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.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. DENNING
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. DENNING
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Scott A. Denning, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. to
`
`provide my opinions in support of their Responses to the Petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (IPR2015-01984) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,713,476 (IPR2015-01985), pursuant to the legal standards set forth in Section
`
`VII below. I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $350 per hour for
`
`time spent on non-deposition tasks, and $450 per hour for deposition time. I have
`
`no interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently employed as an independent computer technologies
`
`expert and consultant. My background and qualifications are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`As set forth in my curriculum vitae, I have a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Computer Science and over twenty-seven years of professional experience in
`
`hardware design and software engineering for embedded systems in the areas of
`
`security, digital video, robotics, navigation, communication, signals processing,
`
`high-performance computing, network computing, and many areas of desktop and
`
`workstation software design.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 2 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`During this time, I have worked as a consultant, as an expert, as an
`
`engineer, as a software developer, as a manager, as a company executive, and as a
`
`forensic investigator. Specific cellular phone, mobile device and embedded
`
`graphical user interface technologies that I have designed and implemented include
`
`vehicle installed data collection equipment, military fire control devices, military
`
`signal direction finder, military signals processing including RADAR, SATCOM
`
`receiver/transmitters, menu driven emergency location communicators, PDA
`
`mobile mapping and tracking applications, embedded web user interfaces for GPS
`
`receivers and PC based video recorders. I have also created numerous text based
`
`menu driven user interfaces for devices with small LCD or LED displays including
`
`credit card writers/readers, personal communicators, video recorders, video
`
`controllers, robotic controls, lighting controls, and alarm systems. Additionally, I
`
`have designed and developed, as well as managed and assisted in the design and
`
`development of many computer hardware and software systems.
`
`4. My experience includes decades of electronic packaging, circuit
`
`design, circuit board layout, and software development. It also includes consulting
`
`and providing expert experience in many aspects of the computer field, from
`
`microcomputers to supercomputers, and in all areas of programming. I have
`
`experience as a design engineer, systems architect, principal engineer, project
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`manager, and company executive, as well as experience in reverse engineering and
`
`forensic investigation. My additional experience is listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience,
`
`I have considered the following documents and things that I have obtained, or that
`
`have been provided to me, as well as any other references cited herein that may not
`
`be listed below:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 to Martyn (the ‘020 patent), and also
`
`aspects of its prosecution history before the U.S. Patent & Trademark
`
`Office
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 to Martyn (the ‘476 patent)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard et al. (“Blanchard”)
`
` Petition for inter partes review against the ‘020 patent (IPR2015-
`
`01984) and the supporting Declaration of Dr. Rhyne (Ex. 1004 in
`
`IPR2015-01984) (“Rhyne ‘84”)
`
` Petition for inter partes review against the ‘476 patent (IPR2015-
`
`01985) and the supporting Declaration of Dr. Rhyne (Ex. 1004 in
`
`IPR2015-01985) (“Rhyne ’85)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,392,337 to Baals et al. (Ex. 2007) (“Baals”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to Oommen (Ex. 2009) (“Oommen”)
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 to Richard (Ex. 2008) (“Richard”)
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`6.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`(“POSITA”) of the ‘020 and ‘476 patents has at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science with two or more years of experience in
`
`graphical user interfaces. I understand that the Petitioner applied a substantially
`
`similar standard for a POSITA, and my opinions presented below are equally
`
`applicable under either standard.
`
`7.
`
`Even if any opinion in this declaration is expressed in the present
`
`tense, my opinions are given from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the July 28, 2000 filing of the Great Britain Application No.
`
`0019459.7, from which both the ‘020 and ‘476 patents claim priority and benefit.
`
`As of July 28, 2000, I satisfied the standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`described above in ¶9.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`8.
`
`In July 2000, mobile telephone technology was in its relative infancy
`
`compared to the modern day. Windows CE had been released in or around 1998,
`
`but there were few commercially available products implementing Windows CE. I
`
`personally wrote GPS and communications related applications for the Compaq
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Aero, which used Windows CE as its operating system. The Compaq Aero was
`
`considered a personal data assistant (PDA), which did not include a telephone
`
`module. The cellular telephone radio modules used in mobile telephones at this
`
`time included AMPS, which was the analog standard, and PCS, which was
`
`available as either GSM or CDMA. As of July 2000, it is my opinion that
`
`microprocessor power management technology had not yet evolved sufficiently
`
`enough to allow the processors within mobile phones to run an operating system
`
`such as Windows CE and also drive a telephone module while providing
`
`acceptable battery life between charges.
