IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Declaration of
`Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,713,476
`
`In re Application of: Mathieu
`Kennedy Martin
`
`Patent No.: 8,713,476
`
`Filed: October 25, 2013
`
`Issued: April 29, 2014
`
`Assignee: Core Wireless Licensing
`S.a.r.l.
`
`Title: COMPUTING DEVICE WITH
`IMPROVED USER INTERFACE FOR
`APPLICATIONS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, III, REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,713,476
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`My name is Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III. I have more than forty (40)
`
`years of electrical engineering experience and have worked extensively with
`
`software interface standardization and other advanced software development
`
`projects. For example, I was the Vice President of a company where I managed
`
`research into software interface development, specifically the Microelectronics and
`
`Computer Technology Corporation (MCC). I also spent many years in various
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Declaration of
`Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,713,476
`
`In re Application of: Mathieu
`Kennedy Martin
`
`Patent No.: 8,713,476
`
`Filed: October 25, 2013
`
`Issued: April 29, 2014
`
`Assignee: Core Wireless Licensing
`S.a.r.l.
`
`Title: COMPUTING DEVICE WITH
`IMPROVED USER INTERFACE FOR
`APPLICATIONS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, III, REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,713,476
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`My name is Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III. I have more than forty (40)
`
`years of electrical engineering experience and have worked extensively with
`
`software interface standardization and other advanced software development
`
`projects. For example, I was the Vice President of a company where I managed
`
`research into software interface development, specifically the Microelectronics and
`
`Computer Technology Corporation (MCC). I also spent many years in various
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`roles developing and testing Computer-Aided Design (CAD) framework and
`
`interfaces.
`
`2.
`
`I hold degrees from Mississippi State University (Bachelors of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering with Honors, 1962), the University of Virginia
`
`(Masters of Electrical Engineering, 1965), and the Georgia Institute of Technology
`
`(Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, 1967). I have been a registered Professional
`
`Engineer in the State of Texas since 1969 (TX, No. 28,728) and I have been a
`
`Registered Patent Agent since 1999 (No. 45,041).
`
`3.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (C.V.) is attached as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`Status as Independent Expert Witness
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by LG ELECTRONICS
`
`MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC. (“Petitioner” or “LG”) to provide an analysis of the
`
`scope and content of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (hereinafter “the ’476 patent”)
`
`relative to the state of the art at the time of the earliest application underlying that
`
`patent. In particular, my analysis relates only to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27,
`
`and 29 of the ’476 patent. I have also been asked to provide an analysis regarding
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art related to graphical user interfaces would
`
`have understood at the time of the earliest application underlying the ’476 patent.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 2
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $695 per hour for my work. My
`
`fee is not contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of the technical
`
`positions I explain in this declaration. I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`6.
`
`I have been informed that Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. (hereinafter
`
`referred to as “Patent Owner”) owns the ’476 Patent. I have no financial interest in
`
`the Patent Owner or the ’476 patent, nor to my recollection have I ever had any
`
`contact with the Patent Owner or the listed inventor of the ’476 patent, Mathieu
`
`Kennedy Martin.
`
`Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`7.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the specification, drawings, and claims of
`
`the ’476 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`For convenience, all of the information that I considered in arriving at
`
`my opinions is listed in Appendix B.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant field
`
`for purposes of the ’476 patent is graphical user interfaces for computer devices.
`
`See the ’476 specification at 1:14-24. I have been informed that the relevant
`
`timeframe runs up to June 2000.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 3
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`10. As described above and in my C.V., I have extensive experience in
`
`the relevant technical field, including experience relating to computer-generated
`
`graphical user interfaces. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`relevant field in the relevant timeframe.
`
`State of the Art as of 2000
`
`11. As of 2000 and before the alleged priority date of the ’476 patent, a
`
`person of skill in the art of the ’476 patent would have been well aware of
`
`computing devices that could launch applications before the alleged priority date of
`
`the ’476 patent. For example, Apple’s Mac OS operating system and Microsoft’s
`
`Windows operating system were both well known in that time frame, and both
`
`systems included the functionality used to launch applications.
