Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB & SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2016-01407
`
`
`
`CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD.’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1
`
`III. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS ........................... 4
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`
`A. “portable media player” (all claims via claim 1) .................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`“display screen” and “present sequentially a first, second, and third
`display screen” (all claims via claim 1) .................................................. 8
`
`1. Petitioners’ construction of “display screen” and “present
`sequentially a first, second, and third display screen” is
`inconsistent with the patent and other evidence ............................. 8
`
`2. Creative’s construction of “display screen(s)” and “present
`sequentially a first, second, and third display screen” should
`be adopted ..................................................................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONERS
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’433
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`A. Ground 1: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Looney
`Anticipates Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, or 17-18 .................................................. 15
`
`1. Looney does not disclose a “portable media player” (all
`claims) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`2. Looney does not disclose “present[ing] sequentially a first,
`second, and third display screen” (all claims) .............................. 18
`
`3. Looney does not disclose accessing multiple tracks or a
`“plurality of tracks” from the second display screen (claims 2,
`3, and 17) ....................................................................................... 19
`
`B. Ground 2: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Looney In View
`Of Proehl Renders Obvious Claims 2, 3, or 19-28 ............................... 23
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`1. The Looney-Proehl combination does not disclose a “portable
`media player” (all claims) ............................................................. 23
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`2. The Looney-Proehl combination does not disclose
`“present[ing] sequentially a first, second, and third display
`screen” (all claims) ........................................................................ 23
`
`3. The Looney-Proehl combination does not satisfy the
`“accessing” limitation because the alleged accessing occurs on
`a fourth screen rather than on the first, second, or third screen
`(claims 19-22, 25-28) .................................................................... 24
`
`4. Petitioner’s Looney-Proehl theory for claims 23-24 fails to
`identify a third display screen and fails to satisfy the limitation
`requiring that the “accessing” be based on a selection of an
`album from the second screen ....................................................... 25
`
`5. Petitioners’ alternative Looney-Proehl theory for claims 2-3
`fails to satisfy the limitation requiring displaying the items on
`a third display screen. .................................................................... 26
`
`6. The Looney-Proehl combination fails to disclose use of
`“artist” or “album” categories, as required by claims 23-24
`and 27-28 ....................................................................................... 28
`
`C. Ground 3: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Looney in View
`of Proehl and Johnson Renders Obvious Claims 23-24 and 27-28....... 31
`
`1.
`
`Johnson does not cure the deficiencies in Looney-Proehl ............ 31
`
`2. Petitioners’ fail to provide an adequate reason for combining
`Johnson with Looney and Proehl .................................................. 31
`
`D. Ground 4: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Birrell in View
`of Seidensticker Renders Obvious Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, or 17-18 ............. 34
`
`1. Petitioners fail to adequately explain how or why Birrell
`would or could be combined with Seidensticker .......................... 34
`
`a.
`
`Petitioners fail to adequately explain why one of skill in the
`art would have been motivated to combine Birrell and
`Seidensticker ......................................................................... 35
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`b. Petitioners fail to adequately explain why one of skill in the
`art would have combined elements from Birrell and
`Seidensticker in the claimed manner .................................... 39
`
`(1) Petitioners do not explain why Birrell and
`Seidensticker would have been combined to practice
`three sequentially displayed screens ........................... 40
`
`(2) Petitioners do not explain why Birrell and
`Seidensticker would have been combined to practice
`“accessing” tracks based on a selection in one of the
`screens ........................................................................ 41
`
`2. Petitioners fail to adequately explain how or why one of skill
`in the art would have combined Birrell and Seidensticker to
`practice “accessing” multiple tracks or a “plurality of tracks”
`as required by claims 2-3 and 17 .................................................. 42
`
`3. Birrell and Seidensticker do not disclose “an active queue list
`of songs that is currently being played” as required by claims
`17-18 .............................................................................................. 44
`
`E. Ground 5: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Birrell in View
`of Seidensticker and Proehl Renders Obvious Claims 19-28 ............... 45
`
`1. Proehl does not cure the deficiencies in the Birrell-
`Seidensticker combination ............................................................ 45
`
`2. Petitioners fail to adequately explain why Proehl would be
`combined with Birrell and Seidensticker ...................................... 46
`
`3. Petitioners’ Birrell-Seidensticker-Proehl theory for claims 23-
`24 fails to identify three screens ................................................... 49
`
`4. The Birrell-Seidensticker-Proehl combination fails to disclose
`use of “artist” or “album” categories, as required by claims 23-
`24 and 27-28 .................................................................................. 50
`
`F. Ground 6: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Birrell in View
`of Seidensticker, Proehl and Johnson Renders Obvious Claims 23-24
`and 27-28 ............................................................................................... 50
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`G. Ground 7: Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Grounds 4-6, in
`Further View of Looney, Render Obvious Claims 17-18, 20, 22, 24,
`26, or 28 ................................................................................................. 52
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`H. The Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness Support
`Denying Institution ................................................................................ 56
`
`1.
