`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`IPR No. IPR2017-00914
`U.S. Patent 8,713,466
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE T. LIGLER
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. cover
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`A. ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`B. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................. 2
`C. LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED/REVIEWED ................................................. 5
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ......................................... 6
`A. ANTICIPATION ................................................................................................. 7
`B. OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................................. 7
`III. THE ‘466 PATENT .......................................................................................... 9
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘466 PATENT ..................................................................... 9
`B. PRIORITY DATE AND RELEVANT PROSECUTION HISTORY ............................. 13
`C. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................... 17
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 18
`V. NEITHER CADIZ’S PERSON-CENTRIC INTERFACE NOR HIS
`EMAIL-CENTRIC INTERFACE DISCLOSE OR RENDER OBVIOUS
`ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................... 21
`A. OVERVIEW OF CADIZ ..................................................................................... 21
`B. CADIZ’S PERSON-CENTRIC INTERFACE DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR RENDER
`OBVIOUS ANY CLAIM OF THE ‘466 PATENT .................................................. 26
`1. Cadiz’s Person-Centric Interface Does Not Disclose or Suggest the
`“Software Application” of Claims 1, 14, and 22 ...................................... 27
`2. Cadiz’s Person-Centric Interface Does Not Disclose or Render Obvious
`the Claimed “Additional Dynamic Preview Information Comprising A
`Selectable Link” ....................................................................................... 33
`C. CADIZ’S EMAIL-CENTRIC INTERFACE DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR RENDER
`OBVIOUS ANY CLAIM OF THE ‘466 PATENT .................................................. 35
`VI. CADIZ IN VIEW OF SIEDLIKOWSKI DOES NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, OR 25 .................................................. 40
`A. OVERVIEW OF SIEDLIKOWSKI ........................................................................ 41
`B. CADIZ IN VIEW OF SIEDLIKOWSKI DOES NOT RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 7-9, 18-19, OR 25 ............................................................................. 42
`VII. CADIZ IN VIEW OF YAMADERA DOES NOT RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 10-11 OR 20-21 .............................................................................. 45
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. i
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`A. OVERVIEW OF YAMADERA ............................................................................ 46
`B. A POSA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE CADIZ AND
`YAMADERA, AS DR. OLSEN SUGGESTS, BECAUSE THE COMBINATION WOULD
`PROVIDE NO ADDED BENEFIT TO THE USER .................................................. 47
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. ii
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`n Exhibit Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,466
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,466
`
`1005
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,384
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0186257 (“Cadiz”)
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,007,239 (“Hawkins”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,232 (“Siedlikowski”)
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0123368 (“Yamadera”)
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No- 7,454,714 (“Totman”)
`
`1011
`
`European Patent Application No- EP1265157 (“Cadiz- P”)
`
`1012
`
`Caroline Rose et al., “Inside Macintosh Volume 1” (1985)
`
`1013
`
`“Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines,” Apple Computer, Inc. (1995)
`
`1014
`
`Prosecution History of European Patent Application No. 06125 884.4
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS CONSIDERED
`
`n Exhibit Description
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0020904 A1 to Aaltonen et al.
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0155908 A1 to Wagner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,402,384 B2 to Scott
`
`2004
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`2005
`
`2009
`
`The American Heritage College Dictionary (4th Ed. 2004) (Excerpt)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Daniel R. Olsen, Jr. (Nov. 21, 2017)
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. iii
`Google Inc. V. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Patent Owner Blackberry, Ltd.
`
`(“Blackberry”) to offer statements and opinions generally regarding the novelty and
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the industry as it
`
`relates to U.S. Patent No. 8,713,466 (Exhibit 1001, “the ’466 patent”), which is
`
`entitled “Dynamic Bar Oriented User Interface.” I understand that Petitioner Google
`
`LLC (“Petitioner”) has challenged claims 1-26 of the ’466 patent as unpatentable
`
`over certain prior art. I have been asked to provide my opinion and analysis of the
`
`various references and opinions advanced in the Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen,
`
`Jr., which I understand to be Exhibit 1002 to these proceedings (“Olsen
`
`Declaration”).
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, and believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I would testify
`
`competently thereto. I have been warned that willful false statements and the like
`
`are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $600 per hour for my
`
`work in connection with this matter. I am being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work in this investigation. This
`
`compensation is not dependent in any way on the contents of this Declaration, the
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 1
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`substance of any further opinions or testimony that I may provide or the ultimate
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`B.