`
`9.
`
`To the best of my recollection, Windows CE was never implemented
`
`in a mobile telephone. Microsoft released a later version of its mobile operating
`
`system, which was first referred to as Pocket PC 2000. This operating system was
`
`also implemented in PDAs. Though I have heard that there were a few prototype
`
`mobile telephones that used Pocket PC 2000, such as Microsoft’s Stinger, I have
`
`never seen one. I understand also that Microsoft’s Stinger project was not
`
`announced to the public until after July 28, 2000. The next version of Microsoft’s
`
`mobile operating system was referred to as Pocket PC 2002, and this was followed
`
`by Windows Mobile 2003. Pocket PC 2002 was released in a version referred to
`
`as a Phone Edition. This would have occurred more than one year after July 28,
`
`2000.
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`10. As of July 2000, the purpose of an operating system was well-
`
`understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art. An operating system is necessary
`
`for scheduling multiple applications to run simultaneously and for shielding
`
`applications from the intricacies of the device hardware. Upon starting a
`
`computing device having an operating system, such as a PC or Macintosh
`
`computer, the operating system is loaded into program memory and executed.
`
`While the device is on, the operating system will monitor keystrokes, mouse
`
`movements and button presses, and will manage the system resources such as
`
`communications, clocks and memory usage. For example, if a user inputs a
`
`command to start an application, the operating system will find the desired
`
`application in memory (usually a form of read-only memory, or ROM), load the
`
`application into program memory, and cause the application code to be executed
`
`by the device’s processor. The operating system can also provide application
`
`program interfaces, or APIs, which allow the applications to interact with the
`
`device hardware using OS-managed libraries of commands.
`
`11. A mobile telephone was not required to include an operating system
`
`as of July 2000. Indeed, at that time, many mobile phones and other smaller
`
`devices did not include software that could be classified as an operating system. In
`
`these types of devices, there would often be a basic input/output system (BIOS)
`
`which would perform hardware initialization for the device upon start-up, and
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`would also load the operating software from a memory device. The software
`
`would be stored as a monolithic set of code that would include system software
`
`and modules to perform device features upon a user’s command. An example of
`
`this type of monolithic software is described in U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to
`
`Oommen (Ex. 2009) (“Oommen”) and assigned to Nokia.
`
`12. Oommen describes the conventional type of software implemented in
`
`the conventional mobile telephone as of May 2000. This software is also shown in
`
`Fig. 1 of Oommen and included below:
`
`13. As Oommen explains, “Fig. 1 shows a conventional monolithic
`
`operating program 100 for a conventional mobile station. Conventional operating
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`programs include modules for controlling the operation of the mobile station and
`
`providing services to users. For example, operating program 100 includes a
`
`volume control module 102 for controlling the volume of the mobile station
`
`speaker (not shown) and an e-mail service module 104 for allowing the user to
`
`send and receive e-mail messages.” [Oommen 1:20-28]. Oommen does not
`
`describe the e-mail service module 104 as an “application.” This is a correct
`
`distinction. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, a software
`
`module is not an application. A module comprises a sub-routine or function that
`
`can be performed within the monolithic operating program, but is not separately
`
`executable as an application running on top of an operating system would be. A
`
`monolithic operating program as of July 2000 could not have utilized multiple
`
`threads of execution, as would have been required to execute applications.
`
`However, a module can be executed as part of a monolithic operating program
`
`such as disclosed in Oommen, without requiring the operating program to support
`
`more than a single thread of execution.
`
`14.
`
`In the declarations submitted by Dr. Rhyne along with the Petitions
`
`for inter partes review of the ‘020 and ‘476 patents, Dr. Rhyne mentions that he
`
`owned a Motorola StarTAC mobile phone in 1997 or 1998. He also claims that the
`
`Motorola StarTAC “featured a main menu listing various application items,
`
`including a contact book, call related features, voice messaging, and a phone set up
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`application.” [Rhyne ‘84 ¶ 16; Rhyne ’85 ¶ 16]. While Dr. Rhyne provided no
`
`evidence in support of his characterizations here, I have reviewed a user’s manual
`
`for the Motorola StarTAC 3000 (which I obtained from the publicly available site,
`
`http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/manuals/StarTAC3000_User_Manual_E.pdf)
`
`(Ex. 2006). This manual does not make reference to any of the user features as
`
`“applications.” I have analyzed pp. 42-43 of this manual, which describe the
`
`process of navigating the feature menu of the device. Per page 43, the feature menu
`
`allows a user to scroll through available screens and features using the
`
`number/right arrow key (#>). Each feature is then selectable to adjust the phone
`
`settings. This is consistent with how a user would navigate through the available
`
`screens in early mobile phones having monolithic operating programs such as
`
`described in Oommen.
