`
`_______________
`
`
`
`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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF V. THOMAS RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated March 17, 2016 (Paper 8), Patent
`
`Owner timely moves for observations on cross-examination in light of Patent
`
`Owner’s cross-examination of Petitioner’s witness, V. Thomas Rhyne on October
`
`25, 2016. The transcript of Dr. Rhyne’s cross-examination testimony is being filed
`
`as exhibit 2011 (“Ex. 2011”), which includes Exhibit A marked for identification
`
`at the deposition. Exhibit A is a portion of Random House Webster’s Computer &
`
`Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, which was filed as Exhibit 1028 by petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. in co-pending IPR2015-01899. The remaining exhibits used at the
`
`deposition of Dr. Rhyne are already of record in this proceeding and are not
`
`included as part of Ex. 2011.
`
`
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`1. Ex. 2011 at 11:11-12:7: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1010 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1010.
`
`2. Ex. 2011 at 12:8-14:8: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1011 from the attorneys representing LG, and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1011.
`
`3. Ex. 2011 at 14:11-15:10: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he
`
`received Ex. 1012 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`this testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex.
`
`1012.
`
`4. Ex. 2011 at 15:11-16:7: Dr. Rhyne’s testimony confirms that he received
`
`Ex. 1013 from “the attorneys representing LG,” and therefore this
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne can authenticate Ex. 1013.
`
`5. Ex. 2011 at 26:17-31:18: Dr. Rhyne testifies that there were four types of
`
`programming schemes that were available or known to a POSITA as of
`
`July 2000 “for implementing functions in a mobile phone” (Ex. 2011 at
`
`28:19-22).
`
`a. “monolithic” code (Ex. 2011 at 27:17-21);
`
`b. “Separate applications on top of an application programming
`
`interface to an operating system.” (Ex. 2011 at 29:17-19);
`
`c. “a single application on top of an API that then communicates
`
`with an operating system” (Ex. 2011 at 30:9-11; 30:12-16); and
`
`d. “separate applications that were written but not atop an API to
`
`an operating system[,] where the application had to itself
`
`develop the code that was necessary to take advantage of the
`
`facilities that are available in the phone, which would normally
`
`be supported by the OS.” (Ex. 2011 at 30:22-31:6).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`e. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its
`
`burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`6. Ex. 2011 at 33:9-35:5: Dr. Rhyne testifies on the factors that a POSITA
`
`would have considered in selecting one of the four types of programming
`
`schemes that were available or known to a POSITA as of July 2000 “for
`
`implementing functions in a mobile phone” (Ex. 2011 at 28:19-22). This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne and Petitioner “disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data on which [Dr. Rhyne’s] opinion [regarding
`
`Blanchard] is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`7. Ex. 2011 at 42:11-14: Dr. Rhyne agrees that a POSITA “would have had
`
`to choose a programming scheme in order to implement Blanchard.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its burden of
`
`proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over
`
`Blanchard.
`
`8. Ex. 2011 at 43:4-6: Dr. Rhyne previously agreed that a POSITA “would
`
`have had to choose a programming scheme in order to implement
`
`Blanchard,” and here agrees that this choice would be based on the
`
`factors he identified. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`carried its burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`9. Ex. 2011 at 28:3-18; 36:1-11: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of
`
`the relevant time would have known how to write monolithic software,
`
`and would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu structure
`
`with monolithic code (i.e. without applications). This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its burden of proof of
`
`establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over Blanchard.
`
`10. Ex. 2011 at 36:14-21: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of the
`
`relevant time would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu
`
`structure with a single application on top of an API with an operating
`
`system. This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has carried its
`
`burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged claims over
`
`Blanchard.
`
`11. Ex. 2011 at 36:22-37:6: Dr. Rhyne confirms that a POSITA as of the
`
`relevant time would have known how to implement Blanchard’s menu
`
`structure with multiple applications without an operating system, but that
`
`this would have been more difficult without an “efficiently written
`
`operating system.” This testimony is relevant to whether Petitioner has
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`carried its burden of proof of establishing obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims over Blanchard.
