`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01984
`
`Patent No. 8,434,020
`
`Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for
`Applications
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... III
`I.
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ............ 1
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Observations 1-4 ......................................................... 1
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Observations 5-11 ....................................................... 1
`C.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 12............................................................ 2
`D.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 13............................................................ 2
`E.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 14............................................................ 3
`F.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 15............................................................ 3
`G.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 16............................................................ 4
`H.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 17............................................................ 4
`I.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 18............................................................ 5
`J.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 19............................................................ 5
`K.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 20............................................................ 5
`L.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 21............................................................ 6
`M.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 22............................................................ 6
`N.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 23............................................................ 6
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1010
`
`Description
`Excerpt from 12/99 issue of Popular Science
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`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
`
`Rebuttal Declaration Of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`Transcript of September 7, 2016 Deposition of Scott Denning
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response To Observations
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A.
` Patent Owner’s observations numbered 1-4 identify Dr. Rhyne’s testimony
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations 1-4
`
`that he received Exhibits 1010-1013 from counsel for LG. Patent Owner argues
`
`that this testimony suggests that Dr. Rhyne cannot authenticate these exhibits. As
`
`explained in LG’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (filed
`
`concurrently) nothing in Fed. R. Evid. 901 suggests that Dr. Rhyne cannot
`
`authenticate these exhibits because he received them from counsel.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations 5-11
`
`B.
` In these observations, Patent Owner identifies portions of Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony that identifies different programming schemes. Patent Owner points out
`
`that Dr. Rhyne acknowledged that other programming schemes were available
`
`(observation #5); that one would have to choose a programming scheme in order to
`
`implement Blanchard (observations 6-8); and that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known how to write monolithic software (observation 9). Dr. Rhyne
`
`explained clearly that the applications-plus-operating-system programming scheme
`
`was the preferred approach of those of ordinary skill by July 2000 for use in a
`
`typical cell phone. Ex. 2011 at 61:8-62:1 (testifying that, as of July 2000, use of a
`
`“monolithic operating program” was not a “good strategy” and that “I don’t think
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, if able to have the typical amount of resources for,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`say, a cell phone or something like that, would have taken that approach, as
`
`Oommen makes clear”). Dr. Rhyne also explained that while a cell phone could be
`
`implemented by creating applications without an operating system, that approach
`
`“is a miasma. That's just not the way to do it…” Ex. 2011 at 59:2-3; see generally
`
`Ex. 2011 at 58:2-59:14.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 12
`
`C.
`Patent Owner points out that Dr. Rhyne agreed that all the challenged claims
`
`of the ’020 and ’476 patents require “applications.” It is not in dispute that the
`
`term “application” appears in all the claims. Dr. Rhyne also testified that the scope
`
`of patent includes “systems which do not have a concept of separate applications as
`
`such” but “that approach is dedicated to the public.” Ex. 2011 at 45:7-12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 13
`
`D.
`Patent Owner mis-cites Dr. Rhyne’s testimony and attempts to attribute it to
`
`all applications disclosed in Blanchard. Patent owner identifies and then changes
`
`testimony from Dr. Rhyne that Blanchard is silent whether after “the phonebook
`
`application is launched,” a user “would be able to access all of the five disclosed
`
`functions of that phonebook application.” Ex. 2011 at 53:14-54:14. In answering
`
`the questions, Dr. Rhyne assumed that he was already in the “view all” screen of
`
`the phonebook and that Blanchard was silent after that point. Ex. 2011 at 54:15-
`
`55:15. As such, it supports a finding of obviousness, because it shows that
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`Blanchard describes launching an application from an application summary
`
`window, as required by the challenged claims.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 14
`
`E.
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rhyne testified that he “agrees” with a
`
`statement in the Computer & Internet Dictionary that “application software sits on
`
`top of system software because it is unable to run without the operating system and
`
`system utilities.” Patent Owner mis-cites the transcript by omitting a portion of the
`
`statement, which reads "Figuratively speaking, application software sits on top of
`
`system software because it is unable to run without the operating system and
`
`system utilities." Ex. 2011 at 57:8-11. More importantly, while Dr. Rhyne testified
`
`that this statement was “generally true,” (Ex. 2011 at 57:15) he also referenced his
`
`earlier explanation of the many different ways to write software, including his
`
`explanation that it is possible to have applications that run without an operating
`
`system (though as he testified, that approach “is a miasma,” i.e. it is not a good
`
`approach). Ex. 2011 at 59:2; see generally Ex. 2011 at 57:6-60:3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 15
`
`F.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne about the “earliest”
`
`cellular phones that he was familiar with, and in particular, testimony that those
`
`early Motorola phones did not have a separate operating system. The early phones
`
`described in this testimony are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with state of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`art as of July 2000. As explained above, Dr. Rhyne testified that by July 2000, as
`
`Oommen makes clear, use of a “monolithic operating program” was not a “good
`
`strategy” and not the approach that a person of ordinary skill would have taken.