`
`15.
`
`I have also reviewed the StarTAC manual’s Phone Book description
`
`of pp. 36-41, which is actually described by the manual as a “memory location”
`
`having 20 slots for storing phone numbers of up to 16 digits. [Ex. 2006 p. 37].
`
`However, I see no indication that there is a way to store any text, name, or other
`
`description of the stored number. The Phone Book feature of the Motorola
`
`StarTAC is really no different from a very basic pocket calculator from the 1980s
`
`(or earlier) that would allow a user to store the numbers appearing on the screen.
`
`But the Phone Book feature does not suggest or indicate to a POSITA that the
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Motorola StarTAC includes “applications.” I see no other indication in the
`
`StarTAC manual that would lead a POSITA to conclude that the StarTAC included
`
`“applications.” Therefore, I do not agree with Dr. Rhyne’s characterization of the
`
`Motorola StarTAC features as “applications.”
`
`16. Dr. Rhyne also discusses the Ericsson R380 phone in his declarations.
`
`[Rhyne ‘84 ¶ 13; Rhyne ’85 ¶ 13]. He claims that this phone was released in 1999,
`
`but he includes no evidence to support this date. Additionally, I have reviewed the
`
`manual for an Ericsson R380 (Ex. 2005) stamped with a logo that I understand is
`
`from the litigation between LG and Core Wireless. The stamp reads “CORE
`
`WIRELESS v. LG, INC. ET AL. LGX-069 Case No. 2:14-CV-911 JRG-RSP.”
`
`On page 3 of this user manual, the document reads “Ericsson R380 User’s manual
`
`First edition (October 2000)”. From this date, it appears that the User’s manual
`
`was not finalized and printed until October 2000, which is after the critical date of
`
`July 28, 2000. I have no reason to believe that the Ericsson R380 would have been
`
`known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 28, 2000.
`
`V. THE ‘020 AND ‘476 PATENTS
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed Patent No. 8,434,020 (the ‘020 patent) entitled
`
`“Computing Device With Improved User Interface for Applications.” The ‘020
`
`patent describes a device that includes an application launcher listing the available
`
`applications in an unlaunched state. From the application launcher, an application
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`snapshot can be opened while the applications remain unlaunched. The application
`
`snapshot displays a partial list of the functions available to be performed by the
`
`associated application, or a partial list of data stored in the associated application.
`
`18. From the disclosure of the ‘020 patent, it would have been understood
`
`by a POSITA that the graphical user interface described and claimed was
`
`implemented in a device running an operating system and at least one application
`
`on top of the operating system.
`
`19. First, the ‘020 patent explains that the program that enables the device
`
`to display an application summary window “may be an operating system.” [‘020
`
`patent 2:43-44]. Consistently with this disclosure, claim 17 explains that claim
`
`16’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on
`
`the screen an application summary window” “comprises an operating system.”
`
`[‘020 patent 6:33-35; 6:25-26].
`
`20. Second, the ‘020 patent specifically describes its features being
`
`implemented as “applications.” These applications include “Messages,”
`
`“Contacts,” “Calendar,” and “Phone.” [‘020 patent 3:5-6].
`
`21. Third, the ‘020 patent explains that the “App Snapshot can therefore
`
`display data from an application and functions of that application without actually
`
`opening the application up.” [‘020 patent 3:53-55]. Similarly, in the independent
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`claims of the ‘020 patent, the claimed “application summary window is displayed
`
`while the application is in an un-launched state.” [‘020 patent 5:42-43; 6:31-32].
`
`22. Fourth, the ‘020 patent describes the App Snapshot being opened
`
`while there are other “previously or currently” opened applications, such as a
`
`Calendar application. [‘020 patent 4:58-59].
