Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Date: January 22, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6 and 8–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’362 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2 (“Petition” or
`“Pet.”). Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10. We instituted an inter partes review of
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Date: January 22, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6 and 8–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’362 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2 (“Petition” or
`“Pet.”). Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10. We instituted an inter partes review of
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`claims 1–6 and 8–20 on all grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition.
`Paper 11 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 17,
`“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 19, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 21, “PO Sur-reply”).
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Andrew Sears (Ex. 1003) and
`Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Dr. Jacob O. Wobbrock (Exs. 2001,
`2006).
`An oral hearing was held on November 21, 2019, and the record
`contains a transcript of this hearing. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 1–6 and 8–20 of the ’362 patent are unpatentable.
`BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Pet. 72.
`Patent Owner identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in
`interest. Paper 3, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following dismissed patent litigation
`proceeding in which the ’362 patent was asserted: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02403 (S.D. Cal.). Pet. 72; Paper 3, 2 (Patent
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices); Paper. 16, 2 (Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory
`Notices).
`The parties also identify a second request for inter partes review of
`the ’362 patent: Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018–01253. Pet. 72;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Paper 3, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). We take official notice of a
`third request for inter partes review of the ’362 patent: Apple Inc. v.
`Qualcomm Inc., IPR2019-00112. See Ex. 1015 (IPR2019-00112, Petition).
`We previously denied institution of the other requests for inter partes
`review. IPR2018-01253, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2019) (Institution
`Decision); IPR2019-00112, Paper 7 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2019) (Institution
`Decision).
`Additionally, Patent Owner identifies two pending patent applications
`that “claim the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/416,279, from
`which the ’362 patent issued.” Paper 3, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notices).
`C. The ’362 Patent
`The ’362 patent is titled “Card Metaphor for Activities in a
`Computing Device.” Ex. 1001, code (54). According to the ’362 patent,
`conventional computer systems use overlapping windows in order to allow
`the user the opportunity to run several applications at the same time or open
`multiple copies of a single application, such as opening different documents
`with a word processor. Id. at 1:32–2:2. However, such a graphical user
`interface typically requires a large screen. Id. at 2:3–5. If there is limited
`screen space, users “must choose between . . . making windows smaller and
`thus reducing available workspace within each application . . . [or] stacking
`windows atop each other so that only one window (or very few) is visible at
`a time.” Id. at 2:5–9. This is especially true for mobile devices, such as
`smart phones, which have insufficient screen space to display multiple,
`overlapping windows. Id. at 2:32–47.
`According to the ’362 patent, this problem can be addressed by using
`a computer that provides at least two modes for interacting with multiple
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`activities which the user can toggle between as desired. Ex. 1001, 2:51–59.
`Specifically, the ’362 patent describes using a card metaphor “in which each
`activity can be represented within an area of the screen.” Id. at 2:60–3:5.
`“[I]n a full-screen mode, one activity occupies substantially an entire display
`screen. The card thus fills substantially the entire display screen, although in
`some embodiments some areas of the screen may be reserved for status
`indicators, alerts, messages, and the like.” Id. at 3:9–13. In a second mode,
`referred to as a “card mode,” “one activity is visible within a card, and a
`portion of at least one other card is also visible. Thus, a card that has focus
`(i.e., that the user is interacting with) is visible in full, while at least one
`other card is only partially visible.” Id. at 3:14–19. When in card mode, the
`user can change the location of the cards “so as to change focus from one
`card to another” or a card can be moved off screen. Id. at 3:19–29.
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–6 and 8–20 of the ’362 patent. Pet. 1.
`Claim 1 is independent, is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged
`claims, and reads as follows:
`1.