`
`12. A person of skill would also have understood that mobile computing
`
`devices could include an operating system and run applications. For example, in
`
`1994, IBM released the “Simon,” a Personal Communicator which included a
`
`Phone application and its “Mobile Office” applications which provided Simon
`
`users an Address Book, Calendar, Mail, Note Pad, and a To Do list, each a
`
`program that users could select and execute.
`
`13. A person of skill in the art would also have been familiar with
`
`Ericsson’s release of their R380 “smartphone” in 1999, which included a version
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 4
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`of the Symbian EPOC32 operating system and included a variety of applications,
`
`including Contacts, Mail, Calendar, and Phone.
`
` As shown below, the
`
`R380 Smartphone was a GSM mobile phone made by Ericsson Mobile
`
`Communications. It combined the functions of a mobile phone and a personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA):
`
`14.
`
`Thus, a person of skill in the art would not have understood the ’476
`
`patent to be the first computing device that could launch one or more applications.
`
`In fact, the ’476 patent admits that such devices were known before alleged
`
`priority date of the patents. See the ’476 specification at 1:14-15 and 1:37-46
`
`(conceding “a mobile telephone” in the prior art “includes several different
`
`applications (e.g. a message application, a contacts/address book application, a
`
`calendar application and a telephone application)” that the user could “start/open.”
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 5
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`Computing Devices with a Main Menu Listing One or More Applications
`
`15. A person of skill art would have also been familiar with computing
`
`devices having a main menu listing one or more applications prior to the alleged
`
`priority date of the ’476 patent. For example, the Mac OS operating system and
`
`Windows operating system both provided main menus listing one or more
`
`applications, and both systems were well-known, in widespread use, and
`
`commonplace to a person of skill, as well as average computers users prior to the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`16. A person of skill in the art would have also understood that mobile
`
`computing devices often included main menus listing one or more applications.
`
`For example, a person of skill would have been familiar with several versions of a
`
`clamshell mobile phone product called the “StarTac” from Motorola, since
`
`Motorola had released multiple iterations of the StarTac prior to the priority date of
`
`the ’476 patent. Those versions featured a main menu listing various application
`
`items, including a contact book, call related features, voice messaging, and a phone
`
`set up appliation. I owned a StarTac in 1997 or 1998 while I was working at
`
`Motorola in Austin.
`
`17. A person of skill would not have understood the ’476 patent to be an
`
`attempt to invent the first computing device with a menu or main menu that could
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 6
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`list one or more applications. In fact, a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`recognized that the ’476 patent did not even claim to disclose a new type of menu
`
`or main menu. Rather, the ’476 patent admits that prior art computing devices,
`
`including those “with small screens,” often included “a menu of several available
`
`options” for applications stored on the device, and describe using the same type of
`
`menu or main menu as used in the prior art. See the ’476 specification at 1:36-40
`
`and 1:64-2:1.
`
`18. A person of skill in the art would also be familiar with the prosecution
`
`history of the ’020 patent, and would have understood that the inventors also
`
`admitted during that prosecution that menus and main menus were well known in
`
`the art. See the ’020 File History at page 13 of the 9/23/08 Reply (“Applicant does
`
`not dispute that the concept of a main menu is well known in the prior art.”).
`
`An Application Summary Window Reachable Directly From The Main Menu
`That Displayed A Limited List Of Data Offered Within The Application
`
`19. A person of skill in the art also would have understood how to create a
`
`menu hierarchy structure for a computing device before the priority date of the
`
`’476 patent. A person of ordinary skill would have also considered it simple and
`
`commonplace to include a graphical application summary that: (1) could be
`
`reached directly from the menu/main menu for an application that the user had
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 7
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`selected from the menu/main menu and (2) that listed a limited set data offered
`
`within the application.
`
`20.
`
`This type of “short cut” menu was a common solution that was well
`
`known to persons of skill in the art, as such a short cut alleviated the need for users
`
`to navigate through unnecessary menu levels to reach desired functions or data.