`
`23. Read in context of the ‘020 patent disclosure, these identified portions
`
`of the specification indicate quite clearly to a POSITA that the ‘020 patent’s use of
`
`the term “application” refers to an executable program that may be open or
`
`unopened. Further, a device may include a number of “applications” that are
`
`separate and therefore separately executable. Additionally, because the user
`
`interface can display an App Snapshot (which can be provided by an operating
`
`system or by a user-interface application on top of the operating system) while
`
`another application is opened, the device must be able to perform multiple threads
`
`of execution so that the device can view the App Snapshot while another
`
`application is open. In the example I noted in ¶ 22, the device’s operating system
`
`must manage an execution thread for the currently opened Calendar application,
`
`and an execution thread for software causing the App Snapshot to be displayed.
`
`24.
`
`I also note above that claims 1 and 16 of the ‘020 patent recite that the
`
`claimed “application summary window is displayed while the application is in an
`
`un-launched state.” [‘020 patent 5:42-43; 6:31-32]. This indicates to a POSITA
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`that these claims 1 and 16 are not directed to a system that includes a monolithic
`
`operating program without applications, such as that described in Oommen.
`
`Oommen discloses a monolithic operating program without any concept of
`
`separately executable applications. Even if Oommen’s operating program were to
`
`be characterized as an “application,” which is inconsistent with the conclusion that
`
`would be reached by a POSITA, Oommen’s operating program cannot display a
`
`summary window of itself while it is “un-launched.”
`
`25.
`
`I have also reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (the ‘476 patent).
`
`While the claims of the ‘476 patent differ slightly from the ‘020 patent claims, the
`
`specifications and figures of the ‘020 and ‘476 patents are identical in content with
`
`the exception of the opening paragraphs, “Cross Reference to Related
`
`Applications.” Therefore, when considering the disclosure of these two patents at
`
`issue, I will generally cite only to the ‘020 patent specification. It is to be
`
`understood that the technical content is shared by both patents.
`
`26. For example, just as I explained in ¶ 18 above, the disclosure of the
`
`‘476 patent would have informed a POSITA that the graphical user interface
`
`described and claimed was implemented in a device running an operating system
`
`with at least one application on top of the operating system. The excerpts of the
`
`‘020 patent, provided in ¶¶ 19-22 are equally applicable to the ‘476 patent. I note
`
`that in the independent claims of the ‘476 patent, the “wherein” clause is recited
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`slightly differently: the “application summary is displayed while the one or more
`
`applications are in an un-launched state.” [‘476 patent 6:1-3; 6:41-43; 7:15-17]. I
`
`also note that claim 12 of the ‘476 patent explains that claim 11’s “computer-
`
`readable code” that “causes the [computing] device to display on the screen an
`
`application summary” “comprises an operating system.” [‘476 patent 6:44-46;
`
`6:30-36]. These minor changes relative to the ‘020 patent do not alter my analysis;
`
`a POSITA would understand that these claims of the ‘476 patent are directed to a
`
`system that includes at least one application on top of an operating system.
`
`27. As addressed in more detail below, it is also my opinion that the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘020 patent and ‘476 patent are neither anticipated nor
`
`obvious in view of Blanchard.
`
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR ‘020 AND ‘476 PATENTS
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes Review of an unexpired patent,
`
`claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent
`
`with the specification. The following discussion reflects my view of the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of these terms, as they
`
`appear in the claims of the ’020 and ‘476 patents, that would be given by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has
`
`interpreted the term “mobile telephone” from the ‘020 patent’s claim 11 according
`
`to the description provided in the ‘020 patent specification at 1:18-24. [IPR2015-
`
`01984 Inst. Dec. 6-7]. The PTAB issued a similar ruling in IPR2015-01985.
`
`[IPR2015-01985 Inst. Dec. 6-7]. I have used this interpretation of “mobile
`
`telephone” for the purposes of my opinion.
`
`30. From the Institution Decision, I also understand that the PTAB
`
`decided that no specific construction was necessary for the term, “application
`
`summary window,” but specifically refused to require this term to be an
`
`“alternative” way to reach an application. [IPR2015-01984 Inst. Dec. 5-6]. The
`
`PTAB issued a similar ruling for “application summary” in IPR2015-01985.
`
`[IPR2015-01985 Inst. Dec. 6]. Consistent with the PTAB rulings, I have not
`
`incorporated the “alternative” limitation into these terms for the purposes of my
`
`opinions.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the U.S. District Court issued constructions
`
`from the bench during the trial between Petitioner and Patent Owner on the ‘020
`
`and ‘476 patents. Specifically, I understand that the District Court judge construed
`
`“unlaunched state” as “not displayed,” and construed “reached directly” as
`
`“reached without an intervening step.” [Ex. 2004 p. 23]. I have applied these
`
`constructions for the purposes of my opinions.