`
`Industry praise supports a finding of nonobviousness .................. 56
`
`2. Licensing of the ’433 patent supports a finding of
`nonobviousness ............................................................................. 60
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration of Eric Bear
`Curriculum Vitae of Eric Bear
`Excerpts from Oxford English Dictionary (2006)
`Computer Desktop Encyclopedia online entry for
`“portable media player”
`Excerpts from Computer Desktop Encyclopedia (2001)
`Java2 Platform Std. Ed. version 1.3.1 - Application
`Programming Interface Documentation for
`java.awt.Component class (2001)
`Xbit.com, “Creative NOMAD Jukebox Digital Audio
`Player Review” (Nov. 7, 2000)
`MP3Newswire.net, “We Test Drive the Creative
`Nomad Jukebox” (Nov. 21, 2000)
`Excerpts from PCMagazine, “Gadget of the Month”
`(Oct. 17, 2000)
`MacWorld.com, “MP3 Jukeboxes” (May 1, 2001)
`Excerpts from PCWorld, “100 Plus Hours of Digital
`Music on the Go” (Nov. 2000)
`Apple Press Release, “Apple & Creative Announce
`Broad Settlement Ending Legal Disputes Between the
`Companies” (Aug. 23, 2006)
`Excerpts from American Intellectual Property Law
`Association – Report of the Economic Survey (2007)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Creative-2001
`Creative-2002
`Creative-2003
`Creative-2004
`
`Creative-2005
`Creative-2006
`
`Creative-2007
`
`Creative-2008
`
`Creative-2009
`
`Creative-2010
`Creative-2011
`
`Creative-2012
`
`Creative-2013
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple v. Samsung,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18225 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) ..................................... 55
`
`Comscore, Inc. v. Moat, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00503, Paper No. 14 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) ....................................... 12
`
`Epos Tech. Ltd. v. Pegasus Tech. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2012-00006, Paper 41 (PTAB May 10, 2013) ............................................... 3
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc., v. Skyworks Solutions,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ................................... 31, 32, 38
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F. 3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 55
`
`South Alabama Medical Science Foundation v. Gnosis Spa,
`808 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 60
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater v. Maersk Drilling,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ................................................................................................ 52
`
`32 C.F.R. §42.107(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3). .......................................................................... 31, 35, 50, 53
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1) ............................................................................................. 52
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65 ...................................................................................................... 47
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 52
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) ........................................................................................... 52
`
`MPEP §2111.01 ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`MPEP §2143 ............................................................................................................ 53
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`6,928,433 (“the ’433 patent”) because the Petition is based on incorrect claim
`
`constructions, the prior art fails to disclose each claim element, the asserted
`
`obviousness grounds are incomplete and do not adequately justify the asserted
`
`combinations, and secondary considerations of nonobviousness support
`
`patentability.