`A computer system comprising:
`a physical button;
`a processor coupled to the physical button;
`a touch-sensitive display screen coupled to the processor,
`the processor to receive gesture input on the touch-sensitive
`display screen and operate the computer system in any one of at
`least two display modes, wherein:
`during a given duration, the processor
`operates at least a first application and a second
`application concurrently;
`in a full-screen mode, the processor
`provides, on the touch-sensitive display screen, a
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`user interface for only one of either the at least first
`application or the second application;
`in a windowed mode, the processor:
`provides on the touch-sensitive
`display screen, a first card corresponding to
`the first application, and a first portion of a
`second card so that a second portion of the
`second card is not visible on the touch-
`sensitive display screen, the second card
`corresponding to the second application,
`wherein at least the first card displays
`content from operation of the first
`application, the content corresponding to (i)
`an output from an application, (ii) a task,
`(iii) a message, (iv) a document, or (v) a
`web page;
`responds to a directional contact along
`a first direction on the touch-sensitive
`display screen by changing a position of the
`first card relative to the touch-sensitive
`display screen in the first direction; and
`responds to a directional contact of
`moving the first card or the second card
`along a second direction that is different
`than the first direction on the touch-sensitive
`display screen by (i) identifying one of the
`first card or second card as being selected
`based on the directional contact along the
`second direction, and (ii) dismissing the
`selected first card or second card from the
`touch-sensitive display screen in the second
`direction so that the corresponding first
`application or second application is closed;
`wherein the processor, in response to receiving user input
`via the physical button, transitions the computer system at least
`(i) from the full-screen mode to the windowed mode, or (ii)
`from the windowed mode to the full-screen mode.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Ex. 1001, 24:31–25:7
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6 and 8–20 would have been
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–6, 8–20
`103(a)1
`
`
`References
`Jin,2 Elias3
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the
`Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and content of the prior
`art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and
`(4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as “commercial
`success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.” Id. at 17–18.
`“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular
`case,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007), the Federal
`Circuit has “repeatedly emphasized that an obviousness inquiry requires
`examination of all four Graham factors and that an obviousness
`determination can be made only after consideration of each factor.” Nike,
`Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. § 103 effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’362 patent issued
`from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA
`version of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`2 Jin, US 8,633,900 B2, issued Jan. 21, 2014 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Elias, US 2007/0177803 A1, published Aug. 2, 2007 (Ex. 1006).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en
`banc).
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376,
`1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every
`case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a
`particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are
`merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi
`Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, Computer
`Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, or a related field, and at
`least five years of experience in the field of human computer interaction.”
`Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–19); see also Pet. Reply 28–30. Petitioner
`further argues that Patent Owner “incorrectly mischaracterizes a portion of
`Dr. Sears’s transcript to try to draw a distinction between the definitions of a
`[person having ordinary skill in the art] provided in the Petition and
`Dr. Sears’s supporting declaration to argue how Dr. Sears arrived at his
`determination.” Pet. Reply 30; see also id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 2010
`13:8–19:17).
`Patent Owner argues for a lower level of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time
`period would have had at least a Bachelor of Science Degree in
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science,
`or in a related field, with at least 2 years of industry experience
`in touch sensitive computer systems or gesture-based control of
`computer systems. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in
`the relevant timeframe could have been someone lacking formal
`technical education but having practical experience that would
`be equivalent to such education.
`PO’s Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–35).
`Patent Owner further argues Petitioner and Dr. Sears disagree as to the
`qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7–8.
`Patent Owner also argues that “both Petitioner and Dr. Sears appear to have
`relied solely on Dr. Sears’s personal experiences and judgment, which is not
`the correct analysis for determining the qualifications of one of ordinary skill
`in the art.” Id. at 8 (citing Evtl. Designs, 713 F.2d at 696–97).
`First, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Sears
`and Petitioner substantially disagree as to the level of skill of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. Although the identification of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art in the Petition is not identical to Dr. Sears‘s
`testimony—the Petitioner omits the word “typically” and adds the
`qualification that “[a]dditional relevant education . . . may compensate for
`any deficits”—Petitioner’s proposal is substantially the same as Dr. Sears’s
`testimony. Compare Pet. 3, with Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–19 (Sears Decl.). That is,
`we fail to see how the differences are material and Patent Owner has not
`argued that any difference in the formulation would result in a different
`outcome.