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In addition to the terms discussed above, I have identified three other
`
`terms that require explanation. Specifically, even if these terms are interpreted
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meanings, I understand that these plain and
`
`ordinary meanings must be consistent with the specifications of the ‘020 and ‘476
`
`patents.
`
`33. The independent claims of both the ‘020 and ‘476 patents recite the
`
`term “application,” and further require that an application summary (or application
`
`summary window) is displayed while an application is in an un-launched state. As
`
`I explained above, a POSITA would understand that an “application” as recited in
`
`these claims refers to an executable program that can be launched to access its
`
`functions and data, and is layered on top of an operating system. This can be
`
`referred to an application-level architecture. In a system that simply includes an
`
`operating program having user-selectable features, such as disclosed in Oommen,
`
`there is no “application” as that term is described and claimed in the ‘020 and ‘476
`
`patents. As of July 2000, it was not possible to manage separate applications in a
`
`computing device without an operating system.
`
`34. As of July 2000, it was understood by a POSITA that an application
`
`could include more than one visible window. The operating system assigns
`
`windows to applications based upon a request from an application, and an
`
`application could request and receive more than one window from the operating
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 17 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`system. As additional support for this opinion, I have reviewed U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,781,611, the Richard patent, which was discussed during prosecution of the ‘020
`
`Patent. In Richard, filed on June 28, 2000, the Abstract describes a “list of open
`
`windows within an application.” [Ex. 2008, Abstract (emphasis added)]. For
`
`example, as of July 2000, a user could open multiple documents in separate
`
`windows in Microsoft Word on a PC. A POSITA would understand as of July
`
`2000 that opening a new window in an open application is not the same as
`
`launching or opening an application.
`
`35. The claims of the ‘020 and ‘476 patent also recite the term “function,”
`
`separately from an “application.” A POSITA would understand that a “function”
`
`is not the same thing as an “application.” The ‘020 patent provides examples of
`
`applications “such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’.” [‘020
`
`patent 3:5-7]. In these applications, a user can “open” the application and then
`
`navigate “within that application to enable … a function of interest to be
`
`activated.” [‘020 patent 2:35-39].
`
`36. Martyn provides examples of “functions” in the ‘020 patent
`
`specification (and similarly in the ‘476 specification):
`
`Exemplary Function
`
`Citation in the ‘020 patent
`
`“create a new contact entry”
`
`1:43
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 18 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`“open an address book function”
`
`“enter a PIN security number”
`
`“alter the ring melody”
`
`“Create Message”
`
`“Enter chat room”
`
`2:7
`
`2:8
`
`2:8-9
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:33-35
`
`Figs. 2, 3; 3:33-35
`
`37. From these examples, a POSITA would recognize that the ‘020 patent
`
`consistently describes a “function” as an action that a user is to perform within the
`
`corresponding application. These actions include creating a new contact entry,
`
`entering a PIN number, changing a ring tone, creating a message, or participating
`
`in a chat. A POSITA would also understand from these examples that opening an
`
`application window is not described as a “function.” Rather, to constitute a
`
`“function,” the device opens an address book function. The particular “address
`
`book function” is not provided in the ‘020 patent, but what is clear to a POSITA is
`
`that executing a function requires more than just opening an application window.
`
`38. The ‘020 patent also describes functions as options that are
`
`“activated.” [‘020 patent 1:28; 2:37-39; 5:46; 6:40]. The operation of activating a
`
`function is distinguished in claims 2 and 18 from the operation of opening an
`
`application. [‘020 patent 5:44-46]. For example, claim 2 recites that “selecting a
`
`function listed in the summary window causes the first application to open and that
`
`selected function to be activated.” Once again, this language informs a POSITA
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 19 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`that a “function” according to the ‘020 patent is more than opening an application
`
`window. Rather, an application is opened and the selected function is activated.
`
`This is similar to an operating system shell having a command prompt, where an
`
`application can be opened by entering the application name followed by a
`
`command-line parameter that causes the application to execute a particular
`
`function.
`
`39. The “data” term appears in claim 10 of the ‘020 patent, which
`
`depends from claim 1 and further recites “the summary window further display[s]
`
`a list of data stored in that application.” The nature of the “data” being claimed in
`
`claim 10 and displayed in the application summary window is data that is “stored
`
`in” an associated application. A POSITA would understand that data “stored in”
`
`an application refers to data that is caused to be stored by an application in a
`
`memory location that is allocated specifically to the application.