`
`For these reasons, as expressed more fully below, the Petitioners have failed
`
`to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at
`
`least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`At the time of the invention, there were significant problems with the user
`
`interfaces of prior art portable media players. As the patent explains, “small,
`
`portable music playback devices [could] store hundreds, even thousands, of
`
`compressed songs and [could] play back the songs at high quality.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:19-24. However, “typically, portable devices have a user interface including a
`
`small screen” and “[t]he small size…limits the number, size, shape, and types of
`
`user input controls that can be mounted on the device.” Id. As a result, “[m]ajor
`
`problems facing the consumer” were “organizing and accessing the tracks,” and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`“[u]sing such a compact user interface to navigate and select among hundreds of
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`songs is inefficient and often frustrating.” Id. at 1:34-45. In particular, the patent
`
`describes two prior art techniques for accessing content that suffered from these
`
`problems: (1) “a single list of tracks,” and (2) playlists created using software that
`
`“runs on a host PC.” Ex. 1001 at 1:28-31, 3:59.
`
`The inventors at Creative, one of the pioneers in the development of portable
`
`MP3 players, came up with several solutions to those problems while developing
`
`the Creative NOMAD Jukebox. Ex. 1001 at 5:66-67. The inventions claimed in
`
`the ’433 patent provided an improved user interface method that enabled a user to
`
`more efficiently navigate, select and access tracks stored on a portable media
`
`player by dividing the presentation of stored media content into categories,
`
`subcategories, and items in a series of screens, thereby reducing by orders of
`
`magnitude the number of items through which a user had to navigate to find a
`
`desired track as compared to using a sequential list. Figure 10 of the ’433 patent
`
`demonstrates a particular example of claim 1’s hierarchically navigated user
`
`interface method. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 10.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, the ’433 patent’s improved user interface allowed users to
`
`easily play a groups of tracks, or to add a track or group of tracks to a playlist or to
`
`an active queue list of songs that are currently being played. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 10,
`
`9:10-37, cls. 2-3, 17-28. These inventions constituted a significant improvement
`
`over the prior art user interfaces that required users to navigate through songs one-
`
`by-one in a sequential list and to use static playlists that had to be created and
`
`modified on a desktop PC rather than on the portable device itself.
`
`The inventions of the ’433 patent were incorporated in Creative’s NOMAD
`
`Jukebox device. Ex. 1001 at 5:66-67. The NOMAD Jukebox received widespread
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`industry praise for its easy-to-use user interface, especially for the patented
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`features recited in the claims. Indeed, the technology of the ’433 patent was so
`
`impressive that Apple, Inc. licensed the patent for $100 million for use on its iPod
`
`and iPhone devices.
`
`III. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS
`The Board has made clear that it will not institute IPR proceedings on
`
`redundant grounds where a petitioner has not “provide[d] a meaningful distinction
`
`between the different, redundant rejections.” Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of
`
`Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00006, Paper 41, at 11-12 (PTAB May 10, 2013).
`
`Notwithstanding this, Petitioners present two sets of entirely cumulative
`
`grounds: Grounds 1-3 argue that all claims are unpatentable based on Looney and
`
`combinations where Looney is the primary reference, and Grounds 4-6 argue that
`
`all claims are obvious over combinations involving Birrell and Seidensticker.
`
`Additionally, both Ground 1 and Ground 2 are asserted as rendering claims 2 and 3
`
`unpatentable. Both Ground 2 and Ground 3 are asserted as rendering claims 23-24
`
`and 27-28 unpatentable. Similarly, Ground 6 is wholly redundant of Ground 5.
`
`Finally, Ground 7 further increases the redundancy of Grounds 4-6 by improperly
`
`asserting a new set of three additional combinations by adding Looney to the
`
`combinations of each of Grounds 4-6.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`The Petitioners do not explain why these redundant grounds should be
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`instituted. To the contrary, Petitioners treat the grounds as interchangeable,
`
`arguing that “Looney alone, as well as the combination of Birrell and
`
`Seidensticker, each disclose the limitations of many of the extant claims of the
`
`’433 patent, and these references in view of Proehl (Ex. 1011) and/or Johnson (Ex.
`
`1012) disclose the limitations of the remaining claims.” Pet.5.
`
`As explained below, no grounds should be instituted. Nonetheless, if the
`
`Board determines to institute, the Board should use its discretion to deny institution
`
`on the redundant grounds.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because this preliminary response “is limited to setting forth the reasons
`
`why no inter partes review should be instituted,” 32 C.F.R. §42.107(a), Creative
`
`does not at this time propose a construction for each term. Creative reserves the
`
`right to assert any construction of any term in any subsequent filing.
