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 IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Background ....................................................................................................... 6 
`a.  About U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (the “‘476 patent” or “Martyn”) ................. 6 
`b.  The Challenged Claims all Require an “application” and Specifically an
`“application … in an un-launched state” .............................................................. 12 
`c.  Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction Analysis and
`Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the Claim Terms ....................... 15 
`d.  Blanchard is not Directed to Software Architecture, but Only to a Graphical
`User Interface for Accessing Device Features ...................................................... 23 
`III.  Argument ........................................................................................................ 34 
`a.  Blanchard Fails to Disclose or Suggest Each Recited Feature of the
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................................ 34 
`b.  Blanchard Fails to Disclose any “application” ............................................... 34 
`c.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose or Suggest any “application … in an un-
`launched state” ...................................................................................................... 38 
`d.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose a “limited list of data” and an “application
`summary” .............................................................................................................. 44 
`e.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose an “application summary” that is “reached
`directly” from a “main menu” .............................................................................. 50 
`f.  Blanchard Also Fails to Disclose Each Feature of the Challenged Dependent
`Claims ................................................................................................................... 52 
`g.  Dr. Rhyne’s Testimony on the State of the Art as of July 28, 2000 is
`Unreliable and Entitled to Little to No Weight .................................................... 57 
`h.  An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight ......................................................... 62 
`IV.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 64 
`
`
`
`ii 
` 
`
`

`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 .......................................................................... 63
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 16
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 ............................................................................ 63
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 62, 63
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 ........................................... 63
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 16
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 ................................................................................ 63
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) ........................................................... 16
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 16
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 .......................................................................... 63
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 .......................................... 63
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 .................................................................... 63
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 ..................................................................... 63
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 64
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 15
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Scott A. Denning (“Denning”)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, III, dated
`April 28, 2016 (“Rhyne”)
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order on Claim Construction in
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`Partial Trial Transcript in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`User Manual for Ericsson R380 dated October 2000
`
`User Manual for Motorola StarTAC 3000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,392,337 to Baals et al. (“Baals”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,781,611 to Richard (“Richard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,328 to Oommen (“Oommen”)
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, Case No.
`2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01985
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476
` 
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` 
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. challenges claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27,
`
`and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 to Martyn (Ex. 1001 or the “’476 patent”) as
`
`allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to
`
`Blanchard et al. (Ex. 1002 or “Blanchard”) alone. Petitioner supported its
`
`challenges with the Declaration of Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III (“Rhyne” or Ex.
`
`1004). However, the Board should confirm the patentability of these challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard because Blanchard fails to disclose or suggest every feature
`
`of the challenged claims, and Rhyne’s conclusory analysis fails to shore up the
`
`gaps in Blanchard’s disclosure. These deficiencies are explained in depth below,
`
`with support from the Declaration of Scott A. Denning (Ex. 2001 or “Denning”).
`
`The ‘476 patent’s claims are directed generally to a device that is configured
`
`to display a main menu listing at least one unlaunched application. The device is
`
`also configured to display an application summary window that can be reached
`
`directly from the main menu. The ‘476 patent specification describes an
`
`embodiment’s application summary window as a “snap-shot” view of an
`
`application listed in the window that “brings together, in one summary window, a
`
`limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data” associated
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`with that application. ‘476 patent at 2:39-41. Upon selecting a function or data
`
`from the application summary window, the device launches the corresponding
`
`application. The advantage to this scheme, per the ‘476 patent, is that a user can
`
`directly access and select the common functions or stored data without having to
`
`first launch the application and then navigate through the application’s hierarchies
`
`or layers of menus.
`
`Challenged claim 1 is supported by the detailed disclosure and recites, in
`
`relevant part, a “computing device being configured to display … on the screen an
`
`application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the
`
`application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more
`
`applications,” and “the application summary is displayed while the one or more
`
`applications are in an un-launched state.” ‘476 patent at 5:59-6:3. Independent
`
`claim 20 is substantially similar, as will be explained below.