`
`Further, as the ’476 patent states, this approach was well known in the prior art.
`
`See, e.g., the ’476 specification at 1:62-63 (“Some mobile telephones also offer
`
`limited shortcuts to get straight to a particular function.”).
`
`21. As a specific example, a person of skill would have been familiar with
`
`the fact that the Motorola StarTAC, offered a main menu that listed application
`
`items, including a phone book, call related features, voice messages, and phone set
`
`up. When users selected one of those items, the menu would display a submenu
`
`that: (1) listed a limited set of functions for the selected application that would be
`
`performed when selected by the user (e.g., a “Call Voicemail” function for
`
`Messages or “Mute Car Radio” for Accessory Setup) and/or (2) would access the
`
`data via the selected application when selected by the user (e.g., to display “Last
`
`Ten Calls” for Phone Book or “Show Call Timers” for Call Meters).
`
`22. A person of skill would also have understood the applicant’s
`
`statements in the prosecution history of the parent application of the ’476 patent,
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 8
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (the ’020 patent), to admit that menus which displayed a
`
`limited list of at least one function offered within an application were well known.
`
`See, e.g., the ’020 File History at page 9 of the 3/2/09 Reply (admitting that a menu
`
`“displaying a limited list of at least one function offered within an application” was
`
`“part of the common general knowledge of a person skilled in the art” because
`
`“menus are available within a launched application which provide a subset of the
`
`functions available in an application”).
`
`Launching An Application To Perform A Function Or Display Data That A
`User Selected From The Application Summary Window
`
`23. A person of skill understood and would also be aware of menu
`
`systems that could automatically launch and perform a function selected by the
`
`user when the user selected a function from a menu (including a submenu directly
`
`available from the main menu). The same was true for the selection of data in that
`
`it was known that a user could select data from the same type of menu and the
`
`system would automatically display the selected data.
`
`24.
`
`For example, as I explained above, a person of skill was familiar with
`
`the Ericsson R380, which displayed a submenu for the selected application
`
`(including the name of the application in a frame). That submenu included a
`
`limited list of functions or data for the application (e.g., “Lock keypad” for Phone)
`
`or data for the application (e.g., “Missed calls for Phone), each of which the user
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 9
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`could select to run the application and initiate the selected function or show the
`
`selected data.
`
`25. Due to the limited processing power, memory, and battery life of early
`
`mobile devices such as the StarTac and the R380, a person of skill in the art would
`
`have understood that most of mobile computing devices that existed before the
`
`alleged priority date of the ’476 patent had a “single-threaded” processing
`
`architecture that allowed only one application to run at a time.
`
`26.
`
`Thus, to a person of skill, it was understood that a computer device
`
`that displayed a menu providing an option to perform a function or access data
`
`would need to launch the application before it could perform the selected function
`
`or access the selected data. This would have been considered typical and
`
`commonplace, for example, due to the limitations of mobile computing devices
`
`available at that time.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant Timeframe
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`the prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 10
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the earliest application underlying the
`
`’476 patent was filed would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science and at least two to three years of professional
`
`experience in graphical user interfaces.
`
`28. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised, directed, and
`
`instructed a number of such persons over the course of my career.
`
`Overview of the ’476 Patent
`
`29.
`
`The ’476 patent, entitled COMPUTING DEVICE WITH IMPROVED
`
`USER INTERFACE FOR APPLICATIONS, relates to a computing device that
`
`includes a display screen, where the computing device is configured to display on
`
`the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and to display on the screen an
`
`application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, where 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 where the application summary is displayed while the one or more
`
`applications are in an un-launched state. See the ABSTRACT of the ’476 patent.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 11
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I am informed that the ’476 patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`application Ser. No. 13/860,143, filed on Apr. 10, 2013, which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. application Ser. No. 10/343,333, filed on Aug. 27, 2003 and issued as U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 8,424,020, which is the National Stage of International Application No.
