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 2015-01894
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,434,020
`UNDER 35 USC §§ 311-319 AND 37 CFR §42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case 2015-01894
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,434,020
`UNDER 35 USC §§ 311-319 AND 37 CFR §42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION. ................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. the ‘020 Patent. ....................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Overview of the ‘020 Patent. .............................................................. 4
`
`B. Claim Construction. ........................................................................... 5
`
`III. Argument ............................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Patentability Over Schnarel. ............................................................. 8
`
`i. Overview of Schnarel ........................................................................ 8
`
`ii. Schnarel Fails to Teach an Application Summary Window that can
`be Reached Directly from the Main Menu. ............................................ 11
`
`iii. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Modify Schnarel to
`Meet the Requirements of the Claims. ................................................... 12
`
`iv. Claim 11 is Separately Patentable Over Schnarel. .......................... 14
`
`B. Patentability Over Blanchard. ......................................................... 15
`
`i. Overview of Blanchard ................................................................... 16
`
`ii. Blanchard Fails to Teach an Application Summary Window that can
`be Reached Directly from the Main Menu ............................................. 18
`
`iii. Blanchard Fails to Teach an Application Summary Window
`Displayed While an Application is in an Un-launched State ................. 20
`
`IV. Conclusion. ........................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 12
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ................................................................... 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Appeal No. 2014-1542 (Fed. Cir. Jun 16, 2015) ......................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 5
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)...................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION.
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and
`
`16 of US Patent 8,434,020 (the “‘020 Patent”)1 as follows:
`
`1. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are alleged to be obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to
`
`Blanchard et al. (“Blanchard”).
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are alleged to be obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 to
`
`Schnarel (“Schnarel“).
`
`
`
`1 At p. 1, the Petition alleges that the Petitioner is seeking seeks inter partes
`
`review of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16. Pet. at 1. However, at
`
`pp. 2-3, the Petition “requests that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14
`
`of the ’020 patent (Ex. 1001) be cancelled” on the grounds specified above.
`
`Later, at p. 6 and elsewhere, it is claim 16 that again appears to be the
`
`subject of the challenges. For purposes of this preliminary response, both
`
`claims 14 and 16 are addressed. However, the lack of specificity in the
`
`challenge it itself a reason for denying the petition. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22,
`
`42.104.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`As discussed below, however, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”
`
`or “Board”) should not institute inter partes review of the ‘020 Patent on any
`
`of the proposed grounds, because Petitioner has not met its burden to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims.2
`
`With respect to the challenge based on Schnarel, Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate that Schnarel teaches or suggests both a main menu listing at
`
`least a first application, and an application summary window that can be
`
`reached directly from the main menu. Indeed, rather than describing such an
`
`arrangement, Schnarel describes a user interface that includes an
`
`“application button bar” and a message summary pane, which are displayed
`
`concurrently, but independently. The message summary pane is reachable by
`
`the user independently of the application button bar in the application
`
`selection area and not from that application selection area. Accordingly,
`
`
`
`2 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108(c).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`none of the proposed grounds for trial which rely on Schnarel teach or
`
`suggest the limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`With respect to the challenge based on Blanchard, the cited reference
`
`does not teach or suggest such an application summary window, as claimed,
`
`because the menu options presented in response to a top-row icon being
`
`highlighted (as a result of a user scrolling to a desired top-row icon) are the
`
`only means by which the associated application (or function) may be
`
`invoked. That is, the menu displayed as a result of such selection cannot be
`
`considered an application summary window because rather than presenting
`
`an alternative approach to launching the associated application, the menu
`
`options being presented provide the only means of doing so.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner admits that “Blanchard does not discuss the
`
`concept of an application being in an “unlaunched” state using those words,”
`
`and nor does Blanchard suggest such a feature. Indeed, because a user of
`
`Blanchard’s display can take only one action with respect to the applications
`
`listed on the menu, this action must be interpreted as the launching of the
`
`application. Consequently, the alleged application summary is displayed
`
`while the one or more applications are in a launched state. Hence, all of the
`
`challenged claims are patentable over Blanchard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. THE ‘020 PATENT.
`A. Overview of the ‘020 Patent.
`
`The ‘020 Patent describes and claims a computing device with an
`
`improved user interface for applications; more specifically, a user interface
`
`that includes a “snap-shot view” of common functions and commonly
`
`accessed stored data associated with an application on the computing device.
