UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case Nos. 2:14-911 and 2:14-912
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`|
`
`||
`
`||
`
`|
`|
`|
`
`||
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., AND LG,
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.
`Defendants.
`
`EXHIBIT A TO THE REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. MARK MAHON
`REGARDING VALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,434,020 AND 8,713,476
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A - REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. MARK MAHON REGARDING
`VALIDITY OF ’020 AND ’476 PATENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Validity Analysis of ’020 and ’476 for Alleged Anticipation ................................................ 3
`
`1.1 Blanchard Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims....................................................... 3
`
`1.2
`
`1.3
`
`Schnarel Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims ....................................................... 13
`
`Shiraishi Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims ....................................................... 24
`
`1.4 Wagner Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims......................................................... 33
`
`1.5 The Ericsson R380 Does Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims....................................... 42
`
`2. Validity Analysis of ’020 and ’476 for Alleged Obviousness.............................................. 50
`
`2.1 Dr. Rhyne’s Alleged Combinations Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims ................ 50
`
`2.2 Objective Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................................................. 51
`
`2
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 2
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`1.
`
`VALIDITY ANALYSIS OF ’020 AND
`ANTICIPATION
`
`’476 FOR ALLEGED
`
`In this Exhibit A to my rebuttal expert report, I analyze Dr. Rhyne’s claims regarding the
`1.
`validity of the ’020 and ’476 patents and the alleged prior art references he asserts. Unless
`otherwise noted, all references in this Exhibit A to Dr. Rhyne’s opinions are to his report
`regarding the invalidity of the ’020 and ’476 patents.
`
`This Exhibit A is an attachment to my rebuttal expert report, which I hereby incorporate
`2.
`by reference.
`
`As a preliminary matter, I understand that Core Wireless has objected to LG’s and Dr.
`3.
`Rhyne’s opinions regarding the Blanchard, Schnarel, and Ericsson references, as these alleged
`prior art references were untimely disclosed. I understand this objection may need to be resolved
`by the Court. I am providing my preliminary analysis of these references in this Exhibit A, but
`respectfully reserve the right to supplement these analyses as I continue to investigate these
`untimely disclosed references.
`
`1.1
`
`BLANCHARD DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`Dr. Rhyne contends that U.S. Pat. No. 6,415,164 to Blanchard et al. “anticipates and/or
`4.
`renders obvious” all of the Asserted Claims of the ’020 and ’476 patents. In my opinion, Dr.
`Rhyne is incorrect, as Blanchard fails to disclose limitations of claim 1 of the ’020 patent (the
`asserted independent claim), claims 1 and 20 of the ’476 patent (the asserted independent
`claims), as well as limitations added by several of the asserted dependent claims.
`
`I note that Dr. Rhyne does not allege that Blanchard in combination with any other
`5.
`reference renders any asserted claims obvious. Instead, Dr. Rhyne considers the “obviousness of
`limitations” based on rather conclusory assertions of what would allegedly “have been obvious
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art,” (see Rhyne ¶¶ 95-96). As I explain below, it is my
`opinion based on my experience that these allegations fail to provide the clear and convincing
`evidence necessary to invalidate the asserted claims.
`
`3
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 3
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`1.1.1 Failure to Invalidate Claim 1 of the ’020 and Claim 1 of the ’476
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`“[1a] A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured
`[1b] to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, [1c] and
`additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can
`be reached directly from the main menu, [1d] wherein the application summary window displays
`a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list
`being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, [1e] and
`wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`state.”
`
`7.
`
`Similarly, Claim 1 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“[1a] A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured
`[1b] to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, [1c] and additionally
`being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly
`from the menu, [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,
`[1e] and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in
`an un-launched state.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard fails to disclose at least limitations [1b], [1c], [1d], and [1e] of
`8.
`Claim 1 of both the ’020 and ’476 patents.
`
`1.1.1.1 Blanchard Does Not Disclose Limitation [1b]
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not disclose limitation [1b], as the Blanchard reference
`9.