`
`Ex. 2011 at 61:8-62:1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 16
`
`G.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that one could access text
`
`message functionality in Blanchard by selecting the “test message option on screen
`
`331” of Blanchard’s Fig. 3. Patent Owner appears to suggest that this means that
`
`the Blanchard’s Fig. 3 does not disclose a “function” as claimed. This argument
`
`does not make sense, is new and was not made in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`H. Patent Owner’s Observation 17
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that the Ericsson R380s
`
`had “multiple applications and an operating system” and characterizes Dr. Rhyne
`
`testimony as being “that he does not know ‘how many open [launched]
`
`applications the Ericsson R380s could have at a time.’” In fact, Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony was as follows: “I don’t know for sure. My expectation is one.” Ex.
`
`2011 at 91:12-13. This testimony confirms and supports Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that
`
`Blanchard renders obvious the challenged claims, because it provides further
`
`support for the opinion that it would have been obvious to implement Blanchard
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`using an applications/operating system architecture, such as was used in the
`
`Ericsson R380s.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 18
`
`I.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that he does not know
`
`whether it was possible to have “multiple applications windows visible on a screen
`
`at once.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant but does not explain how or
`
`why. It is not relevant, because the claims do not require “multiple applications
`
`windows visible on a screen at once.” Further, Dr. Rhyne continued his testimony
`
`stating “Is it possible that you could have left something on the screen? Maybe.”
`
`Ex. 2011 at 113:2-4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 19
`
`J.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne confirming that
`
`Blanchard contains text describing its Fig. 3 as showing a “hierarchically arranged
`
`menu.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to the “proper scope of the
`
`challenged claims” but does not explain how or why. It is not relevant, because
`
`Dr. Rhyne was merely asked to confirm the existence of text in the Blanchard
`
`reference – not his opinion on the text read. Ex. 2011 at 46:12-18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 20
`
`K.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne confirming that the ’020
`
`and ’476 patents contain text stating that the problem being addressed “is efficient
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`navigation through the user interface.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to
`
`the “proper scope of the challenged claims” but does not explain how or why. It is
`
`not relevant, because Dr. Rhyne was merely asked to confirm the existence of text
`
`in the ’020 and ’476 patents—he was not asked for any opinion on the text read.
`
`Ex. 2011 at 80:12-81:13.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 21
`
`L.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that “the purpose of the
`
`application summary window is to give me a way to activate both the application
`
`and the function of the application.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to
`
`the “proper scope of the challenged claims” but does not explain how or why.
`
`Unless Patent Owner is attaching some unexplained significance to the word
`
`“activate,” this testimony is not relevant to any disputed issue.
`
`M. Patent Owner’s Observation 22
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne about the term “limited
`
`list.” Patent Owner does not explain how this testimony supports its position,
`
`because it does not. See Ex. 2011 at 85:14-22.
`
`N. Patent Owner’s Observation 23
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne explaining that the
`
`“application summary windows” of the ’020 patent present hierarchically arranged
`
`menus, just as Blanchard does. Ex. 2011 at 100:18-102:4 and 104:11-21. Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`Owner does not explain why it believes this testimony supports its position. In
`
`fact, this testimony corroborates and explains Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that Blanchard
`
`renders obvious the challenged claims. Patent Owner also points out testimony
`
`from Dr. Rhyne confirming that the ’020 patent does not show or say “anything
`
`much” about what happens after one of the options is selected from the application
`
`summary window. Ex. 2011 at 102:5-103:9. Again, this is just like Blanchard,
`
`and thus supports Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that Blanchard renders obvious the
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Herbert H. Finn /
`Herbert H. Finn
`Registration No.: 38,139
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`P: 312-456-8427
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`7
`
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE has been electronically served on the
`
`Patent Owner’s attorneys on the date listed below at the following address:
`
`Wayne Helge
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Email: whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`Office: 571-765-7700
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` Herbert H. Finn /
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`8