`
`A.
`
`“portable media player” (all claims via claim 1)
`
`Petitioners argue that “[t]he Board need not expressly define ‘portable media
`
`player.’” Pet.11. However, Petitioners nonetheless identify certain statements by
`
`Creative’s expert witness in the ’433 patent reexamination. According to
`
`Petitioners, such statements “result[ed] in a disclaimer under the Phillips standard
`
`applicable in district court and before the ITC, but it does not affect the BRI.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Pet.12. Creative disagrees that there was any disclaimer. However, because
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`Creative agrees with Petitioners that the term should not be construed to include
`
`any such disclaimer in this proceeding, Creative does not present its full arguments
`
`against such alleged disclaimer at this time.
`
`Nonetheless, to the extent that Creative disclaimed general-purpose devices
`
`such as a handheld computer or personal digital assistant from the scope of
`
`“portable media player” during the reexamination, Creative hereby rescinds any
`
`such disclaimer. Creative also notes that the Patent Office ordinarily might need to
`
`re-visit the prior art that the disclaimer was made to avoid. However, in this case,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,760,721 (Chasen) was successfully sworn behind and therefore
`
`there is no need to re-visit that reference. Ex. 1004 at 6138-42.
`
`Petitioners also fail to address other differences in the parties’ proposed
`
`constructions from the ITC Investigation, unrelated to the alleged disclaimer. Most
`
`notably, the parties disputed whether the plain and ordinary meaning of “portable
`
`media player” is a “handheld” device. Inv. No. 337-TA-994, Doc.Id. 582803
`
`(U.S.I.T.C. 2016). This issue is relevant to this proceeding because “[u]nder a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification,” and “[t]he
`
`plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the
`
`term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” MPEP
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`§2111.01.1 Sources for determining the plain and ordinary meaning of a term
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`include “prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and
`
`dictionaries.” Id.
`
`The evidence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “portable
`
`media player” is “a hand-held electronic device that can play audio and/or video
`
`content.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶43-46. For example, the 2006 version of the Oxford English
`
`Dictionary defines “portable media player” as “any of various hand-held
`
`electronic devices for playing digital audio files or other types of digital media.”
`
`Ex. 2003 at 6 (emphasis added) (first usage in 1998). Similarly, the Computer
`
`Desktop Encyclopedia defines “portable media player” as “[a]n umbrella term for a
`
`variety of handheld devices that play back audio, video or both.” Ex. 2004
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, both dictionary definitions confirm that the ordinary
`
`meaning is a hand-held device. Ex. 2001 ¶45.
`
`Moreover, the specification provides further support. The ’433 patent
`
`teaches that “portable devices have a user interface including a small screen and
`
`buttons” and that the “small display size is necessary because of the physical size
`
`of the device which is typically carried in the hand.” Ex. 2001 ¶46; Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`1 Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, Creative largely agrees with
`Petitioners except that Creative maintains that one would have had work
`experience designing user interfaces in addition to relevant education. Ex. 2001
`¶32.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`1:36-40. The patent’s description of the preferred embodiment is also consistent
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`with this construction because it shows a handheld device and recites dimensions
`
`capable of conveniently being carried in the hand. Id. at Figs. 9-10 & 12-14, 8:16-
`
`20 (“measures about 5.5″ wide by 1″ thick”).
`
`Although this issue was disputed in the ITC Investigation, Petitioners
`
`present no argument or evidence regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“portable media player.” Accordingly, the Board should adopt Creative’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`B.