`
`Blanchard’s failures to disclose or suggest all features of the challenged
`
`claims are numerous, but most glaring is Blanchard’s failure to disclose any
`
`application, much less an application that is un-launched. Blanchard generally
`
`describes a user interface for a telephone terminal. This user interface has a series
`
`of windows with “selectable sub-level menu choices” for each of the five icons
`
`identified in the top row of the disclosed screens. Blanchard at 3:54-63.
`
`Blanchard’s intention is to provide an “arrangement” of “status or header-type
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`
`information as well as menu item-type information.” Id., Abstract. However,
`
`Blanchard does not disclose that selecting a sub-menu choice would launch an
`
`application. Rather, Blanchard explains that a user selection just advances the user
`
`to a corresponding “screen display option.” Blanchard 5:2-3. Blanchard is
`
`completely and intentionally silent on the make-up of the software behind the user-
`
`interface and the features selected in that interface. Blanchard specifically never
`
`refers to any of its selectable options as functions or data associated with an
`
`“application,” and in fact never discloses or suggests the concept of an
`
`“application” as recited in the challenged claims. Rather, Blanchard lumps all
`
`software into a set of monolithic “instructions” to control the terminals’ features
`
`and functions; this software does not disclose or suggest the concept of
`
`“applications.”
`
`Moreover, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Rhyne provided any analysis to support
`
`their argument that Blanchard discloses or suggests “applications.” This gap in the
`
`Petition is noteworthy because Blanchard expressly discloses that “no attempt is
`
`made to describe the details of the program used to control the telephone terminal.”
`
`Blanchard at 5:15-16. Further, Blanchard explains that the “invention must be
`
`blended into the overall structure of the system in which it is used and must be
`
`tailored to mesh with other features and operations of the system.” Id. at 5:17-20.
`
`By these disclosures, Blanchard makes clear that it is not directed to the “details of
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`
`the program used to control the telephone terminal;” had Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne
`
`conducted a thorough analysis of Blanchard, they would have realized that
`
`Blanchard is directed to an entirely different subject matter from the ‘476 patent.
`
`Further, a complete analysis of Blanchard must explain its invention can be
`
`“blended into the overall structure of the system in which it is used and must be
`
`tailored to mesh with other features and operations of the system.” Id. Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Rhyne never provided this necessary analysis. Instead, Dr. Rhyne
`
`assumed, erroneously and without basis, that Blanchard discloses “applications,”
`
`and reached this conclusion while simultaneously opining that Blanchard’s
`
`“instructions” would not include an operating system:
`
`
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`
`Ex. 2002 at 90:2-14.
`
`Both Petitioner and Rhyne draw unsupported conclusions that Blanchard’s
`
`menu screens and icons correspond to different applications, even though
`
`Blanchard expressly disclaims any disclosure of a software structure. As Rhyne
`
`testified at deposition, his conclusion is based on Blanchard’s arrangement of icons
`
`on the screens. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 at 97:8-98:11. Further, while Petitioner
`
`concedes that “Blanchard does not discuss the concept of an application being in
`
`an ‘un-launched’ state using those words,” Petitioner disregards that Blanchard
`
`fails to disclose any concept of applications, any concept of separate applications,
`
`and even any “operating system” that would be necessary to launch an application,
`
`as Dr. Rhyne agreed at deposition. Instead, Blanchard’s software is presented as
`
`monolithic software referred to only as “instructions.” Further, Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Rhyne ignore the fact that as of July 28, 2000, it was common for a conventional
`
`mobile station to be implemented with a “conventional monolithic operating
`
`program” having subroutines or “modules for … providing services to users”
`
`rather than applications on top of a separate operating system. See U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,993,328 to Oommen (Ex. 2009) (“Oommen”) at 1:20-24; Fig. 1.