`
`PCT/GB01/03387, International Filing date, Jul. 27, 2001, which designated the
`
`United States of America, and which International Application was published
`
`under PCT Article 21 (s) as WO Publication 02/10893 and which claims priority
`
`from, and benefit of, Great Britain Application No. 0019459.7, filed on Jul. 28,
`
`2000.
`
`31. A review of the prior art reveals that all of the functionality claimed in
`
`the claims at issue of the ’476 patent was well known in the art before July 2000.
`
`In fact, U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard et al. (“Blanchard”) makes all of
`
`the challenged claims obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`32.
`
`In proceedings before the USPTO, I understand that the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art, according to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I address certain terms from the challenged ’476 claims
`
`below:
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 12
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`“computing device”
`
`The challenged claims require an “application summary window” to appear
`
`on the screen of a “computing device.” Only claim 11 requires the claimed
`
`“computing device” to be a “mobile telephone.” Claim 12 requires “[t]he
`
`computing device of claim 1, being a PC.” Thus, a person of skill would have
`
`understood the plain meaning of the term “computing device” to include PCs,
`
`mobile phones, and any other type of computing device. Mobile phones, desktops,
`
`and laptops are all specifically referenced in the ’476 patent, confirming that for a
`
`person of ordinary skill that the plain meaning “computer device” includes any
`
`type of computing device. Further, the ’476 patent describes the invention as
`
`“particularly useful for mobile telephones,” and further states that the invention
`
`may be “used in environments outside of mobile telephony.” (Exhibit 1001 at
`
`5:35-38.) The ’476 patent also specifically states that “desktop and laptop PCs
`
`may also benefit from the present invention.” (Id. at 5:37-41.)
`
`“reached directly from the main menu”
`
`33. All the challenged claims require “an application summary that can be
`
`reached directly from the menu.” The broadest reasonable construction of this
`
`claim language merely requires that the user be able to navigate from the menu to
`
`the application summary without needing to use an intervening menu, window, or
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 13
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`button. However, this claim language does not require the main and the
`
`application summary to appear on different screens. Confirming this, the preferred
`
`embodiment of the ’476 patent describes a summary window that appears on the
`
`same screen as the menu. Specifically, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the summary
`
`window “drops down” from the menu when the highlight rests on an application in
`
`that menu, where “should the highlight rest on the name an application in the App
`
`Launcher for a certain amount of time … the summary window … drops down
`
`from the highlight bar.” (Id. at 3:33-38.) That form of simultaneous display is
`
`shown below:
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 14
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Thus, a person of skill in the art would interpret “reached directly
`
`from the main menu” 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.
`
`Unpatentability Based on Prior Art in the Present Proceedings
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`anticipated when each claim limitation is found within a single reference or is a
`
`necessary part of a claim limitation. I understand that an anticipation analysis
`
`involves a consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where 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
`
`relevant field. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a consideration
`
`of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claimed inventions and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 15
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`37. My analysis of these considerations is set forth in the following
`
`sections.
`
`A. Blanchard Makes Obvious All of the Challenged Claims
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard (Exhibit 2) teaches each and every
`
`limitation of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29 of the ’476 patent. A person
`
`of ordinary skill would consider each of these claims obvious based on Blanchard
`
`alone. I explain that opinion in detail below.
`
`Element [1a] “1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the
`computing device being configured …”
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard discloses a user interface for a mobile
`
`telephone in Figure 2. See Blanchard at Fig. 1, Fig. 2, at 1:11-14, and 2:52-3:2)
`
`(showing a mobile telephone with a display screen, a CPU, and memory).
`
`Element [1b] “…to display on the screen a menu listing one or more
`applications,”
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard’s reference to a “parent menu” that lists
`
`applications using icons such as “Phone Book,” “Mailbox,” and “Home” (which
`
`represents the telephone application) discloses the “main menu.” See Blanchard at
`
`5:39-46 and 3:54-63.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 16
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`Element [1c] “…and additionally being configured to display on the screen an
`application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,”
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard also describes an application summary
`
`(“window with selectable sub-level menu choices”) for each application icon in the
`
`menu (“parent menu”). (Blanchard at 3:54-63.) These windows are reached
`
`directly from the menu, because they appear when their corresponding icon in the
`
`menu is highlighted. (Blanchard at 5:39-46.)