`does not disclose any “application.” Rather, as described below in more detail, Blanchard
`discloses merely a single menu that offers a set of various functionalities (e.g., Phone Book,
`Mailbox, Security). Particularly in connection with my analysis of limitation [1c] below, it
`appears that the sub-level menus Blanchard discloses and Rhyne relies on are merely the
`functions the phone offers, wherein the user has to navigate through various menus and sub-level
`
`4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 4
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`menus to achieve his or her desired action. This is contrary to the teaching of the ’020 and ’476
`patents, which are directed to more efficient navigation of a computing device.
`
`1.1.1.2 Blanchard Does Not Disclose Limitation [1c]
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard fails to disclose [1c] of the ’020 and ’476 patents as
`10.
`Blanchard’s sub-menus are not an “application summary window” or “application summary.”
`Furthermore, even assuming Blanchard discloses an application summary or application
`summary window, that summary cannot “be reached directly from the main menu”
`
`Blanchard ‘164 discloses a series of sub-level menus “Shown in the display 210 is just
`11.
`one menu screen in the hierarchically arranged menu. The illustrated entry is one of possible
`original starting screens” [Blanchard ‘164 3:46-48]. These sub-level menus are displayed
`simultaneously with what Blanchard terms a ‘parent menu’: “The display screens shown in FIG.
`3 are of the five parent screens 210, 320, 330, 340 and 350 or main areas on the top level of the
`menu.” [Blanchard ‘164 5:39-41]. In ¶81 Rhyne says that “This ‘parent menu’ lists applications
`using icons...” and he calls this (via the §5.2 heading) the ‘main menu’. If the list of icons is the
`parent menu, then the display of ‘parent screens’ is the applications summary window.
`
`The illustration in Fig. 3 shows that the user is actually navigating through the sub-level
`12.
`menus (application summary window) while the user is led to conclude that the icons pictured at
`the top (main menu) are associated with the sub-level menu they are highlighting (filled in
`ellipse next to action) at that time. A person of ordinary skill in the art could understand that
`from the user’s perspective it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that as they move from
`sub-menu to sub-menu they are actually navigating through the main menu via the application
`summary window. The only thing changing on the screen is the display and highlighting of
`actions within the sub-menu, the user can never enter the parent menu. At best this is an
`ambiguous menu structure.
`
`In my opinion, the structure Dr. Rhyne cites in Fig. 3 represents the only way to interact
`13.
`with given “applications.” For example, it is at the very least unclear that there is any other way
`for a user to run or interact with the mailbox application other than navigating to the sub-menu in
`330, 331, and 332. Thus, in my opinion Blanchard’s “sub-level menu choices” are not, as Rhyne
`
`5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 5
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`contends, application summaries or application summary windows, but rather are the actual
`applications themselves.
`
`Furthermore, the sub-menus are persistent and simultaneously displayed with the parent
`14.
`menu (main menu) and the highlighting of the sub-menu functions via the filled in ellipse is the
`key to guide the user’s understanding of their place within the sub-menu structure. Nothing in the
`Blanchard disclosure suggests an application summary that is consistent with the snapshot view
`of an application that is described in the ’020 and ’476 specification. Since these menus are
`always presented along with the parent menu and a user does not have to take any action to select
`an application in the parent window to go from the parent window to the summary application
`window, a person of reasonable skill in the art would understand that Blanchard does not
`disclose “and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary
`window that can be reached directly from the main menu”.
`
`1.1.1.3 Blanchard Does Not Disclose Limitation [1d]
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard fails to disclose limitation [1d]. Initially, as described above,
`15.
`Blanchard does not disclose a “summary window,” referred to in both [1c] and [1d].
`
`Blanchard does not disclose a list wherein “each function in the list being selectable to
`16.
`launch the first application and initiate the selected function.” Blanchard does not disclose
`options that can be selected to “launch” or “initiate.” Blanchard only speaks of a user being able
`“to activate one of these options”--which is not explained or elaborated. In view of the
`specification of the ’020 and ’476 patents, this undefined “activate” is not the same or similar to
`the “launch” or “initiate” disclosed in the ’020 and ’476 patents.
