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 No. IPR2015-01985
`
`Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for
`Applications
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01985
`
`Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for
`Applications
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. RHYNE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... III
`I.
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ............ 1
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Observations 1-4 ......................................................... 1
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Observations 5-11 ....................................................... 1
`C.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 12............................................................ 2
`D.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 13............................................................ 2
`E.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 14............................................................ 3
`F.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 15............................................................ 3
`G.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 16............................................................ 4
`H.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 17............................................................ 4
`I.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 18............................................................ 5
`J.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 19............................................................ 5
`K.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 20............................................................ 5
`L.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 21............................................................ 6
`M.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 22............................................................ 6
`N.
`Patent Owner’s Observation 23............................................................ 6
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1010
`
`Description
`Excerpt from 12/99 issue of Popular Science
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`User’s Guide for Ericsson R380s
`
`Press release dated 3/18/99 from Open Mobile Alliance
`
`Article dated 3/18/199 from EE Times
`
`Excerpts from Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`
`Rebuttal Declaration Of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`Transcript of September 7, 2016 Deposition of Scott Denning
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response To Observations
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A.
` Patent Owner’s observations numbered 1-4 identify Dr. Rhyne’s testimony
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations 1-4
`
`that he received Exhibits 1010-1013 from counsel for LG. Patent Owner argues
`
`that this testimony suggests that Dr. Rhyne cannot authenticate these exhibits. As
`
`explained in LG’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (filed
`
`concurrently) nothing in Fed. R. Evid. 901 suggests that Dr. Rhyne cannot
`
`authenticate these exhibits because he received them from counsel.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations 5-11
`
`B.
` In these observations, Patent Owner identifies portions of Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony that identifies different programming schemes. Patent Owner points out
`
`that Dr. Rhyne acknowledged that other programming schemes were available
`
`(observation #5); that one would have to choose a programming scheme in order to
`
`implement Blanchard (observations 6-8); and that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known how to write monolithic software (observation 9). Dr. Rhyne
`
`explained clearly that the applications-plus-operating-system programming scheme
`
`was the preferred approach of those of ordinary skill by July 2000 for use in a
`
`typical cell phone. Ex. 2011 at 61:8-62:1 (testifying that, as of July 2000, use of a
`
`“monolithic operating program” was not a “good strategy” and that “I don’t think
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, if able to have the typical amount of resources for,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`say, a cell phone or something like that, would have taken that approach, as
`
`Oommen makes clear”). Dr. Rhyne also explained that while a cell phone could be
`
`implemented by creating applications without an operating system, that approach
`
`“is a miasma. That's just not the way to do it…” Ex. 2011 at 59:2-3; see generally
`
`Ex. 2011 at 58:2-59:14.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 12
`
`C.
`Patent Owner points out that Dr. Rhyne agreed that all the challenged claims
`
`of the ’020 and ’476 patents require “applications.” It is not in dispute that the
`
`term “application” appears in all the claims. Dr. Rhyne also testified that the scope
`
`of patent includes “systems which do not have a concept of separate applications as
`
`such” but “that approach is dedicated to the public.” Ex. 2011 at 45:7-12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 13
`
`D.
`Patent Owner mis-cites Dr. Rhyne’s testimony and attempts to attribute it to
`
`all applications disclosed in Blanchard. Patent owner identifies and then changes
`
`testimony from Dr. Rhyne that Blanchard is silent whether after “the phonebook
`
`application is launched,” a user “would be able to access all of the five disclosed
`
`functions of that phonebook application.” Ex. 2011 at 53:14-54:14. In answering
`
`the questions, Dr. Rhyne assumed that he was already in the “view all” screen of
`
`the phonebook and that Blanchard was silent after that point. Ex. 2011 at 54:15-
`
`55:15. As such, it supports a finding of obviousness, because it shows that
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`Blanchard describes launching an application from an application summary
`
`window, as required by the challenged claims.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 14
`
`E.
`Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Rhyne testified that he “agrees” with a
`
`statement in the Computer & Internet Dictionary that “application software sits on
`
`top of system software because it is unable to run without the operating system and
`
`system utilities.” Patent Owner mis-cites the transcript by omitting a portion of the
`
`statement, which reads "Figuratively speaking, application software sits on top of
`
`system software because it is unable to run without the operating system and
`
`system utilities." Ex. 2011 at 57:8-11. More importantly, while Dr. Rhyne testified
`
`that this statement was “generally true,” (Ex. 2011 at 57:15) he also referenced his
`
`earlier explanation of the many different ways to write software, including his
`
`explanation that it is possible to have applications that run without an operating
`
`system (though as he testified, that approach “is a miasma,” i.e. it is not a good
`
`approach). Ex. 2011 at 59:2; see generally Ex. 2011 at 57:6-60:3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 15
`
`F.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne about the “earliest”
`
`cellular phones that he was familiar with, and in particular, testimony that those
`
`early Motorola phones did not have a separate operating system. The early phones
`
`described in this testimony are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with state of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`art as of July 2000. As explained above, Dr. Rhyne testified that by July 2000, as
`
`Oommen makes clear, use of a “monolithic operating program” was not a “good
`
`strategy” and not the approach that a person of ordinary skill would have taken.