`
`According to one aspect of the invention, the snap-shot view is provided by
`
`an application summary window that is displayed on a display screen of the
`
`computing device. The summary window includes a limited list of (i)
`
`common functions offered within an application, and/or (ii) data stored in
`
`that application. The snap-shot view afforded by the summary window thus
`
`displays common functions and commonly accessed stored data that can be
`
`reached directly from a main menu listing some or all applications available
`
`on the computing device.
`
`The snap-shot view afforded by the summary window yields many
`
`
`
`advantages in ease and speed of navigation, particularly on small screen
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`devices, such as a mobile telephone. For example, where the summary
`
`window for a given application shows data or a function of interest, the user
`
`can directly select that data or function; this causes the application to open
`
`and the user to be presented with a screen in which the data or function of
`
`interest is prominent. This saves the user from navigating to the required
`
`application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to
`
`enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction.
`
`The Board applies the “broadest reasonable construction, as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the
`
`disclosure” when interpreting the claims of a challenged patent. Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); and see
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (‘PTO’) determines the scope of claims in patent
`
`applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving
`
`claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as
`
`it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’) citing In re Am.
`
`Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`“That is not to say, however, that the Board may construe claims
`
`during IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general
`
`claim construction principles. As [the Federal Circuit has] explained in other
`
`contexts, ‘[t]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally incorrect
`
`interpretation.’ In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.Cir.2010) (‘The
`
`broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not
`
`give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything
`
`remotely related to the claimed invention.’). Rather, ‘claims should always
`
`be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.’
`
`Suitco, 603 F.3d at 1260. The PTO should also consult the patent's
`
`prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought
`
`back to the agency for a second review. See Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli
`
`LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed.Cir.2014). Even under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the Board's construction ‘cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence,’ In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288
`
`(Fed.Cir.2011), and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the
`
`art would reach,’ In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.Cir.1999). A
`
`construction that is ‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`reflect the plain language and disclosure’ will not pass muster. Suitco, 603
`
`F.3d at 1260.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1542,
`
`slip op. at 6-7 (Fed. Cir. Jun 16, 2015). Thus, the pending claims must,
`
`during this proceeding, be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification.
`
`In the present case, Petitioner asserts that the phrase, “reached directly
`
`from the main menu,” which appears in independent claims 1 and 16, 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. Pet. at 13-14. Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`this contention, as it is not supported by the ‘020 Patent. In the ‘020 Patent,
`
`the summary window (the “App Snapshot”) is said to drop down from the
`
`highlight bar, after the highlight rests on the name of an application in the
`
`App Launcher for a certain amount of time (say a 1.2 second timeout). The
`
`summary window is not present before the highlight rests on the name of an
`
`application in the App Launcher. Ex. 1001 at col. 3, ll. 23-27 and Figs. 1-
`
`2. Therefore, at a minimum, the phrase “reached directly from the main
`
`menu” requires the summary window to appear in response to at least some
`
`user interaction with the main menu.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Patentability Over Schnarel.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 16 are alleged to be obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,409 to Schnarel (“Schnarel“).
`
`Pet. at 23 et seq. However, each of these claims requires both a main menu
`
`listing at least a first application, and an application summary window that
`
`can be reached directly from the main menu. Schnarel, on the other hand,
`
`describes a user interface for a telephone device that includes an “application
`
`button bar” in an application selection area (which Petitioner equates with
`
`the “main menu” recited in the claims, Pet. at 24), and a message summary
`
`pane (which Petitioner equates with the claimed “application summary
`
`window” Pet. at 25). The message summary pane cannot be reached from
`
`the application button bar (or the application selection area), hence, the
`
`challenged claims are not taught or suggested by Schnarel.
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Schnarel
`
`Schnarel discloses a graphical user interface for a web telephone and
`
`other telephony devices. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Part of the graphical user
`
`interface is a “start” screen. Id. at 4:16-33. An example start screen is shown
`
`
`
`in Figure 1, reproduced below for convenience.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`The start screen is composed of
`
`the following display elements:
`
`1) a pane(s) area (102); 2) an
`
`application selection area (104)
`
`called the application button
`
`bar; and a call slip area (106).
`
`Id. at 4:34-37.
`
`
`
`According to Schnarel,
`
`Ex. 1003, Figure 1, with reference
`numeral 100 pointing to a start screen
`
`the application button bar's primary functions are to inform the user of all
`
`applications that are available to them and to provide a vehicle for launching
`
`those applications. Id. at 9:4-6. The default panes within pane area 102 are
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Figure 2, showing default
`panes within pane area 102.