`Second, we disagree with Patent Owner that Dr. Sears—and by
`extension Petitioner—did not consider the proper factors. Dr. Sears testified
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`that his identification of the level of skill was based on his experience in the
`field. Ex. 1003 ¶ 18. In his deposition, he further explained that this was
`based both on his “research experience” and “practical experience” working
`for “Goddard Space Flight Center” and “[Sun] [M]icrosystems.” Ex. 2010,
`14:22–15:15 (Sears Dep.). Although Dr. Sears may not have considered all
`of the factors identified in Environmental Design, his testimony appears to
`be based on several of the factors—that is, the level of skill of people who
`were working with him and solving problems in the field. See id. at 16:15–
`17:22.
`Third, besides the reference to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`having a psychology degree, Drs. Sears and Wobbrock are in agreement
`regarding the education of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 18; Ex. 2006 ¶ 38. As Dr. Sears has not explained why a
`psychology degree would be relevant to the claimed invention—which is
`directed to “application management in computing devices” (see Ex. 1001,
`1:24–28)—there is not sufficient evidence to support its inclusion in the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. See Envtl. Designs, 713 F.2d at 696–697.
`Fourth, both experts are in general agreement as to the relevant
`amount of industry experience—a relatively small amount—and neither has
`offered any testimony that the exact amount of experience makes a
`difference. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 18; Ex. 2001 ¶ 33.
`Fifth, both experts use the phrase “at least” in describing the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. However, qualifiers such as “at least” expand the
`range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful
`indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we do not use
`them in setting forth the level of skill in the art.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Accordingly, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art has
`a Bachelor’s Degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical
`engineering, or a related field, with between two and five years of
`experience. Moreover, additional relevant education or industry experience
`may compensate for any deficits.
`C. Claim Construction
`In this inter partes review, we construe claim terms in this unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2018).4 “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim
`must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with
`the specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812
`F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, the Board may not “construe
`claims during [an inter partes review] so broadly that its constructions are
`unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis
`omitted), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., 872 F.3d 1290. An
`inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary
`meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`
`
`4 Per recent regulation, the Board will apply the Phillips claim construction
`standard to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018. See Changes to
`the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340
`(Oct. 11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Because
`Petitioner filed its petition before November 13, 2018, we apply the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identified any claim limitation
`that needed construction. See Pet. 3; PO Resp. 6.
`“[W]e need only construe those claim limitations ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because the parties did not request the
`construction of any limitation and no express constructions are necessary to
`resolve a controversy, we do not construe any of the limitations.
`D. Obviousness over Jin and Elias
`1. Jin
`Jin is titled “Screen Display Method for Mobile Terminal” and relates
`“to a screen display method for a mobile terminal wherein a plurality of
`contents belonging to the same level or a plurality of applications in
`execution can be displayed together on a single screen in response to user
`inputs.” Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:15–20. Jin’s mobile device “provides a
`screen display method for a mobile terminal wherein a plurality of
`applications in execution can be simultaneously displayed on the screen.”
`Id. at 2:1–4.
`Jin’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Jin’s Figure 1 “is a schematic block diagram illustrating a
`mobile terminal to display contents and applications in accordance with the
`principles of the present invention.” Id. at 2:65–67. As shown in Jins’s
`Figure 1, “the mobile terminal includes a memory unit 101, 3D/2D driver
`103, input unit 105, control unit 107, and display unit 109.” Id. at 3:56–58.
`“The control unit 107 controls the overall operation of the mobile terminal.”
`Id. at 4:36–37. Jin’s mobile terminal can be used to display content and
`applications in various formats. See, e.g., 3:62–4:3, 4:36–56.