`
`Additionally, because Blanchard fails to disclose any “application,” it is
`
`error for Dr. Rhyne or the Petitioner to conclude that Blanchard’s Fig. 3 displays a
`
`“function” or “data” offered within any “application,” or to conclude that the
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`
`selections provided in Blanchard’s Fig. 3 represent a “limited list of data offered
`
`within the one or more applications.” Though Petitioner and Dr. Rhyne look solely
`
`to Blanchard’s detailed description for these features, Blanchard does not support
`
`their conclusions. In summary, the disclosures of Blanchard, even combined with
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s deficient analysis, cannot and do not disclose or suggest all features of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`As will be explained in more detail below, the Petition is deficient in its
`
`challenges of independent claims 1 and 20, and also of various dependent claims,
`
`including claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 27, and 29. For these reasons, the Board should
`
`conclude this proceeding with a final written decision that confirms the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims in view of Blanchard.
`
`II.
`
`Background
`
` 
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (the “‘476 patent” or “Martyn”)
`The ‘476 patent issued on April 29, 2014 from a continuation application
`
`No. 14/063,544 filed from national stage application 10/343,333, which claimed
`
`priority from and the benefit of PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/03387 filed on
`
`July 27, 2001 and British application No. GB 0019459.7 filed on July 28, 2000.
`
`As such, the critical date for the purposes for the Board’s obviousness analysis is
`
`July 28, 2000.
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`
`As the ‘476 patent explains, the “disclosed embodiments relate to a
`
`computing device with an improved user interface for applications.” ‘476 Patent at
`
`1:23-24. Specifically, as of the date of invention of the ‘476 patent, mobile
`
`telephones possessed small screens and required users to launch an application and
`
`then navigate through “several hierarchies of functions” within the launched
`
`application in order to locate and activate a desired function. Id. at 1:42. A similar
`
`lengthy process was necessary for certain “stored data” to be displayed to the user.
`
`Id. at 1:53-54. At the time, limited shortcuts were available, but required a user to
`
`memorize “various keyboard input sequences.” Id. at 2:7.
`
`As an improvement to the then-existing menus of “available options” and
`
`“limited shortcuts”, the ‘476 patent disclosed and claimed a device configured to
`
`display an “application summary” and the code to cause the device to display it. Id.
`
`at 1:64-2:6; 4:6-11; 5:59-6:3; 7:9-22. The ‘476 patent describes such a window as a
`
`“snap-shot” view of an application that “brings together, in one summary window,
`
`a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data.” Id. at
`
`2:37-41.
`
`In the detailed description, the ‘476 describes an “Application Launcher”
`
`and an “App Snapshot.” Id. at 3:17-18; 3:28. The Application Launcher includes a
`
`list of applications, and from the Application Launcher, an App Snapshot may be
`
`opened to display certain data or functions associated with an application shown in
`
`7 
` 
`
`

`
`the Application Launcher. Id. at 3:34-41. As described, an App Snapshot may open
`
`in response to an exemplary selection process occurring at the Application
`
`Launcher menu. For example, the App Snapshot may be opened if a highlight
`
`rests on a specific application in the Application Launcher for a set amount of time.
`
`Id. at 3:34-38. As other examples, the App Snapshot can be opened in response to
`
`“voice activation,” “softkey selection,” a “right scroll function,” “a press and hold
`
`of the select function,” or “using a right cursor key on a highlighted application
`
`name.” Id. at 3:49-55. In each disclosed embodiment, the App Snapshot is being
`
`opened from the Application Launcher based on a selection process occurring at
`
`the Application Launcher.
`
`Further, as the ‘476 patent explains, the App Snapshot displays “data from
`
`an application and functions of that application without actually opening the
`
`application up: only once a user has selected an item in the App Snapshot
`
`associated with a given application does that application have to be opened.” Id. at
`
`3:64-4:2.