`
`1.1.1.4 Blanchard Does Not Disclose Limitation [1e]
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard fails to disclose limitation [1e].
`
`Rhyne states that “As shown in screen 33[1] of Figure 3, the limited list of options
`18.
`displayed in the “Mailbox” window/sub-menu includes “VoiceMsg[00]” showing that the phone
`has zero voice messages, as well as “Text Msg[07]”, showing that the phone has seven text
`messages. [Rhyne ¶88]. This information is displayed in the sub-menu without any user initiation
`to launch an application associated with the highlighted function. The “application” is already
`
`6
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 6
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`running in the background, receiving text messages, and displaying that information in the sub-
`menu for the user to see. If the user selects the associated action, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that the application will be brought to the foreground, but is already
`launched (i.e. running/executing) before they made the selection of the action as demonstrated by
`the display of “Text Msg[07]“ and thus that Blanchard does not disclose “wherein the application
`summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state”.
`
`Blanchard does not disclose [1e] as nothing in Blanchard discloses or refers to an
`19.
`application summary window being “displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state.”
`Rhyne does not dispute that Blanchard itself does not disclose “unlaunched state,” but only relies
`on a claim that a person of ordinary skill would have understood the “window with selectable
`sub-level menu choices” is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state. Rhyne
`¶¶ 90-96. As explained above, it is my opinion that this is incorrect as the “application” was
`already launched, as, among other reasons, the sub-level menu choices represent the
`“application” itself.
`
`1.1.2 Failure to Invalidate Claim 2 of the ’020
`
`20.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`7
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 7
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`“The computing device of claim 1 in which the selecting a function listed in the summary window
`causes the first application to open and that selected function to be activated.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 2 of the ’020 as Claim 2 is a
`21.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above.
`
`Blanchard discloses that applications associated with the actions listed in the sub-menu
`22.
`are launched (running) before the user selects the action to activate the function. Rhyne states
`that “As shown in screen 33[1] of Figure 3, the limited list of options displayed in the “Mailbox”
`window/sub-menu includes “VoiceMsg[00]” showing that the phone has zero voice messages, as
`well as “Text Msg[07]”, showing that the phone has seven text messages. [Rhyne ¶88]. This
`information is displayed in the sub-menu without any user initiation to launch an application
`associated with the highlighted function. The application is already running in the background,
`receiving text messages, and displaying that information in the sub-menu for the user to see. If
`the user selects the associated action, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the application will be brought to the foreground, but is already launched (i.e. running/executing)
`before they made the selection of the action and thus that Blanchard does not anticipate “The
`computing device of claim 1 in which the selecting a function listed in the summary window
`causes the first application to open and that selected function to be activated.”
`
`1.1.3 Failure to Invalidate Claim 8 of the ’020
`
`23.
`
`Claim 8 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`“The computing device of claim 1 in which opening a summary window for a given application
`does not result in that application being opened.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 8 of the ’020 as Claim 8 is a
`24.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above. As presented previously, the sub-menus (which Rhyne
`contends qualify as application summary windows) are always visible, and thus cannot be
`“open[ed].”
`
`As noted above, Blanchard discloses a series of sub-level menus “Shown in the display
`25.
`210 is just one menu screen in the hierarchically arranged menu. The illustrated entry is one of
`8
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 8
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`possible original starting screens” [Blanchard ‘164 3:46-48]. These sub-level menus are
`displayed simultaneously with what Blanchard terms a ‘parent menu’: “The display screens
`shown in FIG. 3 are of the five parent screens 210, 320, 330, 340 and 350 or main areas on the
`top level of the menu.” [Blanchard ‘164 5:39-41]. In ¶81 Rhyne says that “This ‘parent menu’
`lists applications using icons...” and he calls this (via the §5.2 heading) the ‘main menu’. If the
`list of icons is the parent menu, then the display of ‘parent screens’ is the applications summary
`window.