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`I am self-employed as the sole proprietor of GTL Associates. I provide
`
`consulting services primarily related to systems engineering of computer systems,
`
`both hardware and software, and telecommunications. “Systems engineering” is the
`
`engineering that it takes to put together a computer system, starting from
`
`requirements through design, implementation and fielding. Since I began GTL
`
`Associates in 1988, I have worked with 42 clients in the United States, Europe and
`
`Asia. I have also served on a pro bono basis both (1) on five panels/committees
`
`formed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to advise
`
`the Government on issues related to computer system technology, design and
`
`implementation and, (2) at the request of then-Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez, on
`
`a 2008 Expert Panel related to technology implementation for the 2010 Census.
`
`5.
`
`I earned a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics (summa cum laude) from
`
`Furman University in 1971, and Master of Science (M.Sc.) and Doctorate (D.Phil.)
`
`degrees in Computer Science from Oxford University in 1973 and 1975,
`
`respectively. My studies at Oxford were supported by a Rhodes Scholarship. My
`
`doctoral dissertation was directed to the design of computer programming
`
`languages.
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 2
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I have forty-one years of professional experience in the design and
`
`development of hardware and software for computer and telecommunications
`
`systems (as well as the design and development of those systems in their entirety)
`
`for a wide variety of applications. These computer systems vary from embedded
`
`real-time microprocessor-based application-specific systems to color graphics
`
`monitors and display generators for industrial control applications to data
`
`communication systems employing cellular telephones to physiological signal
`
`monitoring systems such as pulse oximeters to personal-computer based systems to
`
`major national and international data communications networks. Additionally, I
`
`have reviewed the software and/or hardware for many products, ranging from
`
`operating systems and browsers to cellular phones and base stations and network
`
`middleware.
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved in the research, development, specification, and/or
`
`assessment of a number of systems involving presentation of graphical images and
`
`user interfaces on displays (e.g., graphical user interfaces and data applications for
`
`cellular telephones and personal computers; specialized displays for air traffic
`
`control towers; avionics systems for aeronautical flight management, navigation,
`
`telecommunications, and surveillance; color raster scan monitors and display
`
`generators for industrial and military control applications; image processing
`
`systems; and artificial intelligence-based systems for pattern recognition in infrared
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 3
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`images). As a specific example, during the 1990s I worked with a major cellular
`
`carrier on cellular data applications for the trucking industry. This involved, among
`
`other things, providing a user interface on a cellular telephone.
`
`8.
`
`In February 2017, I was elected to membership in the National
`
`Academy of Engineering (NAE) and am a member of the Academy’s Section on
`
`Special Fields and Interdisciplinary Engineering. NAE membership is “one of the
`
`highest professional honors accorded an engineer. Members have distinguished
`
`themselves in business and academic management, in technical positions, as
`
`university faculty, and as leaders in government and private engineering
`
`organizations. Members are elected to NAE membership by their peers (current
`
`NAE members).” (https://www.nae.edu/MembersSection.aspx) Additionally, I am a
`
`Life Senior Member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
`
`and a member of the IEEE Computer Society, the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery (ACM), the Institute of Navigation, and the American Association of
`
`Rhodes Scholars.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored twenty-one technical publications in
`
`several fields, including articles relating to computer graphics, computer
`
`programming languages, computer software development methodologies, and
`
`computer/computer system architecture. I have also co-authored five reports of the
`
`National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and been both a leader
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 4
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`and major contributor to the development of six major national/international
`
`standards in the aviation industry for navigation and surveillance systems on aircraft
`
`as well as on the ground.
`
`10. A copy of my resume is provided as Exhibit 2008, along with a list of
`
`my publications. My resume lists a number of major awards related to my work in
`
`interdisciplinary computer system engineering for which I have been a recipient or
`
`co-recipient.
`
`11. For the purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed that the priority
`
`date of the ’466 patent is November 9, 2004. Well before November 9, 2004, my
`
`level of skill in the art was at least that of a POSA, as discussed above. I am qualified
`
`to provide opinions concerning what a POSA would have known and understood at
`
`that time, and my analysis and conclusions herein are from the perspective of a
`
`POSA as of November 9, 2004.
`
`C. List of Materials Considered/Reviewed
`12. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report, those listed in
`
`the exhibit lists included at the beginning of this report, BlackBerry’s Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response, and the Board’s Institution Decision in this proceeding.
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 5
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`13. This report represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I
`
`reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein
`
`based on any new information and on my continuing analysis of the materials already
`
`provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`14. Certain basic legal principles have been explained to me by counsel for
`
`Patent Owner. These legal standards, as they were explained to me, are described
`
`below.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made. I understand the information that is used to
`
`evaluate whether an invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as
`
`“prior art” and can include, for example, patents and printed publications.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioner Google has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’466 Patent are unpatentable over the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that "a preponderance of the evidence"
`
`is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. The prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim or it
`
`can be shown to have made the claim “obvious.”