`
`12. Ex. 2011 at 44:3-6; 44:13-45:12. Dr. Rhyne testifies that all the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘020 and ‘476 patents require “applications.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of the scope of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`13. Ex. 2011 at 53:14-54:14; 55:1-15 (see also 74:14-77:17): Dr. Rhyne
`
`confirms that Blanchard is silent about whether “a user could access all
`
`of the functions of an [alleged] application from the application”. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Blanchard discloses or suggests all
`
`features of the challenged claims.
`
`14. Ex. 2011 at 57:6-58:1; 59:15-60:3; 69:10-70:7: Dr. Rhyne testifies that he
`
`agrees with the statement from Exhibit A (attached to Ex. 2011) that
`
`“application software sits on top of system software because it is unable
`
`to run without the operating system and system utilities.” This testimony
`
`is relevant to the proper scope of the challenged claims of the ‘020 and
`
`‘476 patent, and whether they require an operating system.
`
`15. Ex. 2011 at 62:2-20: Dr. Rhyne testifies that of “the earliest
`
`microprocessor control cellular phones that [he is] familiar with, which
`
`would be the Motorola family,” he “did not remember any of those early
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Motorola phones having software that was identifiable as a separate
`
`operating system.” This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Rhyne and
`
`Petitioner “disclose the underlying facts or data on which [Dr. Rhyne’s]
`
`opinion [regarding Blanchard] is based.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`16. Ex. 2011 at 74:5-13: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the functionality for a “text
`
`message” is made available only after a user selects the “text message
`
`option on screen 331” of Blanchard’s Fig. 3. This testimony is relevant
`
`to whether Blanchard’s Fig. 3 discloses a “function” as claimed in the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`17. Ex. 2011 at 87:6-14: Dr. Rhyne testifies that a particular Ericsson phone
`
`had “sufficient processing capability” and had “multiple applications and
`
`an operating system.” Ex. 2011 at 91:8-92:3: Dr. Rhyne also testifies
`
`that he does not know “how many open [launched] applications the
`
`Ericsson R380s could have at a time”. See also Ex. 2011 at 91:21-92:1
`
`(“… I don’t have hard data to support that one way or the other.”). This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s basis for his opinions on Blanchard.
`
`18. Ex. 2011 at 112:11-113:4: Dr. Rhyne testifies that he does not know
`
`whether it was possible to have multiple application windows visible on a
`
`screen at once as of July 2000. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`basis for his opinions on Blanchard.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`19. Ex. 2011 at 46:12-18: Dr. Rhyne confirms that Blanchard refers to Fig. 3
`
`as a “hierarchically arranged menu.” This testimony is relevant to the
`
`proper scope of the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation
`
`of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`20. Ex. 2011 at 80:12-81:3, 106:9-15: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the goal of
`
`the ‘020 and ‘476 patents is “efficient navigation through the user
`
`interface” and allows for launching an application at an “entry point” of
`
`the selected function. This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of
`
`the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s
`
`teachings.
`
`21. Ex. 2011 at 84:7-18: Dr. Rhyne confirms that the “purpose of the
`
`application summary window is to give me a way to activate both the
`
`application and that function of the application … .” This testimony is
`
`relevant to the proper scope of the challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`interpretation of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`22. Ex. 2011 at 85:14-22: Dr. Rhyne testifies on the interpretation of “limited
`
`list.” This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of the challenged
`
`claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s teachings.
`
`23. Ex. 2011 at 101:8-11; 105:10-20: Dr. Rhyne characterizes the application
`
`summary windows of the ‘020 patent as “hierarchically arranged menus”
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`but agrees that the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 3 do not show “any
`
`further hierarchy.” This testimony is relevant to the proper scope of the
`
`challenged claims and to Dr. Rhyne’s interpretation of Blanchard’s
`
`teachings.
`
`Dated: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY,
`LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 10, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF V. THOMAS RHYNE and EXHIBIT 2011 are being served via
`
`email to the Petitioner at the correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`harrisr@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`brownn@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Richard D. Harris
`Eric J. Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`Nicholas A. Brown
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`