on top
`
`of an operating system and executed using multithreading.16 This is confirmed by
`
`the’020 patent’s express statement that the “invention can also be used in systems
`
`which do not have a concept of separate applications as such.”17 The claims
`
`should not be interpreted in a way that would make their patentability turn on a
`
`distinction whose importance the specification expressly disclaims.
`
`
`14 Ex. 1014 at 3; see also Ex. 1015 at ¶ 39-46.
`15 Id.
`16 See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 40-46; Ex. 1014 at 3.
`17 Ex. 1001 at 5:20-24.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Blanchard Discloses The Claimed “Applications”
`
`1.
`Patent Owner, and its litigation expert, admitted that
`Blanchard describes “applications.”
`In the co-pending litigation, both Patent Owner and its expert repeatedly
`
`described Blanchard as having “applications.”18 For example, in a brief filed in the
`
`litigation that addressed invalidity, Patent Owner repeatedly stated that Blanchard
`
`describes “applications”:
`
`The menus displayed in Blanchard do not summarize the application;
`they represent the actual application itself, not the separate application
`summary window claimed by the Martyn patents.19
`* - - * - - *
`[W]hen a user is navigating the various options disclosed in
`Blanchard, he is actually navigating within the application itself (and
`thus the application is also not in an unlaunched state, as explained
`below).20
`
`* - - * - - *
`
`
`18 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.11 and 42.51(b)(1)(iii), Patent Owner is under a
`duty to disclose such statements that are inconsistent with the positions Patent
`Owner is now taking.
`19 Ex. 1008 at p.2.
`20 Ex. 1008 at p.3.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`[T]he functions seen in Figure 3 of Blanchard are found within the
`application itself, and thus the sub-menu displays shown in Figure 3
`are visible only once the application itself is launched.
`
`These quotations show that Patent Owner admitted during litigation that Blanchard
`
`discloses applications.
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner’s expert in the litigation, Dr. Mahon, stated in his
`
`expert report that Blanchard describes a “mailbox application”:
`
`[I]t is at the very least unclear that there is any other way for a user to
`run or interact with the mailbox application other than navigating to
`the sub-menu in 330, 331, and 332. Thus, in my opinion Blanchard’s
`“sub-level menu choices” are not, as Rhyne contends, application
`summaries or application summary windows, but rather are the actual
`applications themselves.21
`
`Dr. Mahon also stated that Blanchard had “applications” more generally, and that
`
`Blanchard’s “sub-level menu choices” were a way of interacting with those
`
`applications:
`
`[I]t is my opinion that this is incorrect as the application was already
`launched.22
`
`* - - * - - *
`
`
`21 Ex. 1009 at ¶ 13 (emphasis added).
`22 Id. at ¶ 43 (emphasis added).
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
` In my opinion, these sub-level menu choices are the only way
`Blanchard discloses a user can interact with an application, and thus
`when the sub-level menu choices are displayed, the application is
`opened.23
`
`* - - * - - *
`If the user selects the associated action, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art [“POSITA”] would understand that the application will be
`brought
`to
`the
`foreground, but
`is already
`launched
`(i.e.
`running/executing) before they made the selection of the action as
`demonstrated by the display of “Text Msg[07].”24
`
`Dr. Mahon’s expert report provides yet additional statements that Blanchard
`
`discloses applications.25
`
`Patent Owner also described Blanchard as having applications in its
`
`Preliminary Response. There, Patent Owner expressly acknowledged that
`
`Blanchard’s top-level menu describes “phone book, mail box, lock and tool
`
`applications”:
`
`[T]he user of Blanchard’s display can take only one action with
`respect to the applications listed on the menu (i.e., phone book, mail
`box, lock and tool applications). From the applications listed on the
`
`23 Id. at ¶ 26 (emphasis added).
`24 Id. at ¶ 26
`25 Id. ¶¶ 35, 42.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`menu, the only action the user can take is to use “Right and Left arrow
`keys 223 and 225” to access a parent screen display …
`
`This was not an isolated statement, it is a repeated admission:
`
`Blanchard, on the other hand, provides only one means by which an
`application may be invoked.26
`* - - * - - *
`In Blanchard, menu options presented in response to highlighting a
`top row icon of a menu are the only means by which the associated
`application may be invoked.27
`* - - * - - *
`Because a user can take only one action with respect to the
`applications listed on a menu, this action must be interpreted as the
`launching of the application. 28
`* - - * - - *
`For each application icon shown in a top row of the display, a number
`of functions are available. As a user navigates between top-row
`application icons, the displayed menu changes to present the functions
`associated with the highlighted icon. Id. at 3:45-47; 3:54 – 4:22.29
`
`
`26 Preliminary Response at 9 (emphasis added).