`
`The Figures of the ‘476 patent display an exemplary App Launcher in Fig. 1,
`
`and exemplary App Snapshots for the Messages application in Figs. 2-3:
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As described above, the App Snapshots are opened in Figs. 2-3 based on a
`
`selection of the Messages application occurring at the Application Launcher screen
`
`of Fig. 1. In Fig. 2, the App Snapshot indicates that there are no (0) new messages,
`
`and lists “the two most common functions” available in the Messages application.
`
`Id. at 3:43-44. In Fig. 3, the App Snapshot indicates the number of new emails,
`
`SMS messages, and outgoing chats, and once again links to the functions shown in
`
`Fig. 2.
`
`Generally, the ‘476 patent explains that the summary view can include
`
`“functionality and/or stored data types.” Id. at 4:47-48 (emphasis added). Implicit
`
`in this disclosure is that there are not only different data that could be displayed in
`
`the App Snapshot, but also different types of data that could be displayed in the
`
`App Snapshot. As already discussed, the App Snapshot shown in Fig. 3 of the
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`
`‘476 patent indicates the number of new emails, SMS messages, and outgoing
`
`chats. However, other types of data are described in the ‘476 patent.
`
`For example, the App Snapshot may display certain information where other
`
`applications are simultaneously active. “[I]f the mobile telephone has an active
`
`Calendar application, and the user opens the App Snapshot for Contacts, then the
`
`Contacts App Snapshot may include contact information for parties in the
`
`previously or currently open Calendar application.” Id. at 4:66-5:3 (emphasis
`
`added). But if the Phone application was active, rather than the Calendar
`
`application, the Contacts App Snapshop could display “contact information of the
`
`most called party, or a missed call party, or a party whose call the user is auto-
`
`replying to.” Id. at 5:3-7 (emphasis added). The Contacts App Snapshot could also
`
`“display phone numbers and email addresses which may be ‘fired’ (i.e. a phone
`
`number is dialed, an email address is seeded into a new message).” Id. at 5:17-20
`
`(emphasis added). Additionally, the Messages App Snapshot could display “further
`
`information” on a message, such as the “date and time it arrived and the first
`
`line/subject of the message.” Id. at 5:8-11.
`
`Finally, the ‘476 patent provides context for its disclosure of applications
`
`relative to an operating system. In the SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT
`
`INVENTION section, the ‘476 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with the above aspects of the
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`
`invention,” where those aspects include displaying an application summary
`
`window “comprising a limited list of (i) common functions offered within an
`
`application and/or (ii) data stored in that application.” Id. at 2:51-54; 2:33-36.
`
`This computer program is identified separately from the “application,” and “may
`
`be an operating system.” Id. at 2:54-55. Similarly, claim 12 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 program.” Id.
`
`at 6:35-37; 6:44-46. From these disclosures, the ‘476 patent makes clear that the
`
`software to implement the graphical user interface can be incorporated into an
`
`operating system, while the unlaunched applications listed in the main menu are
`
`separate (and claimed separately) from the operating system. While the ‘476
`
`patent also explains briefly that the “invention can also be used in systems which
`
`do not have a concept of separate applications as such” (id. at 5:31-35), this
`
`disclosure does not rewrite the claims, which each require “the one or more
`
`applications” to be in an “un-launched state.” This claimed element is not
`
`disclosed or suggested by a system that possesses a monolithic operating program
`
`that is open and visible. Denning at ¶¶ 13, 24.
`
`
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`
`b. The Challenged Claims all Require an “application” and
`Specifically an “application … in an un-launched state”
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 20,
`
`26, 27, and 29. Of the instituted claims, claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1
`
`recites, inter alia, a “computing device” that is “configured to display on the screen
`
`a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to
`
`display on the screen an application summary … .” Claim 20 recites, inter alia, a
`
`“method” comprising “displaying, on a computing device having a display screen,
`
`a menu listing one or more applications; [and] displaying an application summary
`
`that can be reached directly from the menu … .” Additionally, in both independent
`
`claims, the “application summary is displayed while the one or more applications
`
`are in an un-launched state.” Without these elements, a prior art reference such as
`
`Blanchard cannot anticipate or render these claims obvious.