`
`Ex. 2011 at 61:8-62:1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 16
`
`G.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that one could access text
`
`message functionality in Blanchard by selecting the “test message option on screen
`
`331” of Blanchard’s Fig. 3. Patent Owner appears to suggest that this means that
`
`the Blanchard’s Fig. 3 does not disclose a “function” as claimed. This argument
`
`does not make sense, is new and was not made in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`H. Patent Owner’s Observation 17
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that the Ericsson R380s
`
`had “multiple applications and an operating system” and characterizes Dr. Rhyne
`
`testimony as being “that he does not know ‘how many open [launched]
`
`applications the Ericsson R380s could have at a time.’” In fact, Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony was as follows: “I don’t know for sure. My expectation is one.” Ex.
`
`2011 at 91:12-13. This testimony confirms and supports Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that
`
`Blanchard renders obvious the challenged claims, because it provides further
`
`support for the opinion that it would have been obvious to implement Blanchard
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`using an applications/operating system architecture, such as was used in the
`
`Ericsson R380s.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 18
`
`I.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that he does not know
`
`whether it was possible to have “multiple applications windows visible on a screen
`
`at once.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant but does not explain how or
`
`why. It is not relevant, because the claims do not require “multiple applications
`
`windows visible on a screen at once.” Further, Dr. Rhyne continued his testimony
`
`stating “Is it possible that you could have left something on the screen? Maybe.”
`
`Ex. 2011 at 113:2-4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 19
`
`J.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne confirming that
`
`Blanchard contains text describing its Fig. 3 as showing a “hierarchically arranged
`
`menu.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to the “proper scope of the
`
`challenged claims” but does not explain how or why. It is not relevant, because
`
`Dr. Rhyne was merely asked to confirm the existence of text in the Blanchard
`
`reference – not his opinion on the text read. Ex. 2011 at 46:12-18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 20
`
`K.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne confirming that the ’020
`
`and ’476 patents contain text stating that the problem being addressed “is efficient
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`navigation through the user interface.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to
`
`the “proper scope of the challenged claims” but does not explain how or why. It is
`
`not relevant, because Dr. Rhyne was merely asked to confirm the existence of text
`
`in the ’020 and ’476 patents—he was not asked for any opinion on the text read.
`
`Ex. 2011 at 80:12-81:13.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observation 21
`
`L.
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne that “the purpose of the
`
`application summary window is to give me a way to activate both the application
`
`and the function of the application.” Patent Owner asserts that this is relevant to
`
`the “proper scope of the challenged claims” but does not explain how or why.
`
`Unless Patent Owner is attaching some unexplained significance to the word
`
`“activate,” this testimony is not relevant to any disputed issue.
`
`M. Patent Owner’s Observation 22
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne about the term “limited
`
`list.” Patent Owner does not explain how this testimony supports its position,
`
`because it does not. See Ex. 2011 at 85:14-22.
`
`N. Patent Owner’s Observation 23
`Patent Owner identifies testimony from Dr. Rhyne explaining that the
`
`“application summary windows” of the ’020 patent present hierarchically arranged
`
`menus, just as Blanchard does. Ex. 2011 at 100:18-102:4 and 104:11-21. Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`Owner does not explain why it believes this testimony supports its position. In
`
`fact, this testimony corroborates and explains Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that Blanchard
`
`renders obvious the challenged claims. Patent Owner also points out testimony
`
`from Dr. Rhyne confirming that the ’020 patent does not show or say “anything
`
`much” about what happens after one of the options is selected from the application
`
`summary window. Ex. 2011 at 102:5-103:9. Again, this is just like Blanchard,
`
`and thus supports Dr. Rhyne’s opinion that Blanchard renders obvious the
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Herbert H. Finn /
`Herbert H. Finn
`Registration No.: 38,139
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`P: 312-456-8427
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Observations
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE has been electronically served on the
`
`Patent Owner’s attorneys on the date listed below at the following address:
`
`Wayne Helge
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Email: whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`Office: 571-765-7700
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` Herbert H. Finn /
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