`27 Id. (emphasis added).
`28 Id. at 9-10 (emphasis added).
`29 Id. at 11 (emphasis added).
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`In sum, both in the litigation and this proceeding, Patent Owner (and its
`
`litigation expert) has repeatedly described Blanchard as containing “applications.”
`
`Patent Owner’s reversal of position should be rejected for this reason alone.
`
`
`Blanchard discloses “applications” to a POSITA.
`2.
`The claims require a menu (“application summary window”) containing
`
`choices representing functions available within an “application.” The claims
`
`further require that this menu is displayed while the “application” is in “an
`
`unlaunched state.” Blanchard discloses each of those limitations, regardless of
`
`how “application” is construed.
`
`Blanchard discloses a user interface just like the one in the ‘020 patent. The
`
`user interface described in Blanchard has a top-level menu that contains icons such
`
`as “Phone Book” and “Mailbox,” just as the user interface described in the ’020
`
`patent has a top-level menu with icons for “Contacts” and “Messages.” The ’020
`
`patent’s menu is depicted on the left, and Blanchard’s is depicted on the right:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`The ‘020 patent describes
`
`the
`
`icons
`
`in
`
`its menu as representing
`
`“applications.” Patent Owner nonetheless argues that the corresponding icons in
`
`Blanchard do not represent “applications.” While Blanchard does not use the word
`
`“application,” that does not mean that Blanchard does not disclose the use of
`
`“applications” as claimed in the ’020 patent.
`
`It is undisputed that the icons in the top-level menus play the same role in
`
`the user interfaces of both Blanchard and the ’020 patent: representing the “top-
`
`level functions” of the phone. Patent Owner’s expert admitted that the menu
`
`options that the ’020 patent describes as “applications” are the “top-level
`
`functions” of the phone.30 He further admitted that the phone in Blanchard has the
`
`same types of “top level functions” that are described in the ’020 patent.31
`
`Furthermore, based on the admissions of Patent Owner’s expert, it is
`
`undisputed that the phone in Blanchard operates in the same way as the phone
`
`described in the ’020 patent with respect to all of the explicit claim limitations:
`
`30 See Ex. 1016 at 93:18-21 (Denning testifying that the “messages, contacts,
`calendar, and phone” shown in Figure 1 of the ’020 patent are “top-level
`functions”); see also id. at 84:10-14 (acknowledging that “it’s possible” that the
`’020 patent equates “applications” with the “top-level functions” of the phone).
`31 Id. at 93:18-21; 94:1-7 (Denning testifying that these “top-level functions”
`appear “to be common between the ’020, the Oommen reference and Blanchard”).
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`each selectable menu item has code (software) associated with it that runs when the
`
`corresponding menu item is selected, but that is not running when the user is
`
`navigating through the menus. In particular, it is undisputed that the phone
`
`described in Blanchard included the ability to make a call, send a text message, and
`
`retrieve contact information.32 It is undisputed that these functions are provided by
`
`software code that runs on the phone,33 and, importantly, that the code that
`
`provides those functions is not running when the user is navigating through the
`
`menus shown in Blanchard’s Figure 3.34 In other words, it is undisputed that the
`
`code in Blanchard’s phone that performs a particular function is executed at the
`
`point in time when the user seeks to use that function (e.g. by selecting a particular
`
`
`32 Id. at 14:4-7 (Denning testifying that Blanchard’s phone has “functions for
`contacts, dialing a phone, and text messages.”); see also id. at 13:11-15; 14:8-19.
`33 Id. at 24:11-14 (Denning stating that in Blanchard, “every menu item has some
`code that is called when the item is selected”).
`34 See Ex. 1016 at 94:9-20 (Denning admitting that in Blanchard, the code for
`telephone functions is not running while the user is using email functions, and vice
`versa); 94:22-95:12 (testifying that when the user is looking at Blanchard’s top-
`level menu, the code for the telephone and email functions us not running, what is
`running is the code for the menu).