`
`Claim 1 is presented below in full for reference:
`
`1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the
`computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu
`listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to
`display on the screen an application summary that can be reached
`directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a
`limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each
`of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective
`application and enable the selected data to be seen within the
`respective application, and wherein the application summary is
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`
`displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched
`state.
`(emphasis added). For this purposes of this proceeding and the arguments
`
`presented below, independent claim 20 includes features substantially similar to
`
`the features of claim 1. For example, claim 20 recites (in relevant part) “wherein
`
`the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or
`
`more applications, wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or
`
`more applications are in an un-launched state … .”
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`While the patentability of all challenged claims can be confirmed based on
`
`the features of independent claims 1 and 16 alone, Patent Owner also discusses the
`
`independent patentability of dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 26, 27, and 29 over
`
`Blanchard. As such, the features of these dependent claims are also presented
`
`here, in two groups.
`
`
`
`Claims 4, 5, 6, 26, and 27
`
`First, claims 4, 5, 6, 26, and 27 of the ‘476 patent recite features related to
`
`user-based or environment-based customization of the application summary. Per
`
`claim 4, the user can define the “data types [that] are of interest to that user for the
`
`summary for an application.” Per claims 5 and 6, the “data type … for a given
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`
`application varies” with the device’s environment or with the actions of a user. Per
`
`claims 26 and 27, the content of the application summary varies according to an
`
`environment of the computing device or according to user actions, respectively.
`
`The full text of these claims 4, 5, 6, 26, and 27 is provided below:
`
`4. The computing device of claim 1 in which a user can define
`what data types are of interest to that user for the summary for an
`application.
`5. The computing device of claim 1 in which the data type for a
`summary for a given application varies with the environment of the
`device.
`6. The computing device of claim 1 in which the data type for a
`summary for a given application varies with the actions of a user.
`26. The method of claim 20, further comprising varying content
`of the application summary according to an environment of the
`computing device.
`27. The method of claim 20, further comprising varying
`content of the application summary according to user actions.
`
`Claims 8 and 29
`
`Second, claims 8 and 29 of the ‘476 patent recite that the application
`
`summary, which “displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more
`
`applications” per claims 1 and 20, respectively, further displays “a limited list of
`
`functions offered in the one or more applications.” The full text of claims 8 and 29
`
`is provided below:
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`
`8. The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary
`further displays a limited list of functions offered in the one or more
`applications.
`29. The method of claim 20, further comprising displaying in
`the application summary a limited list of functions offered in the one
`or more applications
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that each of the challenged claims is rendered obvious by
`
`Blanchard. But as will be explained below, Blanchard fails to disclose any
`
`“application” and neither discloses nor suggests each feature of these claims. The
`
`challenged claims are all patentable over Blanchard.
`
`c. Petitioner Failed to Conduct a Proper Claim Construction
`Analysis and Applied Unreasonably Broad Interpretations of the
`Claim Terms
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘476 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`
`Cir. 2007). However, any construction must still be consistent with and supported
`
`by the disclosure. See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications
`
`RF, LLC, Case No. 2015-1361 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (Ex. 2010) at 10-11;
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`During litigation between Petitioner and Patent Owner on the ‘476 patent,
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued three claim
`
`constructions, albeit under the framework established by Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Prior to trial, the Court ruled that
`
`“additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary
`
`that can be reached directly from the menu,” from claims 1 and 20, has its “plain
`
`and ordinary meaning and no further construction [is] necessary.“ Ex. 2003 at 36-
`
`44. Then, during trial, the Court heard argument on “un-launched state” and
`
`“reached directly.” Ex. 2004 at 3-23. At the conclusion of this argument, the
`
`Court decided to construe “unlaunched state” as “not displayed,” and “reached
`
`directly” as “reached without an intervening step.” Id. at 23. Though these
`
`constructions were reached under the Phillips framework, they are also consistent
`
`with the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the ‘476 patent
`
`disclosure.