`
`The illustration in Fig. 3 shows that the user is actually navigating through the sub-level
`26.
`menus while the user is led to conclude that the icons pictured at the top are associated with the
`sub-level menu they are highlighting (filled in ellipse next to action) at that time. A person of
`ordinary skill in the art could understand that from the user’s perspective it is reasonable to come
`to the conclusion that as they move from sub-menu to sub-menu they are actually navigating
`through the main menu via the application summary window. The only thing changing on the
`screen is the display and highlighting of actions within the sub-menu, the user can never enter
`the parent menu. At best this is an ambiguous menu structure. In my opinion, these sub-level
`menu choices are the only way Blanchard discloses a user can interact with an application, and
`thus when the sub-level menu choices are displayed, the application is opened.
`
`Furthermore, the sub-menus are persistent and simultaneously displayed with the parent
`27.
`menu and the highlighting of the sub-menu actions via the filled in ellipse is the key to guide the
`user’s understanding of their place within the sub-menu structure. Since these menus are always
`presented along with the parent menu and a user does not have to take any action to select an
`application in the parent window to go from the parent window to the summary application
`window, a person of reasonable skill in the art would understand that Blanchard ‘164 does not
`disclose the device of claim 8 “in which opening a summary window for a given application does
`not result in that application being opened.”
`
`1.1.4 Failure to Invalidate Claim 11 of the ’020
`
`28.
`
`Claim 11 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`“The computing device of claim 1, being a mobile telephone.”
`
`9
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 9
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 11 of the ’020, as Claim 11 is a
`29.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above.
`
`1.1.5 Failure to Invalidate Claim 13 of the ’020
`
`30.
`
`Claim 13 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`“The computing device of claim 1 wherein said limited list is a sub-list of all the functions
`offered by a given application.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 13 of the ’020, as Claim 13 is a
`31.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above.
`
`Additionally, in my opinion nothing in Blanchard discloses that “said limited list” of
`32.
`Claim 1 “is a sub-set of all of the functions offered by a given application.” Nothing in
`Blanchard discloses other functions apart from those in the “sub-level menu choices” that Dr.
`Rhyne analogizes (in my opinion, incorrectly) to the ’020 patent’s claim language of an
`application summary window. In my opinion there is no clear and convincing evidence that
`Blanchard discloses that “said limited list” is a “sub-list.”
`
`1.1.6 Failure to Invalidate Claim 8 of the ’476
`
`33.
`
`Claim 8 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“The computing device of claim 1 in which the summary further displays a limited list of
`functions offered in the one or more applications.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 8 of the ’476, as Claim 8 is a
`34.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above.
`
`Additionally, as presented above, Blanchard discloses a series of sub-level menu choices
`35.
`which change as the user makes selections through button presses on the device, thus what
`Blanchard is actually disclosing is a method for accommodating menu items into a small display.
`As an example, Blanchard discloses “[t]he Icon Home symbol 213, the Icon Phone Book
`
`10
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 10
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`symbol, …” [Blanchard 3:54-55] and referring to Figure 3, 210 and 211 lists “Last Number” and
`“View Own Num” as menu items. At most, the reference to the “Home” icon as an application is
`ambiguous if not outright confusing to a person of skill in the art, in that it does not suggest
`anything specific and certainly one would not immediately think of “Last Number” as a function
`being closely associated with an application called “Home”. 210 and 211 are simply a list of
`menu items. Conversely, if a person of skill in the art thought of “Last Number” as a function,
`they would not consider “View Own Num” as an associated function, and certainly not deduce
`that such functions would be associated with an application called “Home” and would be
`inclined to associate them with separate applications if any at all. Again, as discussed above,
`nothing in Blanchard’s disclosure shows an application summary window and it only provides a
`listing of menu items and therefore the sub-menus cannot be equated to a “list of functions
`offered in the one or more applications.”
`
`1.1.7 Failure to Invalidate Claim 9 of the ’476
`
`36.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“The computing device of claim 1, being a mobile telephone.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 9 of the ’476, as Claim 9 is a
`37.