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`option from one of the menus shown in Figure 3), not while the user is navigating
`
`through the menus of the user interface.35
`
`These facts establish that Blanchard satisfies all of the explicit requirements
`
`of the claims. As explained above, the claims require a menu (“application
`
`summary window”) containing choices that represent functions offered within the
`
`application, and further require that this menu is displayed “while the application is
`
`in an unlaunched state.” Blanchard contains a top-level menu, each of whose
`
`options has a sub-menu that lists functions that are performed by software code
`
`within the phone.36 That code is in an unlaunched state (i.e. not running) while the
`
`user is navigating the menus, and is launched (i.e. executed) when the user
`
`highlights the corresponding option from one of the menus shown in Figure 3 and
`
`presses the “Select” key to “activate” that option.37
`
`Patent Owner’s only argument is that the software in Blanchard’s phone that
`
`performs a particular function does not meet the implicit requirement of the claims
`
`35 Id. at 96:6-16 (Denning admitting “the code for the particular function starts
`running when the user selects that function,” and “before that, what was running
`was the code that presented the menus to the user”).
`36 Id. at 24:11-14 (in Blanchard, “every menu item has some code that is called
`when the item is selected”).
`37 Id. at 96:6-16, 24:11-14; Blanchard at 6:42-46.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`because it is merely a “module” within a “monolithic operating program,” and not
`
`an “application.”38 This argument can rejected as a matter of claim construction,
`
`even under Patent Owner’s incorrect reading of Blanchard, because any reasonable
`
`construction of “application” includes the software for performing user functions
`
`that is undisputedly present in Blanchard. In other words, even if Patent Owner
`
`were correct that Blanchard is interpreted as disclosing only a “monolithic
`
`operating program” with software “modules” for the various user functions
`
`disclosed in Fig. 3, then the set of those modules that are grouped together under
`
`each top-level function (e.g. phone book, mailbox) would nonetheless be
`
`“applications” as that term is used in the ’020 patent.39
`
`Patent Owner’s “applications” argument should also be rejected because a
`
`POSITA would not conclude that Blanchard’s software must be a “set of
`
`monolithic instructions” that does not have any “applications.” To the contrary, a
`
`POSITA would recognize that, like the ’020 patent, Blanchard is focused on the
`
`user interface for a mobile telephone, and not on the architecture for the underlying
`
`software that enables the phone to perform the functions.40 Blanchard emphasizes
`
`
`38 Response at 37.
`39 See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 45-46.
`40 Ex. 1002 at 5:13-16; Ex. 1015 at ¶ 9.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`that the user interface it describes “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.”41 As Patent Owner’s expert admitted, Blanchard’s user
`
`interface could be “implemented using any of the known phone configurations.”42
`
`And it is undisputed that the phone configurations known to a POSITA at the time
`
`included the very same “operating-system and applications” architecture that
`
`Patent Owner asserts are required by the ’020 patent.43 In fact, the ’020 patent
`
`itself acknowledges that a prior art “mobile telephone” includes “several different
`
`applications (e.g., a message application, a contacts/address book application, a
`
`calendar application and a
`
`telephone application)”
`
`that
`
`the user could
`
`“start/open.”44 Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, a POSITA in the art
`
`would understand that Blanchard teaches applying the user-interface it describes to
`
`a phone that uses an “operating-system and applications” architecture, because that
`
`software implementation was undisputedly known, and because Blanchard teaches
`
`
`41 Ex. 1002 at 5:17-20.
`42 Ex. 1016 at 24:20-22; 112:14-17; see also Ex. 1015 at ¶ 9.
`43 Ex. 1016 at 55:2-7, 99:13-20; 65:17-21; Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 9-19.
`44 Ex. 1001 at 1:14-15, 1:37-46.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`that user
`
`interface could be
`
`implemented with any known software
`
`implementation. 45
`
`
`The Oommen patent relied on by Patent Owner actually
`3.
`contradicts its arguments.
`Patent Owner and its expert also argue that the Oommen patent demonstrates
`
`that Blanchard would have been implemented with a “monolithic operating
`
`program,” not with “applications” and an “operating-system.” In fact, Oommen
`
`demonstrates that a “monolithic operating program” was an undesirable way to
`
`implement a phone as of the priority date of the ’020 patent. Oommen also
`
`undermines
`
`the distinctions
`
`that Patent Owner seeks
`
`to draw between
`
`“applications,” “operating systems” and “monolithic operating programs.”