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 6
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`A. Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently, in
`
`a single prior art reference as recited in the claim.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in a
`
`prior art reference may still be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process
`
`being described in the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that it can be acceptable to consider evidence other than
`
`the information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that document.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that to be anticipatory, a reference must not only explicitly
`
`or inherently disclose every claimed feature, but those features must also be
`
`“arranged as in the claim.” Differences between the prior art reference and a claimed
`
`invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time the
`
`invention was made. I understand that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must consider the following four factors: (i) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (iii) the
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 7
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (iv) objective factors
`
`indicating obviousness or non-obviousness, if present (such as commercial success
`
`or industry praise).
`
`23.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court has rejected a rigid approach to
`
`determining the question of obviousness. I understand that while there is no
`
`requirement to identify a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known
`
`elements to establish obviousness, it still is necessary to identify a reason that would
`
`have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or leads away from the line of inquiry disclosed
`
`in the reference(s). My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the modification should not be attempted (e.g., because it would
`
`not work or statements that the modification should not be made).
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 8
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`III. THE ‘466 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘466 Patent
`26. The ‘466 patent describes an improved graphical user interface with
`
`particular applicability to wireless communication devices such as cellular
`
`telephones. (Exhibit 1001, 1:20-33). “Representing multiple services and functions
`
`to a user on a single wireless mobile device presents a number of challenges to the
`
`designer of a user interface, particularly a graphical user interface (GUI), for
`
`controlling the device. Wireless devices are usually small relative to less portable
`
`computing devices such as laptops and desktop computers. Inherently then, a visual
`
`display such as an LCD or other screen component of the wireless mobile device has
`
`a small display area.” (Exhibit 1001, 1:34-42).
`
`27. The ‘466 patent addresses this problem through, for example, a
`
`dynamic bar and expansion pop-up interface. (Exhibit 1001, 7:51-54). The dynamic
`
`bar 304 of Figure 5 of the ‘384 patent takes very little space on the user’s display
`
`while including dynamic counts of new events such as new voice mail messages,
`
`email messages, Short Message Service (SMS) messages, or contacts of the user that
`
`are online with whom to chat. (Exhibit 1001, 7:54-58):
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 9
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`
`
`(Exhibit 1001, Figure 5).
`
`28. The ‘466 patent further discloses expanding the dynamic bar 304, only
`
`when requested by the user, to display additional dynamic information associated
`
`with the dynamic information displayed in the dynamic bar. (Exhibit 1001, 7:29-40).
`
`Figure 6 of the ‘466 patent depicts an exemplary expanded dynamic bar 604 that
`
`expands, by the user selecting arrow 310, dynamic bar 304 and contains additional
`
`information to that in dynamic bar 304 in Figure 5:
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 10
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`
`
`(Exhibit 1001, Figure 6).
`
`29. The exemplary expanded dynamic bar of Figure 6 includes both
`
`dynamic and static preview information. For example, within expanded dynamic
`
`bar 604, several user-selectable links are presented, “Call Voice Mail,” “50 unread,”
`
`“View SMS,” and “Start to Chat….” These links may contain only static information
`
`(e.g., “Call Voice Mail”), or may contain dynamic information (e.g., “50 unread”).
`
`Selection by the user of, for example, the selectable link “50 unread” is disclosed to
`
`invoke the email application. (Exhibit 1001, 8:1-10). It is noteworthy that dynamic
`
`bar 304 contains dynamic “preview” information from, for example, the email
`
`application (10 recent emails); the expanded dynamic bar 604 contains additional (to
`
`that in the dynamic bar 304) dynamic “preview” information from, for example, the
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 11
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`email application (“50 unread”), and user selection of the link “50 unread” invokes
`
`the email application itself. That is, for example, the email application is associated
`
`with both the dynamic bar (10 recent emails) and the expanded dynamic bar (“50
`
`unread”) and is invoked if the selectable link (which, in this case, itself contains
`
`dynamic information) in the expanded dynamic bar is selected by the user. (Exhibit
`
`1001, Figures 5 and 6, 7:51-8:7).
`
`30.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a method related to the above disclosures:
`
`1. A method for displaying preview information, the method
`comprising:
`
`displaying on a display dynamic preview information in a
`dynamic bar, the dynamic preview information being determined from
`information managed by a software application, the dynamic preview
`information being updated to reflect a change to the information
`managed by the software application; and
`
`expanding the dynamic bar to display an expanded dynamic bar
`in response to a first input, displaying the expanded dynamic bar
`comprising:
`
`displaying additional dynamic preview information determined
`from the information managed by the software application, the
`additional dynamic preview information being different from the
`dynamic preview information displayed in the dynamic bar;
`
`the additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link
`
`which when activated, invokes the software application.