`dependent claim of Claim 1, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 1, described above.
`
`1.1.8 Failure to Invalidate Claim 20 of the ’476
`
`38.
`
`Claim 20 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“[20a] A method comprising:
`
`displaying, on a computing device having a display screen, [20b] a menu listing one or more
`applications;
`
`[20c] displaying an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, [20d]
`wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or
`more applications, [20e] wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or
`more applications are in an un-launched state; [20f] and
`
`11
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 11
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`in response to a user selection of particular data, launching the respective application
`associated with the selected data to enable the selected data to be seen within the
`respective application.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard fails to disclose limitations [20b], [20c], [20d], [20e], and [20f]
`39.
`for reasons similar to those explained above in connection with Claim 1 of the ’020 and ’476
`patents, my discussion of which is incorporated by reference.
`
`Element [20c] is not disclosed by Blanchard. Instead, Blanchard ‘164 discloses a series
`40.
`of sub-level menus “Shown in the display 210 is just one menu screen in the hierarchically
`arranged menu. The illustrated entry is one of possible original starting screens” [Blanchard ‘164
`3:46-48]. These sub-level menus are displayed simultaneously with what Blanchard terms a
`‘parent menu’: “The display screens shown in FIG. 3 are of the five parent screens 210, 320,
`330, 340 and 350 or main areas on the top level of the menu.” [Blanchard ‘164 5:39-41]. In ¶81
`Rhyne says that “This ‘parent menu’ lists applications using icons...” and he calls this (via the
`§5.2 heading) the ‘main menu’. If the list of icons is the parent menu, then the display of ‘parent
`screens’ is the applications summary window.
`
`The illustration in Fig. 3 shows that the user is actually navigating through the sub-level
`41.
`menus (application summary window) while the user is led to conclude that the icons pictured at
`the top (main menu) are associated with the sub-level menu they are highlighting (filled in
`ellipse next to action) at that time. A person of ordinary skill in the art could understand that
`from the user’s perspective it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that as they move from
`sub-menu to sub-menu they are actually navigating through the main menu via the application
`summary window. The only thing changing on the screen is the display and highlighting of
`actions within the sub-menu, the user can never enter the parent menu. At best this is an
`ambiguous menu structure.
`
`Furthermore, the sub-menus are persistent and simultaneously displayed with the parent
`42.
`menu (main menu) and the highlighting of the sub-menu functions via the filled in ellipse is the
`key to guide the user’s understanding of their place within the sub-menu structure. Since these
`menus are always presented along with the parent menu and a user does not have to take any
`action to select an application in the parent window to go from the parent window to the
`summary application window, a person of reasonable skill in the art would understand that
`12
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 12
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Blanchard ‘164 does not disclose “displaying an application summary that can be reached
`directly from the menu.”
`
`Blanchard does not disclose [20e] as nothing in Blanchard discloses or refers to an
`43.
`application summary window being “displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-
`launched state.” Rhyne does not dispute that Blanchard itself does not disclose “unlaunched
`state,” but only relies on a claim that a person of ordinary skill would have understood the
`“window with selectable sub-level menu choices” is displayed while the application is in an un-
`launched state. Rhyne ¶¶ 90-96. As explained above, it is my opinion that this is incorrect as the
`application was already launched.
`
`Similarly, Blanchard does not disclose [20d] or [20f] for the reasons explained above in
`44.
`my discussion of claim 1.
`
`1.1.9 Failure to Invalidate Claim 29 of the ’476
`
`45.
`
`Claim 29 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“The method of claim 20, further comprising displaying in the application summary a limited list
`of functions offered in the one or more applications.”
`
`In my opinion, Blanchard does not invalidate Claim 29 of the ’476, as Claim 29 is a
`46.
`dependent claim of Claim 20, and Blanchard does not expressly or inherently disclose all
`limitations of Claim 20, described above.
`
`I also incorporate by reference my discussion of Claim 13 of the ’020 patent, as claim 29
`47.
`is not invalidated by Blanchard by the same or similar reasons.