`
`labeled in Figure 2 of Ex. 1003,
`
`reproduced at right for
`
`convenience. These include a
`
`branding pane (202), a date and
`
`time pane (204), a message pane
`
`or message summary pane (206),
`
`and a task pane (208). Id. at 5:20-
`
`22.
`
`
`
`The messages pane is a
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`portion of the start screen dedicated to displaying the names of the user
`
`accounts established in the device, as well as the presence of user-specific
`
`messages (such as answering machine messages and e-mail messages) and
`
`general-user messages (such as faxes, caller logs, and voice mail messages.)
`
`From the message pane users can quickly discover whether or not they have
`
`new messages and quickly access these new messages. Id. at 6:28-34. The
`
`application button bar and the message summary pane are displayed
`
`concurrently, but independently, in the start screen. That is, the message
`
`summary pane is reachable by the user independently of the application
`
`button bar in the application selection area, but is not reachable from that
`
`application selection area.
`
`The message summary pane of Schnarel is a visual representation of
`
`the message center application that provides integrated access to all message
`
`types. Id. at 13:44-47. In other words, the message center is the “parent
`
`application” of the message summary pane. Id. Whenever the message
`
`center detects an event of interest, it posts the information for display in the
`
`message summary pane. Id. at 13:61 – 14:10.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`ii. Schnarel Fails to Teach an Application Summary
`Window that can be Reached Directly from the Main
`Menu.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 16 each require both a main menu listing at
`
`least a first application, and an application summary window that can be
`
`reached directly from the main menu. Ex. 1001 at 5:33-43; 6:20-32. As
`
`shown in FIGs. 1 and 2 of Schnarel above, however, the application button
`
`bar (104) (which Petitioner equates with the “main menu” recited in the
`
`claims, Pet. at 24), and the message summary pane (102) (which Petitioner
`
`equates with the claimed “application summary window,” id. at 25) of
`
`Schnarel’s GUI are displayed concurrently, but independently. That is, the
`
`message summary pane is reachable by the user independently of the
`
`application button bar in the application selection area but is not reachable
`
`from that application selection area. Consequently, one cannot read the
`
`application button bar as a main menu and the message summary pane as an
`
`application summary window as recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`Even if one interprets the “start screen” of Schnarel as the recited
`
`main menu, the requirements of the claims are not met. Under such a
`
`reading, the start screen (main menu) would include both the application
`
`button bar in the application selection area and the message summary pane.
`
`However, the message summary pane would not be reachable from the main
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`menu because it is part of the main menu (i.e., it is reachable in the main
`
`menu). The specification of the ‘020 Patent explains that in order to be
`
`reachable from the main menu, the application summary window is accessed
`
`by (i.e., displayed in response to) invoking a display element of the main
`
`menu. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:23-27; 4:64 – 5:4; 5:5-9.
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) only if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 418 (2007). At a minimum, this requires a suggestion of all limitations
`
`in a claim. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003) citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Here, this
`
`requirement is not met, hence, no inter partes review should be instituted on
`
`the proposed ground.
`
`
`
`iii. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Modify
`Schnarel to Meet the Requirements of the Claims.
`
`In addition to Schnarel failing to teach an application summary
`
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu, a PHOSITA
`
`would not undertake such a modification of Schnarel as it would change the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`principle of operation thereof. If a proposed modification or combination of
`
`the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art
`
`invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not
`
`sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810,
`
`813 (C.C.P.A. 1959).
`
`Schnarel states on several occasions the need for users to quickly
`
`discover whether or not they have new messages and quickly access these
`
`new messages. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 6:32-34 (“[Through the messages
`
`pane], [u]sers can quickly discover whether or not they have new messages
`
`and quickly access these new messages”); and 6:53-56 (“The User-specific
`
`messages display area (304) displays the name of each user, informs each
`
`user of the presence of new user-specific messages, and allows the user to
`
`quickly access their messages.”). Also at 7:54-56, Schnarel states that “[t]he
`
`software platform is designed to update the message list within a
`
`predetermined period of time (e.g., at most five seconds) within receipt of
`
`the message.” Therefore, it is clear that the principle of operation of
`
`Schnarel is to notify users of new messages as soon as possible (e.g., within
`
`at most five seconds of receipt of the message).