`
`VI. CONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. Disclosures of Blanchard
`
`40. Blanchard describes a user-interface for a telephone terminal. The
`
`user interface has a “window with selectable sub-level menu choices” for each of
`
`the five icons displayed at the top of Blanchard’s screens 210, 320, 330, 340, and
`
`350. [Blanchard 3:54-63]. Figure 3 of Blanchard provides a flow chart illustrating
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 20 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`the interface:
`
`
`
`41. Blanchard describes the top row of Figure 3, identified with numerals
`
`210, 320, 330, 340, and 350. The left-most screen 210 corresponds to a Home
`
`Screen that is “provided for a user whenever the telephone terminal is turned ON
`
`from an OFF state or returned to its standby state after the user presses the End key
`
`226, terminating a telephone call.” [Blanchard at 3:49-53]. On screen 210, there
`
`are “two selectable features.” [Blanchard 3:59-60]. The first sub-menu operation,
`
`“Last Number,” has a darkened oval next to it. Blanchard does not disclose that
`
`selecting an option on screen 210 would launch an application, however. Rather,
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 21 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Blanchard explains that a user selection just advances the user to a corresponding
`
`“screen display option.” [Blanchard 5:2-3].
`
`42. From the Home Screen 210, a user may navigate right, using the
`
`“Right” arrow key of user interface 200, to other screen displays associated with
`
`the Phone Book symbol (screen 320), the Mailbox symbol (screen 330), the Lock
`
`symbol (screen 340), and the Tools symbol (screen 350). Id. at 3:54-63.
`
`43. Both the Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne each conclude that the icons
`
`indicated at the top of these top-row screens correspond to “applications.”
`
`Blanchard purposefully does not include a discussion of the software, and instead
`
`merely refers to it as “instructions.” Blanchard further explains that “no attempt is
`
`made to describe the details of the program used to control the telephone terminal.”
`
`[Blanchard 5:15-16]. Despite Blanchard’s complete silence on the structure and
`
`architecture of its program, Dr. Rhyne attempts to reach a conclusion about
`
`Blanchard’s use of “applications” based on the graphical appearance of Fig. 3. He
`
`also appears to characterize similar types of functions as “applications” in earlier
`
`devices, such as the Motorola StarTAC discussed above. I disagree with both of
`
`these conclusions. Blanchard never discloses that the features shown in these
`
`screens are implemented with “applications.” Additionally, Blanchard does not
`
`disclose that selecting an option on a screen would launch an application. Rather,
`
`a user selection just advances the user to a next “screen display option.”
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 22 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`[Blanchard 5:2-3]. And I explained above why I believe that the Motorola
`
`StarTAC also did not include any “applications.”
`
`44. Further, even if a conclusion could be drawn by a POSITA about the
`
`nature of Blanchard’s software from Blanchard’s disclosure, the conclusion would
`
`not be consistent with the use of “applications” on top of an operating system. A
`
`POSITA would not interpret Blanchard as implementing the screens, or the icons
`
`shown on these screens, with “applications.” Dr. Rhyne even confirmed his
`
`opinion at deposition that Blanchard’s mobile telephone would not have included
`
`an “operating system” given the nature of Blanchard’s disclosure of “instructions.
`
`[Rhyne 90:2-14]. As of July 2000, it was not possible for a device to manage
`
`unlaunched applications without an operating system.
`
`45. Blanchard introduces its hardware and software discussion in
`
`reference to a “block diagram of a wireless telephone terminal and a base unit” in
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2015-01984 & IPR2015-01985
`Ex. 2001
`Page 23 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`46. Blanchard’s terminal 100 includes “program memory 112 which
`
`provides instructions to a central processor unit (CPU) 113 for controlling the
`
`various operating features and functions originating at the terminal.” [Blanchard
`
`2:52-55]. Rather than describing any applications, Blanchard describes only
`
`“instructions … for controlling the various operating features and functions.”
`
`Blanchard again uses the term “features” to also refer to the selectable menu
`
`options of Fig. 3. If any conclusion could be reached by a POSITA from this
`
`structure and disclosure, it would be that Blanchard’s software is implemented
`
`with monolithic instructions, or an operating program as discussed by Oommen,
`
`and that these instructions include subroutines, perhaps dynamically linked as
`
`Oommen describes, that can be called to perform various features of the operating
`
`
`
`24
`
`IPR2015-01984
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