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 12
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`31. The ‘466 patent includes two additional independent claims that recite
`
`similar limitations: claims 14 and 22.
`
`B.
`Priority Date and Relevant Prosecution History
`32. The ‘466 patent issued from Patent Application No. 13/770,190, filed
`
`on February 19, 2013, and claims priority to Patent Application No. 10/983,606,
`
`which was filed on November 9, 2004 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,402,384 (the
`
`“’384 patent”). The Olsen Declaration uses “the mid to late 2004 time frame” as the
`
`timeframe used in his analysis (Exhibit 1002 at Paragraph 11). For purposes of this
`
`Declaration, I have assumed the same relevant time frame.
`
`33. The Olsen Declaration does not discuss the prosecution history of the
`
`‘466 patent or parent ‘384 patent. The prior art made of record during the
`
`prosecution history of the ‘384 patent included Cadiz European Patent Application
`
`No. 1265157 A2 (Exhibit 1011), which effectively has the same disclosure as the
`
`United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0186257 (Exhibit 1006, “Cadiz”)
`
`relied upon by Dr. Olsen as the primary reference for all of the invalidity opinions
`
`expressed in the Olsen Declaration regarding the challenged claims of the ‘466
`
`patent. (Exhibit 1002 at, e.g., pages i-ii). While the Cadiz European Patent
`
`Application 1265157 was considered by the Examiner no later than November 20,
`
`2011 (prior to the Office Action discussed below regarding the combination of
`
`Ogren and Aaltonen), the Examiner did not cite the Cadiz ‘157 reference, made of
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 13
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`record, against any pending claims of the patent application that led to the ‘384
`
`patent. (Exhibit 1005, 91-93, ‘384 patent at [56]).
`
`34. During prosecution of the ‘384 patent, the Examiner rejected the then-
`
`pending claims over Ogren (EP1434411A1), which discloses selectable icons that,
`
`when selected, perform the selected actions. (See Exhibit 1005, 266). In response,
`
`Applicant Blackberry amended the claims to recite “expanding the dynamic bar,”
`
`“displaying additional dynamic preview information,” and “displaying a selectable
`
`link embedded in the additional dynamic preview information to invoke the software
`
`application.” (Exhibit 1005, 109). BlackBerry explained that the claimed “selectable
`
`link is embedded in the additional dynamic preview information of the expanded
`
`dynamic bar. That is, the selectable link may be selected by selecting a portion of
`
`the additional dynamic preview information, such as by moving a cursor over a
`
`portion of the dynamic preview information and actuating an input device.” (Exhibit
`
`1005, 114-15).
`
`35. The Examiner then rejected the claims over Ogren in view of Aaltonen
`
`et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0020904 A1). (Exhibit 1005,
`
`84). The Examiner stated that Ogren did not disclose “displaying a selectable link
`
`embedded in the additional dynamic preview information to invoke the software
`
`application,” but stated that this feature was obvious in view of Aaltonen. (Exhibit
`
`1005, 49). In response, Blackberry again explained that “a selectable link embedded
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 14
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`in the additional dynamic preview information,” as claimed, requires the selectable
`
`link to be embedded in the additional dynamic preview information of the expanded
`
`dynamic bar, and that the selectable link was selectable by selecting a portion of the
`
`additional dynamic preview information. (Exhibit 1005, 39). BlackBerry further
`
`explained why Aaltonen’s Mail icon link in Figure 22E did not disclose the claimed
`
`“selectable link”:
`
`As shown in FIG. 22e, the mail icon, which the Office Action has
`interpreted as being a selectable link, is separate from and not
`embedded in the displayed information. For example, in the item 2251,
`the mail icon is shown apart from the information about the mail (in
`this case, the name of the sender, the time of receipt and a portion of
`the mail message) and is not embedded in the mail information.
`(Exhibit 1005, 71).
`36. The Examiner withdrew the rejections after having participated in an
`
`interview with Blackberry, the summary of which stated that it was agreed that (1)
`
`Aaltonen was not prior art to the patent application being prosecuted and (2)
`
`“presentation of static icons in, for example, a dynamic bar is distinct from
`
`presentation of dynamic preview information in a dynamic bar” (Exhibit 1005, 62-
`
`64).