`For example, as shown in Jin’s s Figure 4, reproduced below, Jin’s
`display can show the content of a single window.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 4. Jin’s Figure 4 “is a screen representation of a content
`window” that “corresponds to a state where the artist ‘AAA’ is selected and
`songs released by the artist ‘AAA’ are listed. That is, the control unit 107
`recognizes selection of the artist ‘AAA’, and displays a descriptive listing of
`the selected artist ‘AAA’ on the display unit 109.” Id. at 3:6, 6:12–16.
`Jin further discloses that “in response to a multi-window display
`request, the control unit 107 controls the display unit 109 to display those
`contents at the same level as the currently displayed content in the form of
`an opaque stack, transparent stack, tile board, or folding fan.” Ex. 1005,
`4:36–42.
`Jin further describes various ways to change the displayed windows.
`For example, Jin states that “[i]n response to a request for single window
`movement or multiple window movement during display of windows
`associated with same-level contents, the control unit 107 controls the display
`unit 109 to rearrange the windows accordingly.” Ex. 1005, 4:49–52. Jin
`also describes how to scroll windows: “In response to a scrolling request
`during display of same-level content windows, the control unit 107 controls
`the display unit 109 to scroll the front one or all of the windows depending
`upon settings by the user.” Id. at 4:52–56.
`2. Elias
`Elias is titled “Multi-touch Gesture Dictionary.” Ex. 1006, code (54).
`Elias discloses that the gesture dictionary “may take the form of a dedicated
`computer application that may be used to look up the meaning of gestures.”
`Id. at code (57). Elias’ Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4. Elias’ Figure 5 “illustrates an exemplary dictionary entry
`associated with a spread thumb and three finger chord that may be used in
`accordance with some embodiments of the present invention.” Id. ¶ 22. As
`shown in Figure 5, exiting an application is associated with clockwise
`rotation. Id. ¶¶ 44–45.
`3. Analysis of Claims 1–6 and 8–20
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Jin and Elias teaches all of
`the limitations recited in claim 1. See Pet. 5–42; Pet. Reply 2–16. Because
`it is dispositive, we focus our analysis on the following limitation recited in
`claim 1:
`the processor . . . responds to a directional contact of moving
`the first card or the second card along a second direction that is
`different than the first direction on the touch-sensitive display
`screen by (i) identifying one of the first card or second card as
`being selected based on the directional contact along the second
`direction, and (ii) dismissing the selected first card or second
`card from the touch-sensitive display screen in the second
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`direction so that the corresponding first application or second
`application is closed.5
`Ex. 1001, 24:45–25:2.
`a) Petitioner’s Arguments
`Petitioner argues the combination of Jin and Elias teaches the
`dismissing limitation recited in claim 1. Pet. 38–40.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues Jin teaches moving a card in a first
`direction in response to a movement on a touch screen in a first direction.
`See Id. at 35–38. According to Petitioner, Jin’s Figures 9A, 9C, and 9E
`“illustrates a multiple window movement request and its result.” Id. at 35
`(citing Ex. 1005, 7:35–39).
`Petitioner provides an annotated drawing, reproduced below, that
`incorporates Figures 9A, 9C, 9D, and 9E of Jin.
`
`
`
`
`5 This limitation is sometimes referred to as the “dismissing” limitation.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Pet. 36. Jin’s Figures 9A, 9C, 9D, and 9E “illustrate manipulation of content
`windows for multiple window movement.” Ex. 1005, 3:15–16. Petitioner’s
`drawing above incorporates Figures 9A, 9C, 9D, and 9E with red
`annotations depicting a sequence of events to move multiple windows on the
`display unit. See Pet. 36.
`Petitioner argues, for example, that Jin teaches that “‘the control
`unit 107 can recognize dragging from the front window to the last window
`on the display unit 109 as a multiple window movement request’, illustrated
`in FIG. 9C, in which the front window ‘AAA’ is moved in the direction of
`the dragging in a sliding manner.” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:42–46).