`
`In contrast to the teachings of Schnarel, any modification such that a
`
`summary window is reached directly from the main menu would increase
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`the time it takes for a user to be alerted of new messages and to access the
`
`new messages. Contrary to the principle of operation of Schnarel to notify
`
`users of new messages as soon as possible, such a modification would hinder
`
`the user’s ability to quickly discover and access these new messages. As
`
`such, the modification would change the principle of operation of Schnarel,
`
`hence, claim 1 and its dependent claims are not obvious in view of Schnarel.
`
`Claim 16 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1.
`
`Therefore, claim 16 is patentable over Schnarel for reasons similar to those
`
`provided above with respect to claim 1. Thus, Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to
`
`this challenge and so no inter partes review should be instituted on this
`
`ground.
`
`
`
`iv. Claim 11 is Separately Patentable Over Schnarel.
`
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites the computing
`
`device being a mobile phone. Petitioner contends that Schnarel’s disclosure
`
`of “personal digital assistants” somehow applies to the recited mobile phone,
`
`Pet. at 37, but fails to articulate any basis for reaching this conclusion.
`
`Indeed, Schnarel itself discusses “web telephones,” Ex. 1003 at Abstract,
`
`3:59-64, and not mobile phones. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`burden to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to
`
`this challenge and so no inter partes review should be instituted on this
`
`ground.
`
`
`
`B. Patentability Over Blanchard.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 16 are alleged to be obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard
`
`(“Blanchard“). Pet. at 14 et seq. Each of these claims requires both a main
`
`menu listing at least a first application, and an application summary window
`
`that can be reached directly from the main menu. The application summary
`
`window provides an alternative means by which a user may launch a
`
`function associated with an application. Blanchard, on the other hand,
`
`provides only one means by which an application function may be invoked.
`
`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 (or associated function) may be invoked. Thus, the menu
`
`displayed as a result of highlighting a top-row icon cannot be considered an
`
`application summary window because rather than presenting an alternative
`
`approach to launching the associated application (or function), the menu
`
`options being presented provide the only means of doing so.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Blanchard does not teach or suggest an summary
`
`window being displayed while an application is in an “unlaunched” state.
`
`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. Consequently, the alleged application summary is displayed
`
`while the one or more applications are in a launched state. Hence, all of the
`
`challenged claims are patentable over Blanchard.
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Blanchard
`
`Blanchard describes a menu arrangement said to be optimized for
`
`small displays. The purported optimization is arrived at by “dynamically
`
`allocating lines on the display for presentation of status or header-type
`
`information as well as menu item-type information.” Ex. 1002 at 1:60-62.
`
`This is illustrated in Fig. 3:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in this diagram, the screen displays of the user interface
`
`(which is navigable using the left, right, up, down keys of a telephone
`
`keypad, for example) change dynamically as the user performs functions and
`
`makes selections. 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.
`
`For example, when the Phone Book icon is highlighted, the associated
`
`screen display for that function is presented. Id. at 3:64-67. The screen
`
`display is fashioned as a menu through which entries in the phone book may
`
`be viewed, retrieved or added. Id. Similarly, when a Mailbox icon is
`
`highlighted, a corresponding menu through which voice messages, text
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`messages or a call log may be accessed is provided. Id. at 3:67 – 4:3. The
`
`user may advance through the different screens for the different functions by
`
`navigating along the top-row icons, and the icon symbol that is associated
`
`with a currently-selected function will be filled-in or darkened to inform the
`
`user which of the top-row options is active. Id. at 4:12-17.
`
`The user can select from any of the menu options associated with an
`
`active top-row icon by navigating within that menu. In order to access one of
`
`the menu choices, the user selects it with a select key. The menu options or
`
`selectable features that are accessible for display and other information are
`
`provided by a filled-in oval shaped outline. Only one oval shaped outline is
`
`filled in at a time, thereby indicating to the user the one option that will be
`
`selected when the select key is pressed. Id. at 4:56 – 5:9.
`
`
`
`ii. Blanchard Fails to Teach an Application Summary
`Window that can be Reached Directly from the Main
`Menu
`
`Petitioner contends that menus displayed when a top-row icon is
`
`highlighted correspond to the application summary window recited in the
`
`challenged claims. Pet. at 15. Further, the top-row icons are alleged to be the
`
`“menu” recited in the claims. Id. at 14-15. Contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`allegations, such a reading demonstrates that Blanchard neither teaches nor
`
`suggests the subject matter recited in the present claims.