`
`1.2
`
`SCHNAREL DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`Dr. Rhyne contends that U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,409 to Schnarel “anticipates and/or renders
`48.
`obvious” all of the Asserted Claims of the ’020 and ’476 patents. Rhyne ¶ 105. In my opinion,
`Dr. Rhyne is incorrect, as Schnarel fails to disclose limitations of claim 1 of the ’020 patent (the
`asserted independent claim), claims 1 and 20 of the ’476 patent (the asserted independent
`claims), as well as limitations added by some of the asserted dependent claims.
`
`13
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 13
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`I note that Dr. Rhyne does not allege that Schnarel in combination with any other
`49.
`reference renders any asserted claims obvious. Instead, Dr. Rhyne considers the “obviousness of
`limitations” based on either rejected proposed constructions of claim terms (see, e.g., Rhyne
`¶ 118) or rather conclusory assertions of what would allegedly “have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art,” (see Rhyne ¶¶ 129-130). As I explain below, it is my opinion based on
`my review of the references and in my experience that these allegations fail to provide the clear
`and convincing evidence necessary to invalidate the asserted claims.
`
`1.2.1 Failure to Invalidate Claim 1 of the ’020 and ’476
`
`50.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’020 Patent provides:
`
`“[1a] A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured
`[1b] to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, [1c] and
`additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can
`be reached directly from the main menu, [1d] wherein the application summary window displays
`a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list
`being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, [1e] and
`wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched
`state.”
`
`51.
`
`Similarly, Claim 1 of the ’476 Patent provides:
`
`“[1a] A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured
`[1b] to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, [1c] and additionally
`being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly
`from the menu, [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,
`[1e] and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in
`an un-launched state.”
`
`In my opinion, and as described below, Schnarel does not disclose at least limitations
`52.
`[1c], [1d], and [1e] of either the ’020 or ’476 patents.
`
`14
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 14
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`1.2.1.1 Schnarel does not disclose limitation [1c]
`
`First, it is my opinion that Schnarel does not disclose limitation [1c], as Schnarel does not
`53.
`disclose an application summary window or application summary “that can be reached directly
`from” the main menu or menu.
`
`Rhyne asserts that “Schnarel discloses a main menu (the “application button bar”
`54.
`numbered 104 in Figure1) that lists applications using buttons…” [Ryhne ¶111]. “Figure 1
`illustrates an example of the start screen (100)” [Schnarel ‘409 4:34]. Figure 1 is presented below
`for reference with additional annotation. Considering Rhyne’s description, the application button
`bar is the main menu listing applications: “Address Book”, “The Web”, “Messages”, and
`“Settings”. Rhyne ¶114 further argues that panes 206 and 208 in Figure 2 comprise the
`“application summary window” of claim 1. Accordingly then, in Rhyne’s view, the application
`
`summary window is, in total, part of the start screen and is both visible and accessible
`independent on the application button bar (main menu).
`
`Furthermore, given that Schnarel discloses no functional methodology that would permit
`55.
`a user to, for example, select the “The Web” button (“a first application”) to directly reach the
`‘Message’ or ‘Task’ pane (application summary view) and the fact that the panes persist on the
`start screen simultaneously (do not have to be reached from “a first application”) a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schnarel does not disclose “a first application, and
`additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can
`be reached directly from the main menu”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`15
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`LG Exhibit 1009, Page 15
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`that Schnarel’s disclosure of a simultaneous presentation of the applications summary view does
`not disclose the application summary view “reached from the main menu” in claim 1.
`
`Rhyne claims that “Schnarel’s messages pane and task pane can be reached directly from
`56.
`the main menu, as they are both part of the same screen as the main menu.” Rhyne ¶ 115
`(emphasis added). This suggestion, as described below, appears to ignore and/or misconstrue the
`plain and ordinary meaning of the word “reach,” particularly in light of the ’020 and ’476
`patents’ specification.
`
`Schnarel discloses “pane programs that each control the display of a display element
`57.
`called a “pane” in the user inter