`
`37. The Examiner then used Wagner (U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2004/0155908 A1) (Exhibit 2002) as a secondary reference with Ogren to reject the
`
`then-pending claims. (Exhibit 1005, 48). The Examiner concluded that Wagner
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 15
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`discloses the limitation “displaying a selectable link embedded in the additional
`
`dynamic preview information to invoke the software application.” (Exhibit 1005,
`
`48-50). In response, BlackBerry again explained that the claims require the
`
`“selectable link” be embedded in the additional dynamic preview information of the
`
`expanded dynamic bar, and that the selectable link was selectable by selecting a
`
`portion of the additional dynamic preview information. (Exhibit 1005, 39). The
`
`Examiner subsequently allowed the claims. (Exhibit 1005, 12).
`
`38. During prosecution of the ‘466 patent, the Examiner rejected the
`
`independent claims for obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of the ‘384
`
`patent, and other pending claims as obvious over Ogren in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,486,914 (“Anderson”). (Exhibit 1004, 61-72). The Examiner, however, deemed
`
`dependent claim 39 allowable over the prior art of record. (Exhibit 1004, 70). Claim
`
`39 recited the following limitations:
`
`displaying a selectable link embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`
`information to invoke the software application; and
`
`activating the software application in response to a second input invoking
`
`the link.
`
`(Exhibit 1004, 105). These are the same limitations that BlackBerry repeatedly
`
`discussed with the Examiner during prosecution of the ‘384 patent.
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 16
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`39. BlackBerry responded by filing a terminal disclaimer against the ‘384
`
`patent and amending all of the pending independent claims to include the limitation
`
`“the additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link which
`
`when activated, invokes the software application.” (Exhibit 1004, 44-53). The
`
`Examiner then allowed the claims and the ‘466 patent issued on April 29, 2014.
`
`(Exhibit 1004, 1, 20).
`
`C.
`40.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that with regard to discussions of patent validity, a patent
`
`claim must be analyzed from the perspective of a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that, in ascertaining the appropriate level of ordinary skill
`
`in a field of art, several factors should be considered, including (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology;
`
`and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field of the patent.
`
`42.
`
`I further understand that a POSA is not a specific real individual, but
`
`rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors above.
`
`43. Having considered these factors, in my opinion, on or before November
`
`9, 2004 a POSA in the field of the ’466 patent would likely have had (1) at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and
`
`(2) at least two years of experience in researching, designing, and/or developing
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 17
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`graphical user interfaces for communication devices, such as cellular telephones,
`
`personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other communication devices, particularly
`
`those which communicate over a wireless network. More education can supplement
`
`practical experience, and vice-versa.
`
`44. The above opinion differs from the definition of POSA given in the
`
`Olsen Declaration (Exhibit 1002 at Paragraphs 13-14), with regard to the field in
`
`which the POSA would have had experience. In my opinion, the relevant field is
`
`graphical user interfaces for communication devices (rather than graphical user
`
`interfaces generally) because the ’466 patent is specifically directed to graphical user
`
`interfaces on communication devices. The ‘466 patent states that the field of the
`
`invention “relates generally to communication devices and more particularly to a
`
`graphical user interface for controlling such devices.” (Exhibit 1001, 1:15-17).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`45.
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding of an unexpired
`
`patent the claims of the patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`in light of the patent specification. I also understand that, under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the claim terms must be evaluated using the
`
`ordinary meaning of the words being used in those claims from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification.
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 18
`Google Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2017-00914
`
`

`

`46.
`
`I understand that the ’466 patent is not expired, so the claims must be
`
`given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`
`Accordingly, in formulating my opinions, I have applied such a broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation to the claims of the ’466 patent as I perceive a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood them at the time of the earliest priority date of the
`
`’466 patent, after reading the ’466 patent specification and prosecution file history.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that Dr. Olsen has not proposed any express constructions
`
`for any of the claim terms of the challenged claims.
`
`48.
`
`I have been asked to assume that the construction of “additional
`
`dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link,” which appears in all of
`
`the challenged claims, requires a selectable link that includes dynamic information.
`
`49. Based on my review of the ’466 patent’s claims, specification1, and
`
`prosecution history, including the prosecution history of the ‘384 patent (which I
`
`
`1 The ’466 patent specification does not use the term “additional dynamic
`
`preview information,” but it does use the term “dynamic preview information”
`
`twice. (See Exhibit 1001, 7:54-67). A POSA’s understanding of the term
`
`“additional dynamic preview information” in the claims would have been informed
`
`by the specification’s use of the term “dynamic preview information.” A POSA
`
`
`
` Patent Owner Ex. 2007, p. 1