`
`In the ‘020 Patent, an application summary window operates as an
`
`alternative vehicle by which a user may launch an application (or, more
`
`specifically, a function associated with an application). See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:55-65. That is, the application summary window presents an alternative to
`
`launching the application directly from the main menu. Id. at 3:5-22. Using
`
`the main menu approach, a user is required to open the Application
`
`Launcher, scroll to the desired application, and then “take conventional
`
`navigation steps . . . .” Id. at 3:19-22. For example, the user may launch the
`
`application from this point, but then has to spend time trying to locate the
`
`desired function within the application itself. See, e.g., id. at 1:33-46. Using
`
`the summary window feature, however, the user may simply highlight the
`
`desired application in the Application Launcher, causing the application
`
`summary window to be displayed, and select the desired function directly
`
`from the application summary window. Id. at 3:22-44.
`
`Blanchard does not teach or suggest such an application summary
`
`window because the menu options presented in response to a top-row icon
`
`being highlighted (as a result of a user scrolling to a desired top-row icon)
`
`are the only means by which the associated application (or function) may be
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`invoked. Hence, the menu displayed as a result of such selection cannot be
`
`considered an application summary window because rather than presenting
`
`an alternative approach to launching the associated application, the menu
`
`options being presented provide the only means of doing so. Accordingly, all
`
`of the challenged claims are patentable over Blanchard.
`
`
`
`iii. Blanchard Fails to Teach an Application Summary
`Window Displayed While an Application is in an Un-
`launched State
`
`In addition to the above, the challenged claims require that the
`
`application summary window be displayed while the application is in an un-
`
`launched state. Ex. 1001 at 5:42-43; 6:31-32. Blanchard teaches no such
`
`feature.
`
`First, Petitioner admits that “Blanchard does not discuss the concept
`
`of an application being in an “unlaunched” state using those words.” Pet. at
`
`16. Nevertheless, Petitioner incorrectly contends that such feature would be
`
`inherent because the programs referenced by the menu selection options
`
`discussed above are separate from the user interface and, therefore, are not
`
`in a launched state as one navigates the user interface. Id. at 16-17. Or,
`
`alternatively, because of other constraints, such as battery life and memory
`
`capacity, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`keep such applications in an unlaunched state while the user was navigating
`
`the menu. Id. at 17-18. These allegations are not supported by Blanchard.
`
`
`
`In the ‘020 Patent, a user can take two actions with respect to
`
`applications listed on the menu. The user can either “open[] it up,” Ex. 1001
`
`at 2:36-37, to launch the application, or the user can let a “highlight rest on
`
`the name of an application in the App Launcher for a certain amount of time
`
`(say a 1.2 second timeout),” id. at 3:24-26, to access the application
`
`summary window. The application summary window is offered as a way to
`
`explore the functionality and data of an application without actually having
`
`to launch the application (i.e., explore functionality and data while the
`
`application is in an un-launched state). See, e.g., id. 3:53-61.
`
`
`
`In contrast, the 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 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 of each of the applications. Ex.
`
`1002 at 4:12-14. Each parent screen display in turn allows the user to access
`
`“sub-menu” displays of the application. See, e.g., id. at 3:64 – 4:11.
`
`Since the user can take only one action with respect to the applications
`
`listed on the menu (i.e., access the parent screen display of an application
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`through selection of a corresponding top-row icon), this action must be
`
`interpreted as the launching of the application. Therefore, in Blanchard, the
`
`action of selecting an application represented by a top-row icon and
`
`accessing a corresponding parent screen display is the launching of an
`
`application and results in the display of the alleged application summary.
`
`Consequently, the alleged application summary is displayed while the one or
`
`more applications are in a launched state rather than an unlaunched state, as
`
`recited in the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`For at least the above reasons, the challenged claims are patentable
`
`over Blanchard. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to this challenge and
`
`so no inter partes review should be instituted on this ground.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION.
`
`
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully submits
`
`that at least one or more of the grounds presented in the Petition should be
`
`denied. Further, as this is Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, it is not a
`
`comprehensive rebuttal to all arguments raised by the Petition. If a trial is
`
`instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right to contest the Petition on all
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`grounds instituted by the Board. Moreover, nothing herein should be
`
`construed as a concession or admission by Patent Owner as to any fact or
`
`argument proffered in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Fax: 408-773-6177
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`was served on December 28, 2015, by filing this document though the Patent
`
`Review Processing System as well as by delivering a copy via email directed
`
`to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Richard D. Harris
`Eric Maiers
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite
`3100 Chicago, IL 60601
`Email:
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com; finnh@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com; cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A
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