`
`Oommen is a Nokia patent that was filed in May 2000 and is thus prior art to
`
`the ’020 patent. Oommen explains that because “service providers are constantly
`
`increasing the number of services available to consumers through mobile stations,”
`
`“it is often necessary to update the software in the mobile station,” and thus there
`
`was a need to make the process of updating such software more efficient.46
`
`Oommen teaches that this can be done by replacing “a conventional monolithic
`
`
`45 Ex. 1015 at ¶ 9; see generally id. at ¶¶ 8-54.
`46 Ex. 2009 at 1:12-18, 1:32-34, 1:58-63.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`operating program” with a “control program that includes a group of current
`
`objects … and a dynamic agent operating program.”47 The “objects” are the
`
`software that provides user services on the phone, for example, “software used to
`
`send and receive E-mail messages,” or a “scheduling program object.”48 Oommen
`
`explains that the advantage of this approach is that “[i]nstead of replacing the
`
`entire operating program when a new service is being offered, only a portion of
`
`control program is required to be changed.”49 For example, the email software on
`
`a phone can be updated by changing only the “E-mail service object.”50
`
`Oommen specifically teaches that a “monolithic operating program” was an
`
`undesirable way to implement a phone, and that it was preferable to use a control
`
`program where the specific software modules used to provide particular user
`
`services could be separately updated.51 Thus, Oommen contradicts Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that a POSITA would have understood from Blanchard’s silence about
`
`its underlying software architecture that a “monolithic” program would be used.
`
`
`47 C.f. Ex. 2009 at 1:20-21, 2:13-16; see also id. at 3:16-27.
`48 Ex. 2009 at 3:27-30, 5:47.
`49 Ex. 2009 at 3:23-27.
`50 Ex. 2009 at 3:27-30.
`51 See Ex. 1016 at 188:2-8.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`Oommen is also inconsistent with Patent Owner’s attempt to portray the
`
`universe of mobile phones as being divided into those with distinct “operating
`
`systems” and “applications,” and those with “monolithic control programs.”
`
`Patent Owner’s expert initially testified that Oommen’s replaceable software
`
`“objects” were not “applications layered on top of an operating system.”52 But
`
`during re-direct examination by Patent Owner, Mr. Denning testified that “control
`
`program 200” in Oommen was “most likely” to be “application on top of operating
`
`system” software, and pointed out that an “advantage” of an “application operating
`
`system architecture” is that “applications can be easily swapped out or replaced.”53
`
`Mr. Denning’s changing testimony about whether Oommen’s replaceable “objects”
`
`were “applications” shows that the distinction between a “monolithic” architecture
`
`and an “application operating system” architecture is not nearly as clear as Patent
`
`
`52 Id. at 44:5-10; see also id. at 48:8-49:2.
`53 Ex. 1016 at 185:10-18; 181:19-182:10; see also id. at 186:3-11, 187:7-188:1
`(testifying that “the ability to update particular modules” in Oommen was
`“something in common … with an operating system application architecture, that
`the applications can easily be swapped out.”)
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`Owner makes it out to be.54 It is certainly not a distinction that can make the
`
`claims of the ’020 patent patentable over Blanchard.
`
`
`Blanchard “launches” software when a menu item is
`4.
`selected, it does not merely cause the phone to “advance to
`another screen.”
`Patent Owner argues that in Blanchard, selecting an option from a menu
`
`does not launch an application; it merely causes the phone to advance “to another
`
`screen.”55 This argument completely ignores Blanchard’s disclosure that the
`
`“selectable menu options” shown in Figure 3 are “activated” when the user presses
`
`“Select”:
`
`… the third and fourth lines of the display are used to present
`selectable menu choices or item type information to the user. The user
`may press the Select key 227 to activate one of these options when the
`darkened oval is positioned next to the desired option. By way of
`example, in screen 210, pressing the Select key 227 redials the last
`number previously dialed.
`
`
`54 Id. at 47:8-48:6 (testifying that he had not considered how Oommen’s “objects”
`compare to “applications,” and that he could not provide any opinion about
`whether there was any difference between them).
`