`Petitioner further argues that “[i]n response to Jin’s multiple window
`movement request, the control unit 107 rearranges the windows such that
`‘content windows in display become invisible and content windows not in
`display become visible on the display unit 109, as illustrated in FIG. 9E.’”
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:53–55); see also id. at 37 (summarizing Jin’s
`Figures 9A, 9C, and 9E); Pet. Reply 3 (“In the multiple window movement
`request, Jin recognizes ‘dragging from the front window to the last window’
`and ‘rearrange[] content windows so that the content windows in display
`become invisible and contents windows not in display become visible’ in
`response.”), 7 (“Thus, Jin contemplates the movement of a window based on
`finger movements corresponding to the same.” (citing Pet. 8)), 16 (“First, a
`[person having ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that in
`response to a directional contact along a first direction, as illustrated in
`FIG. 9C above, the first card’s position would change relative to the screen
`in the first direction. FIGs. 9A-9E illustrate this movement.” (citations
`omitted)).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Petitioner further argues Elias teaches dragging. Pet. Reply 8 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Petitioner directs us to an annotated version of Elias’s
`Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`
`Pet. Reply 3. Elias’s Figure 3 “illustrates an exemplary dictionary entry
`associated with a thumb and two finger chord.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 20. Petitioner
`annotated Elias’s Figure 3 with “Suggest dragging commands” with a red
`arrow pointing to dictionary entry 304 “DRAG.” Pet. Reply 3.
`According to Petitioner, Elias’s Figure 3 “illustrates a dictionary entry
`300 enabling users to perform dragging typically ‘accomplished in
`conventional graphical user interface (“GUI”) system[s] by holding a mouse
`button while moving the mouse.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 42).
`Additionally, Petitioner argues that “Elias’s gesture dictionary provides
`feedback in response to recognizing a gesture motion” and that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Jin/Elias would
`display feedback that includes animation illustrating the selected window
`moving off the display in the second direction in response to a user
`performing a ‘clockwise rotation 511’ associated with ‘exit[ing], i.e.,
`clos[ing] [an] application’ on a window.” Id. (citing Pet. 14–15, 38–40;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–106; Ex. 1006 ¶ 45).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`During the Oral Hearing, Petitioner argued that its reliance on Elias
`for dragging is not a new argument. See e.g., Tr. 13–17, 48–51.
`Specifically, Petitioner stated its use of Elias’s Figure 5 in the Petition was
`exemplary and that Petitioner intended to refer to the whole dictionary
`gesture dictionary. Id. at 17.
`Petitioner further argues that “a [person having ordinary skill in the
`art] would have been motivated to incorporate, and would have understood
`how to incorporate Elias’s gesture dictionary as a background application on
`Jin’s mobile device.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 14); see also Pet.
`Reply 19–20. Petitioner further argues that, as shown in an annotated
`version of Figure 5, reproduced below, “Elias’s dictionary 500 discloses that
`‘[o]ther GUI-related commands may be assigned’ including ‘exit, i.e., close
`application (associated with clockwise rotation 511).’” Pet. 38–39
`(emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 45) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45, 60, 88,
`95, 96,101, 102); see also Pet. Reply 21.
`
`Id. at 39. Elias’s Figure 5 illustrates an exemplary dictionary entry
`associated with a spread thumb and three finger chord. Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. The
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`version of Elias’s Figure 5 reproduced above has been annotated by
`Petitioner to label the exit motion as “[c]lose the app.” Pet. 39. According
`to Petitioner, the combination of Jin and Elias teach the dismissing
`limitation:
`
`Jin in view of Elias provides responding to a directional
`contact of moving the first card along a second direction (such
`as, clockwise direction illustrated in 511 in Elias) that is
`different from the first direction. Additionally, moving the card
`in the second direction (illustrated in clockwise direction 511)
`exits, i.e., closes the application corresponding to the first card.
