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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF V. THOMAS RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF V. THOMAS RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated March 17, 2016 (Paper 8), Patent
`
`Owner timely moves for observations on cross-examination in light of Patent
`
`Owner’s cross-examination of Petitioner’s witness, V. Thomas Rhyne on October
`
`25, 2016. The transcript of Dr. Rhyne’s cross-examination testimony is being filed
`
`as exhibit 2011 (“Ex. 2011”), which includes Exhibit A marked for identification
`
`at the deposition. Exhibit A is a portion of Random House Webster’s Computer &
`
`Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, which was filed as Exhibit 1028 by petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. in co-pending IPR2015-01899. The remaining exhibits used at the
`
`deposition of Dr. Rhyne are already of record in this proceeding and are not
`
`included as part of Ex. 2011.
`
`
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`1. Ex. 2011 at 11:11-12:7: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1010 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1010.
`
`2. Ex. 2011 at 12:8-14:8: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1011 from the attorneys representing LG, and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1011.
`
`3. Ex. 2011 at 14:11-15:10: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he
`
`received Ex. 1012 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`this testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex.
`
`1012.
`
`4. Ex. 2011 at 15:11-16:7: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1013 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1013.
`
`5. Ex. 2011 at 26:17-31:18: Dr. Rhyne testifies that there were four types of
`
`programming schemes that were available or known to a POSITA as of
`
`July 2000 “for implementing functions in a mobile phone” (Ex. 2011 at
`
`28:19-22).
`
`a. “monolithic” code (Ex. 2011 at 27:17-21);
`
`b. “Separate applications on top of an application programming
`
`interface to an operating system.” (Ex. 2011 at 29:17-19);
`
`c. “a single application on top of an API that then communicates
`
`with an operating system” (Ex. 2011 at 30:9-11; 30:12-16); and
`
`d. “separate applications that were written but not atop an API to
`
`an operating system[,] where the application had to itself
`
`develop the code that was necessary to take advantage of the
`
`facilities that are available in the phone, which would normally
`
`be supported by the OS.” (Ex. 2011 at 30:22-31:6).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`e. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its
`
`burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`6. Ex. 2011 at 33:9-35:5: Dr. Rhyne testifies on the factors that a POSITA
`
`would have considered in selecting one of the four types of programming
`
`schemes that were available or known to a POSITA as of July 2000 “for
`
`implementing functions in a mobile phone” (Ex. 2011 at 28:19-22). This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne and Petitioner “disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data on which [Dr. Rhyne’s] opinion [regarding
`
`Blanchard] is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`7. Ex. 2011 at 42:11-14: Dr. Rhyne agrees that a POSITA “would have had
`
`to choose a programming scheme in order to implement Blanchard.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its burden of
`
`proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over
`
`Blanchard.
`
`8. Ex. 2011 at 43:4-6: Dr. Rhyne previously agreed that a POSITA “would
`
`have had to choose a programming scheme in order to implement
`
`Blanchard,” and here agrees that this choice would be based on the
`
`factors he identified. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`carried its burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`9. Ex. 2011 at 28:3-18; 36:1-11: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of
`
`the relevant time would have known how to write monolithic software,
`
`and would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu structure
`
`with monolithic code (i.e. without applications). This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its burden of proof of
`
`establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over Blanchard.
`
`10. Ex. 2011 at 36:14-21: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of the
`
`relevant time would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu
`
`structure with a single application on top of an API with an operating
`
`system. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its
`
`burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over
`
`Blanchard.
`
`11. Ex. 2011 at 36:22-37:6: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of the
`
`relevant time would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu
`
`structure with multiple applications without an operating system, but that
`
`this would have been more difficult without an “efficiently written
`
`operating system.” This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`carried its burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`12. Ex. 2011 at 44:3-6; 44:13-45:12. Dr. Rhyne testifies that all the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘020 and ‘476 patents require “applications.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of the scope of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`13. Ex. 2011 at 53:14-54:14; 55:1-15 (see also 74:14-77:17): Dr. Rhyne
`
`confirms that Blanchard is silent about whether “a user could access all
`
`of the functions of an [alleged] application from the application”. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Blanchard discloses or suggests all
`
`features of the challenged claims.
`
`14. Ex. 2011 at 57:6-58:1; 59:15-60:3; 69:10-70:7: Dr. Rhyne testifies that he
`
`agrees with the statement from Exhibit A (attached to Ex. 2011) that
`
`“application software sits on top of system software because it is unable
`
`to run without the operating system and system utilities.” This testimony
`
`is relevant to the proper scope of the challenged claims of the ‘020 and
`
`‘476 patent, and whether they require an operating system.
`
`15. Ex. 2011 at 62:2-20: Dr. Rhyne testifies that of “the earliest
`
`microprocessor control cellular phones that [he is] familiar with, which
`
`would be the Motorola family,” he “did not remember any of those early
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Motorola phones having software that was identifiable as a separate
`
`operating system.” This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne and
`
`Petitioner “disclose the underlying facts or data on which [Dr. Rhyne’s]
`
`opinion [regarding Blanchard] is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`16. Ex. 2011 at 74:5-13: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the functionality for a “text
`
`message” is made available only after a user selects the “text message
`
`option on screen 331” of Blanchard’s Fig. 3. This testimony is relevant
`
`to whether Blanchard’s Fig. 3 discloses a “function” as claimed in the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`17. Ex. 2011 at 87:6-14: Dr. Rhyne testifies that a particular Ericsson phone
`
`had “sufficient processing capability” and had “multiple applications and
`
`an operating system.” Ex. 2011 at 91:8-92:3: Dr. Rhyne also testifies
`
`that he does not know “how many open [launched] applications the
`
`Ericsson R380s could have at a time”. See also Ex. 2011 at 91:21-92:1
`
`(“… I don’t have hard data to support that one way or the other.”). This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s basis for his opinions on Blanchard.
`
`18. Ex. 2011 at 112:11-113:4: Dr. Rhyne testifies that he does not know
`
`whether it was possible to have multiple application windows visible on a
`
`screen at once as of July 2000. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`basis for his opinions on Blanchard.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`19. Ex. 2011 at 46:12-18: Dr. Rhyne confirms that Blanchard refers to Fig. 3
`
`as a “hierarchically arranged menu.” This testimony is relevant to the
`
`proper scope of the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation
`
`of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`20. Ex. 2011 at 80:12-81:3, 106:9-15: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the goal of
`
`the ‘020 and ‘476 patents is “efficient navigation through the user
`
`interface” and allows for launching an application at an “entry point” of
`
`the selected function. This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of
`
`the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s
`
`teachings.
`
`21. Ex. 2011 at 84:7-18: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the “purpose of the
`
`application summary window is to give me a way to activate both the
`
`application and that function of the application … .” This testimony is
`
`relevant to the proper scope of the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`interpretation of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`22. Ex. 2011 at 85:14-22: Dr. Rhyne testifies on the interpretation of “limited
`
`list.” This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of the challenged
`
`claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`23. Ex. 2011 at 101:8-11; 105:10-20: Dr. Rhyne characterizes the application
`
`summary windows of the ‘020 patent as “hierarchically arranged menus”
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`but agrees that the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 3 do not show “any
`
`further hierarchy.” This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of the
`
`challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s
`
`teachings.
`
`Dated: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY,
`LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 10, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF V. THOMAS RHYNE and EXHIBIT 2011 are being served via
`
`email to the Petitioner at the correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`harrisr@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`brownn@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Richard D. Harris
`Eric J. Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`Nicholas A. Brown
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