`
`42. A person of skill would consider the disclosure in Blanchard to be the
`
`same as the preferred embodiment of the ’476 patent which describes navigating
`
`from the main menu to the summary window: “should the highlight rest on the
`
`name an application in the App Launcher for a certain amount of time … the
`
`summary window … drops down from the highlight bar.” Blanchard at 3:23-27.
`
`Element [1d] “…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,”
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, each “window with selectable sub-level menu choices”
`
`in Blanchard displays a limited list of data offered within the application
`
`corresponding to the highlighted main menu icon, and each listed data is selectable
`
`to launch the application and enable the selected data to be seen within the
`
`respective application.
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 17
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`44. When the “Mailbox” icon is highlighted as shown in screen 332 in
`
`Figure 3, the application summary for the Mailbox application displays a limited
`
`list showing that the user has 0 voice messages and 7 text messages (Blanchard at
`
`Fig. 3).
`
`45.
`
`It is my opinion that both the number of voice messages and the
`
`number of text messages are data stored in the Mailbox application. Selecting one
`
`of the menu choices in the “Mailbox” window allows the user to “access” either
`
`“voice messages” or “text messages.” (Blanchard at 6:15-18; 3:67-4:3; see also at
`
`6:7-15 (describing the “Phone Book” application summary).) Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that both the “VoiceMsg[00]” and the “Text Msg[07]” items in the limited
`
`list in the Mailbox application summary is selectable to launch the Mailbox
`
`application and enable the listed data to be seen in the application.
`
`46.
`
`Similarly, when the “Home” icon is highlighted as shown in screen
`
`210 in Figure 4, the application summary for the telephone application displays a
`
`limited list with the items “Last Number” and “View Own Number.” (Blanchard at
`
`6:36-42.) These items are both selectable to activate (i.e. “launch”) the
`
`corresponding application and enable the selected data to be seen within the
`
`application. For example, in screen 210 “pressing the Select key 227 redials the
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 18
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`last number previously dialed,” thereby displaying the selected data (i.e. the last
`
`number previously dialed). (Blanchard at 6:40-46).
`
`[Element 1e] “…and wherein the application summary is displayed while the
`one or more applications are in an un-launched state.”
`
`47. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`Blanchard’s “window with selectable sub-level menu choices” is displayed while
`
`the application corresponding to those choices is in an un-launched state.
`
`48. Blanchard describes a phone as having “program memory,” and
`
`discloses several well-known mobile-phone programs, such as a telephone-dialer,
`
`phone book, and mailbox. Blanchard at 2:52-67, 5:39-46; and 6:7-64. These
`
`programs are separate from the user interface. Blanchard at Figure 1 and 2:52-3:2
`
`(showing that both “program memory 112” and “data memory 114” are distinct
`
`from “user interface 200”). Thus, when Blanchard describes a menu choice in the
`
`user interface being used to “access” a function defined in the program memory
`
`(e.g., at 6:15-18 and 3:67-4:3), a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that this meant the phone would launch the application containing that
`
`function from the program memory, and use it to initiate the selected function.
`
`49.
`
`For example, Blanchard explains that when the function “Last
`
`Number” is highlighted, “pressing the Select key 227 redials the last number
`
`previously dialed.” Id. at 6:40-46). A person of ordinary skill would have
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 19
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`understood that this describes launching the telephone-dialer application when the
`
`user presses the select key to activate the “Last Number” function, and that the
`
`telephone-dialer program was in un-launched prior to that point, i.e., when the user
`
`was navigating the menus of the user interface.
`
`50.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`implement Blanchard by having the applications in “program memory 112” remain
`
`in an un-launched state while the user was navigating the menus provided by the
`
`separate “user interface 200,” and to launch them only when the user selected a
`
`function to be performed, such as “Last Number.” As a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have understood, mobile phones at the time could typically only have one
`
`“launched’ application at a time because the hardware available at the time
`
`suffered from limited processing capacity, battery life, and low memory capacity.