`
`“display screen” and “present sequentially a first, second, and third
`display screen” (all claims via claim 1)
`
`The term “display screen” should be construed as “a particular set of user
`
`interface elements presented on the display of a device,” and the phrase “present
`
`sequentially a first, second, and third display screen” should be construed such that
`
`a transition between one screen to the next occurs if and only if the set of displayed
`
`user interface elements changes.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners’ construction of “display screen” and “present
`sequentially a first, second, and third display screen” is
`inconsistent with the patent and other evidence
`
`Petitioners propose that the term “display screen” be construed as “visual
`
`content presented on a display at a point in time.” Petitioners’ arguments are
`
`unsupported by and contrary to the evidence. Ex. 2001 ¶¶47-59.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`In particular, Petitioners’ construction suggests that even the change of a
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`single pixel is sufficient to cause a “first display screen” to become a “second
`
`display screen.” Ex. 2001 ¶49. But this is contrary to the specification, as well as
`
`the very prior art Petitioners cite. For example, both the ’433 patent and the
`
`references cited by Petitioners disclose use of scrolling within a single screen. For
`
`example, Figures 12-13 of the ’433 patent show that when the number of
`
`categories, subcategories, or items exceeds the number of lines visible on the
`
`display, a scroll bar is presented, indicating that the user can scroll among the
`
`options within a single screen. Ex. 2001 ¶¶50-51. Similarly, the written
`
`description identifies “Scroll Up” and “Scroll Down” buttons “to move the
`
`highlight up or down, respectively, throughout a list of displayed items.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 8:45-48. These disclosures show that the preferred embodiment provides
`
`scrolling of content within a screen, even though that would necessarily change
`
`some of the pixels. Ex. 2001 ¶¶50-52.
`
`Moreover, the claims require “displaying the items belonging to the selected
`
`subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen.” Ex. 1001, cl. 1;
`
`2001 ¶¶53-54. However, one of skill in the art would understand that it would
`
`often be difficult, if not impossible to perform that limitation in a single display
`
`screen using the 2”x1” display of the preferred embodiment when storing “very
`
`large numbers of songs” without scrolling. Ex. 1001 at Figs. 9-10, 12-13; Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`¶¶53-54. If scrolling increased the number of screens because it changed the
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`“visual depiction,” it would exclude the preferred embodiment, at least when
`
`performing its stated goal of selecting from a “very large number of songs.” Ex.
`
`2001 ¶54; see Epos Tech. Ltd. v. Pegasus Tech. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment…is
`
`rarely, if ever correct.”).
`
`Moreover, Petitioners’ construction is inconsistent with their own cited art.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶55. Both Looney and Seidensticker use scroll bars for scrolling through
`
`entries on a screen. Seidensticker expressly states that it relies on scrolling to be
`
`able to present content when the entries exceed the number of lines on the screen.
`
`Id.; Ex. 1014 at 2:31-36. Similarly, Looney relies on a scroll bar for displaying its
`
`“search list,” which is the portion of the “screen” on which Petitioners contend
`
`“items” are displayed. Ex. 2001 ¶55; Ex. 1009 at Fig. 14 (at item “451”), Fig. 15,
`
`9:52-56.
`
`The Petitioners’ justifications for their construction are simply insufficient to
`
`overcome this fatal flaw. Petitioners point to screens 182 and 184 in Figure 12 of
`
`the ’433 patent. Pet.13. However, the patent does not describe these as different
`
`or “successive” screens as Petitioners claim. It simply refers to them as “screen
`
`182,” and “screen 184”—a necessity to indicate to the reader the portions of Figure
`
`12 that correspond to the written description. Ex. 2001 ¶56. By contrast, Figure
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`10 is described as “illustrat[ing] a sequence of display screens describing how to
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`navigate to lower levels.” Ex. 2001 ¶57; Ex. 1001 at 3:40-41. Unlike Figure 12,
`
`Figure 10 specifically identifies different “screen[s]” by name and shows the
`
`transitions between those screens as part of “navigat[ing]” the device’s content.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 10 (“Categories screen,” “Lists screen,” “Tracks screen,” “Details
`
`screen.”).
`
`Petitioners also cite to the prosecution history of a child application of the
`
`’433 patent in support of their construction, stating that “[t]he
`
`Examiner…interpreted the phrase ‘at least two display screens’ to cover a single
`
`user interface window at two different times, due to changes in the visual content
`
`presented at different times.” Pet.14. However, “it is the applicant, not the
`
`examiner, who must give up or disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall
`
`within the scope of the claim.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration
`
`Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, nothing in that office action
`
`suggests, as Petitioners propose, that any change to the visual depiction is
`
`sufficient to constitute a new “display screen.” Ex. 2001 ¶58. Indeed, in the
`
`portion cited by Petitioners, the examiner interpreted the reference as disclosing a
`
`change in “a substantial portion of the entire display.” Ex. 1008 at 149.