`
`Id.
`
`b) Patent Owner’s Arguments
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Jin-Elias combination does not render
`obvious” the dismissing limitation recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 8–9; see
`also id. 8–48; PO Sur-reply 2–15. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s
`argument that the Jin-Elias combination discloses these elements is based on
`the incorrect position that Jin discloses dragging a window on the screen.”6
`PO Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 35–40). More specifically, Patent Owner argues
`“Petitioner incorrectly interprets a statement in Jin about a user dragging his
`finger on a screen to mean windows on the screen are also dragged.” Id.
`(citing Pet. 36). According to Patent Owner, however, “Jin . . . does not
`teach or even show that the windows are dragged with the movement of the
`user’s finger.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 9C, 7:35–55).
`First, Patent Owner argues that “Jin does not teach dragging a window
`to match a finger movement.” PO Resp. 9–10. According to Patent Owner,
`“Jin teaches dragging a finger on the screen (display unit 109) to initiate a
`
`
`6 Patent Owner italicizes the names of references in its papers. We have
`omitted the italics when reproducing the quotes in this Decision.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`‘multiple window movement request’ and rearranging the displayed
`windows after this multiple window movement request is complete.” Id. at
`10 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:35–55). Specifically, Patent Owner argues Jin teaches
`detecting a “multiple window movement request” and, in response to the
`detection, the device “rearranges content windows so that the content
`windows in display become invisible and content windows not in display
`become visible on the display.” Id. at 11 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:50–55).
`Patent Owner further argues that the windows are rearranged after the
`multiple window movement request (finger dragging) is complete and not
`during the multiple window movement request. Id. at 11–13; see also PO
`Sur-reply 4.
`Patent Owner argues that this timing is confirmed by Jin’s Figure 11,
`an annotated version of which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Id. at 14. Jin’s Figure 11 “is a flow chart illustrating an application display
`method according to another exemplary embodiment of [Jin]” and has been
`annotated by Petitioner with yellow highlighting on steps S913
`(“MULTIPLE WINDOW MOVEMENT REQUEST”) and S915 (“MOVE
`MULTIPLE APPLICATION WINDOWS ACCORDING TO PRESET
`ARRANGEMENT”). Ex. 1005, 3:19–21, Fig. 11; PO Resp. 14. According
`to Patent Owner, because “step S915 is not executed until after the multiple
`movement window request has been input[ted],” it “confirms that the
`application windows in Jin are not rearranged until after the multiple
`window movement request is complete.” PO Resp. 14 (emphasis omitted);
`see also id. at 15–25 (arguing that “Jin does not teach or suggest that
`windows in the multiwindow display mode are dragged to match a finger
`movement”); PO Sur-reply 4–6.
`Second, Patent Owner argues Jin does not teach or suggest that a
`selected card will be dismissed from the screen in a second direction in
`response to directional contact of moving that card along the second
`direction. See PO Resp. 26–45; PO Sur-reply 12–15. Specifically, Patent
`Owner argues—for the reasons discussed above—that “Jin does not teach
`dragging a window to match a finger movement;” instead, “Jin’s system
`rearranges a preset number of windows after a user drags a finger on the
`screen.” PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:45–50, 7:37–55, 9:28–31). Patent
`Owner further argues Elias does not teach moving a window in a direction
`when performing a gesture to exit an application; instead, it simply teaches
`using a finger gesture to close the window. Id. at 27–30. Patent Owner also
`argues that “Dr. Sears merely alleges that the Jin-Elias combination renders
`obvious dismissing a card from a display.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01252
`Patent 8,683,362 B2
`Third, Patent Owner argues Petitioner does not explain why a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jin’s system to dismiss
`a selected card from a screen in a clockwise direction in response to moving
`that card along the clockwise direction. PO Resp. 45–48; PO Sur-Reply
`15–16. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that even if a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined Elias’s
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