`
`51.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`implement the mobile phone of Blanchard in the manner that was normal and
`
`routine at the time: by having the applications in “program memory 112” be in an
`
`un-launched state while the user was navigating the menus provided by the
`
`separate “user interface 200,” and to launch them only when the user selected data
`
`to be shown in an application, such as “Text Msg[07].” This would have been the
`
`predictable result of combining known elements performing their known functions,
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 20
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`consistent with the architecture of the Blanchard mobile phone, which has separate
`
`structure for the “program memory” and the “user interface” containing the
`
`application summary.
`
`“Claim 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.”
`
`52. A person of skill would have understood that Blanchard teaches that a
`
`mobile telephone, i.e., the “terminal,” “includes suitable coding for assigning a
`
`priority to either the status or header-type information or to the menu type-item
`
`information” and that in response, “the desired information is suitably displayed in
`
`each of the display screens.” Blanchard at 6:65-7:3. As Blanchard explains, “[t]he
`
`advantage of this arrangement is that it provides a very flexible manner in
`
`organizing and presenting information.” Blanchard at 7:4-5. As Blanchard
`
`explains, “[t]he advantage of this arrangement is that it provides a very flexible
`
`manner in organizing and presenting information.” (Blanchard at 7:4-5.)
`
`53. A person of skill would have understood this to mean that the user can
`
`modify the options that are available as desired, and to dictate the priority in which
`
`those options are made visible. Thus, by assigning priorities to the different types
`
`of information displayed in the summary window, “the user can define what
`
`functionality and/or stored data types are of interest to that user for the summary
`
`window for an application.”
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 21
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`“Claim 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.”
`
`54. Blanchard teaches that the application summary window can be used
`
`to display functionality that “varies with the environment of the device.” Figure 3
`
`shows a summary window for the telephone application (“Home” icon) that
`
`displays the name of the cellular service provider. This functionality “varies with
`
`the environment of the device,” because it will be different when the device is used
`
`with different service providers. For example, a phone on a Verizon plan would
`
`see Verizon’s name in the summary window, while a phone that uses the Sprint
`
`network would see Sprint’s name instead.
`
`“Claim 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.”
`
`55.
`
`Similar to claim 5, a person of skill would understand that Blanchard
`
`teaches that the user can assigning priorities to the different types of information
`
`displayed in the summary window, including “menu type-item information” and
`
`“status or header-type information,” in order to alter how those types of
`
`information are displayed. Thus, by assigning priorities in this way a user takes
`
`actions that vary “the functionality and/or stored data types for a summary
`
`window.”
`
`LG Exhibit 1004, Page 22
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`“Claim 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.”
`
`56. Blanchard discloses a window with selectable sub-level menu choices
`
`that a person of skill would understand to be an application summary window that
`
`can display a list of functions stored in the corresponding application. Blanchard
`
`discloses an application summary (i.e. Blanchard’s “window with selectable sub-
`
`level menu choices”) that displays a limited list of functions offered within the
`
`application corresponding to the highlighted main menu icon, and each listed
`
`function is selectable to launch the application and initiate the selected function.
`
`57.
`
`For example, when the “Home” icon that corresponds to the telephone
`
`application is highlighted, the items “Last Number” and “View Own Number” are
`
`displayed. (Blanchard. at 6:36-42.) Each of these is representative a function
`
`within the application (“Last Number” redials the last number previously dialed) as
`
`well as data within the application (“Last Number” accesses data showing the last
`
`number previously dialed). These functions in the limited list are both selectable
`
`to activate (i.e. “launch”) the corresponding application and initiate the selected
`
`function. For example, “pressing the Select key 227 redials the last number
`
`previously dialed.” (Blanchard at 6:40-46). Similarly, selecting one of the menu
`
`choices in the “Mailbox” window allows the user to “access” one of the three
`
`displayed “features”: “voice message
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