`
`Finally, Petitioners rely on claim charts submitted by Creative in the ITC
`
`Investigation. In particular, Petitioners characterize the charts as “assert[ing] that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`the different ‘display screens’ in the claims can cover a display’s visual content at
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`two different times even when the content on the two ‘screens’ is largely
`
`identical.” Pet.15. However, the cited charts plainly demonstrate that the screens
`
`contain differences in the sets of displayed user interface elements. Ex. 2001 ¶59.
`
`For example, in Fig. 3 the main portion of the display screen (the 4x2 set of
`
`rectangles) displays a list of artists. Ex. 1005 at Ex. 5, p.4. By contrast, in Fig. 4,
`
`the main body of the display screen displays a list of albums. Ex. 1005 at Ex. 5,
`
`p.5. These screens plainly display different sets of user interface elements. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶59. That some other elements remain the same between the screens is
`
`unimportant. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with the ’433 patent. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Fig. 10 (showing “Open” or “Queue” soft button in different “screen[s]”). In short,
`
`the example screens in Creative’s claim charts are plainly not “largely identical”
`
`and do not justify construing the claims as covering any change in the “visual
`
`depiction.”
`
`For all of these reasons, Petitioners’ proposed construction of “display
`
`screen” should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`Creative’s construction of “display screen(s)” and “present
`sequentially a first, second, and third display screen” should be
`adopted
`
`Creative submits that the appropriate construction of “display screen” is “a
`
`particular set of user interface elements presented on the display of a device.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`Under that construction, a “first display screen” becomes a “second display screen”
`
`when one or more user interface elements are added, removed, or replaced from
`
`the particular set of user interface elements that constituted the first display screen.
`
`A user interface element (also known as a GUI component) is an object or code
`
`having a graphical representation that can be displayed, and, in many cases, can
`
`interact with the user. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶60-61. As this Board explained in
`
`Comscore, Inc. v. Moat, Inc., IPR2013-00503, Paper No. 14, at 8 (PTAB Feb. 12,
`
`2014), a “display screen refers not to a physical monitor or video unit on which
`
`content is displayed, but to the content of the graphical user interface, as organized
`
`into screens with graphic controls to provide convenient navigation between them
`
`as is common with web browsing software.”
`
`Creative’s construction is entirely consistent with the display screens in the
`
`’433 patent. For example, Figure 10 shows that the user interface is broken up into
`
`a series of “screens,” with different sets of user interface elements that allow
`
`navigation between them. Ex. 2001 ¶¶62-63. Some elements, such as the scroll
`
`bars in Figure 13, permit the user to perform actions while remaining on the same
`
`screen. Id. Other user interface elements permit the user to navigate between
`
`screens. For example, the “Open” soft button in Figure 10 allows navigation
`
`between the “Categories screen” and the “Lists Screen,” as well as between the
`
`“Lists screen” and the “Tracks screen.” Id.; Ex. 1001, Fig. 10, 8:57-9:44. Some
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`user interface elements remain the same between different screens. For example,
`
`Patent No. 6,928,433
`IPR2016-01407
`
`
`the “Queue” button appears in the “Lists screen,” the “Tracks screen,” and the
`
`“Details screen.” Other elements change between screens—the “Details” button
`
`replaces the “Open” button in the “Tracks” screen. Id. Similarly, each screen
`
`displays a different list in the main body of the screen—the categories screen
`
`displays a list of categories (“albums,” “artists,” “styles,” “playlist,” etc.). Id.
`
`Selecting the “albums” category results in the displayed “Lists screen,” which lists
`
`album names. Id. Opening an album results in the “Tracks screen,” which
`
`displays track names. Id. Thus, the ’433 patent’s specification confirms that: (1)
`
`different display screens are made up of different sets of user interface elements;
`
`(2) there can be so