`
`Three other terms require the Board’s attention in this case, however, to
`
`ensure that these terms are not construed “so broadly that [their] constructions are
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles”: application, function,
`
`and data. Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1298.
`
`
`
`Construction of “application”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, the Board provided guidance on its
`
`interpretation of “application summary” and “mobile telephone.” Inst. Dec. at 6-7.
`
`However, the Board did not specifically provide a construction of “application.”
`
`From the content of the Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration, Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Rhyne make the unreasonably broad assumption that any selectable feature within
`
`software “instructions” is performed by an “application.” See, e.g., Rhyne at ¶¶ 16,
`
`40; Denning at ¶¶ 14-15, 43.
`
`In evaluating whether any claimed “application” is disclosed by the cited art,
`
`the Board should not interpret an “application” to be indistinguishable from an
`
`“operating system” or a monolithic operating program. Rather, an “application”
`
`exists in a particular software architecture having an operating system that can
`
`manage multiple executables (e.g. applications), whereby an application can be
`
`launched to access its associated functions and data. Denning at ¶ 33.
`
`As discussed above, the ‘476 patent indicates that a “computer program …
`
`enables the device to operate in accordance with certain aspects of the invention,”
`
`including displaying an application summary window comprising “a limited list of
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`
`(i) common functions offered within an application and/or (ii) data stored in that
`
`application.” Id. at 2:51-54; 2:33-36. This “program may be an operating system.”
`
`Id. at 2:54-55. Similarly, claim 12 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 program.” Id. at 6:35-37; 6:44-46.1
`
`Separate from an operating system, Martyn provides examples of
`
`applications “such as ‘Messages’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Calendar’ and ‘Phone’”
`
`applications. ‘476 Patent at 3:17-19. Prior to the claimed “application summary,” a
`
`user would have to “open” the application and then navigate “within that
`
`application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be
`
`activated.” Id. at 2:46-50. Further, the background of the ‘476 patent refers
`
`specifically to a mobile telephone that “includes several different applications” that
`
`must be started/opened in order to navigate to the desired function. Id. at 1:48-55.
`
`Further, the ‘476 patent’s disclosure that an “application” may be in an un-
`
`launched state informs a POSITA that the disclosed device operating system
`                                                            
`1 It does not follow from the doctrine of claim differentiation that claim 11’s
`
`computing device could be implemented without an operating system. Rather,
`
`computing device’s “computer-readable code” that “causes the [computing] device
`
`to display on the screen an application summary” could be a second, separate
`
`application on top of the operating system. Denning at ¶ 23.
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`
`permits multiple threads of execution. Denning at ¶ 23. For example, the ‘476
`
`patent discloses at 4:64-5:3 that the App Snapshot can be opened for a Contacts
`
`application while there is “an active Calendar application,” and further refers to a
`
`“previously or currently open Calendar application.” ‘476 patent at 4:64-5:3.
`
`These operations require multiple threads of execution so that the device can view
`
`the App Snapshot while another application is “currently open.” Id.; see also
`
`Denning at ¶ 23. Specifically, the device must manage an execution thread for the
`
`currently opened Calendar application, and must also simultaneously manage an
`
`execution thread for software causing the App Snapshot to be displayed.2
`
`From these disclosures, the ‘476 patent makes clear that an “operating
`
`system” is claimed separately and described differently from an “application.”
`
`This is consistent with the understanding that would have been reached by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the relevant time. Denning at ¶ 33.
`
`Specifically, as of July 2000, it was understood by a POSITA that an
`
`“application” referred to application-level architecture, with the application
`
`implemented on top of an operating system layer. Denning at ¶¶ 23, 33. Further,
`