`
`Juanita R. Brooks, SBN 75934, brooks@fr.com
`Jason W. Wolff, SBN 215819, wolff@fr.com
`Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
`Michael A. Amon, SBN 226221, amon@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: 858-678-5070 / Fax: 858-678-5099
`
`Betty Chen, SBN 290588, bchen@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94064
`Phone: 650-839-5070 / Fax: 650-839-5071
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell, DC Bar No. 445801, pro hac vice, cordell@fr.com
`Lauren A. Degnan, DC Bar No. 452421, pro hac vice, degnan@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave. S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Phone: 202-783-5070 / Fax: 202-783-2331
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`[Additional counsel identified on signature page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-2403-CAB-MDD
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ....................................................................... 1
`
`CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3.3 ................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of the Prior Art [Patent L.R. 3.3(a).] ............................. 4
`
`Basis of Invalidity and Invalidity Charts [Patent L.R. 3.3(b) and
`3.3(c).] .................................................................................................. 5
`
`C.
`
`Asserted Patents – Invalidity References ............................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`’362 Patent ................................................................................. 6
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Priority Date .................................................................... 6
`
`Anticipation ..................................................................... 6
`
`Obviousness ..................................................................... 7
`
`2.
`
`’928 Patent ............................................................................... 15
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Priority Date .................................................................. 15
`
`Anticipation ................................................................... 15
`
`Obviousness ................................................................... 16
`
`3.
`
`’239 Patent ............................................................................... 24
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Priority Date .................................................................. 24
`
`Anticipation ................................................................... 24
`
`Obviousness ................................................................... 27
`
`4.
`
`’940 Patent ............................................................................... 32
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Priority Date .................................................................. 32
`
`Anticipation ................................................................... 33
`
`Obviousness ................................................................... 34
`
`5.
`
`’037 Patent ............................................................................... 58
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Priority Date .................................................................. 58
`
`Anticipation ................................................................... 58
`
`Obviousness ................................................................... 59
`
`III. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF INELIGIBILITY AND
`INVALIDITY [PATENT L.R. 3.3(D) AND 3.3(E).] .................................. 65
`i
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`A.
`
`Ineligibility Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................... 65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’362 Patent ........................................................................ 65
`
`The ’239 Patent ........................................................................ 66
`
`The ’928 Patent ........................................................................ 67
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 .............................................. 67
`
`1.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 ................................................................. 68
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`’928 Patent ..................................................................... 68
`
`’940 Patent ..................................................................... 69
`
`2.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ................................................................. 70
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`’928 Patent ..................................................................... 70
`
`’940 Patent ..................................................................... 71
`
`’037 Patent ..................................................................... 72
`
`3.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................. 72
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`’362 Patent ..................................................................... 72
`
`’928 Patent ..................................................................... 73
`
`16
`
`IV. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3.4 ......... 73
`
`17
`
`V. APPENDIX A ............................................................................................... 77
`
`18
`
`VI. APPENDIX B ............................................................................................... 95
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02402-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 102) and Patent
`
`L.R. 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby submits to
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) the following Invalidity Contentions with
`
`respect to the patent claims identified by Qualcomm in its Patent L.R. 3.1
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions served on March 2,
`
`2018. Acocording to Qualcomm, the asserted claims are claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12,
`
`and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362 (“the ’362 patent”), claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11,
`
`and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,928 (“the ’928 patent”), claims 1, 2, 3, 4 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,665,239 (“the ’239 patent”), claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, and
`
`22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,203,940 (“the ’940 patent”), and claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 22, 24 and
`
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,037 (“the ’037 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted
`
`Claims”).
`
`I. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`The Patent Local Rules and the Court’s Case Management Order contemplate
`
`that these Invalidity Contentions would be prepared and served in response to
`
`Qualcomm’s Infringement Contentions. However, Qualcomm’s Infringement
`
`Contentions are insufficient because they lack proper and complete disclosure as to
`
`how Qualcomm contends that Apple allegedly infringes the Asserted Claims,
`
`including but not limited to the deficiencies identified in Apple’s correspondence to
`
`Qualcomm on March 23, 2018. Due to Qualcomm’s failure to provide proper and
`
`complete disclosure of its Infringement Contentions under Patent L.R. 3.1, Apple
`
`reserves the right to seek leave from the Court to modify, amend, and/or supplement
`
`these Invalidity Contentions should Qualcomm be allowed by the Court to correct,
`
`clarify, amend, and/or supplement its Infringement Contentions, or their inherent
`
`claim constructions, or following the Court’s claim construction.
`
`Prior art not included in these Invalidity Contentions, whether known or not
`
`known to Apple, may become relevant. In particular, Apple is currently unaware of
`
`the extent, if any, to which Qualcomm will contend that limitations of the claims of
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`the Asserted Patents are not disclosed in the prior art identified in these Invalidity
`
`Contentions. Accordingly, Apple reserves the right to identify other references that
`
`would disclose the allegedly missing limitation(s) of the claimed method, device, or
`
`system.
`
`Such prior art may be discovered during fact and/or expert discovery. In
`
`addition to the references listed below and in the accompanying exhibits, Apple may
`
`rely upon the patents themselves, references cited in the prosecution histories of the
`
`Asserted Patents, any additional references identified by Qualcomm, and the
`
`testimony of any named inventors or others involved in the prosecution of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Identification of elements or limitations in the contentions and the
`
`accompanying exhibits is exemplary, not exhaustive or limiting. Accordingly,
`
`Apple contentions set forth below and in the attached exhibits are subject to
`
`modification, amendment, withdrawal, and/or supplementation, including by adding
`
`prior art, as new information, through discovery or other investigation, becomes
`
`available.
`
`These contentions are based on Apple’s investigations to date that are
`
`continuing and ongoing. Apple reserves the right to modify, amend, withdraw,
`
`and/or supplement these contentions within a reasonable time after Qualcomm
`
`meets its discovery obligations. Apple further reserves the right to modify, amend,
`
`withdraw, and/or supplement these contentions in light of any invalidity contentions
`
`served by either Apple in this case or the parties in any other lawsuits involving one
`
`or more of the Asserted Patents.
`
`For purposes of these Invalidity Contentions, Apple identifies prior art
`
`references and provides element-by-element claim charts based in part on the
`
`apparent constructions of the Asserted Claims advanced by Qualcomm in its
`
`Infringement Contentions. For purposes of these Invalidity Contentions, Apple may
`
`adopt alternative, and even inconsistent, claim-construction positions. Nothing
`
`stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that Apple agrees with
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Qualcomm regarding either the scope of any of the Asserted Claims or the claim
`
`constructions advanced by it in its Infringement Contentions or anywhere else.
`
`Instead, the citation of prior art herein and the accompanying exhibits are being
`
`disclosed as, and should be construed as, nothing more than Apple’s Invalidity
`
`Contentions. Moreover, nothing herein admits in any way that any accused product
`
`or service, or any other of Apple’s products or services, infringes any of the
`
`identified claims These documents are not intended to reflect Apple’s claim
`
`construction contentions, which will be disclosed in due course in accordance with
`
`the Patent Local Rules and the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`
`Apple also reserves the right to supplement or otherwise amend these
`
`Invalidity Contentions in response to any original or rebuttal report from any expert
`
`witness for Qualcomm regarding claim-construction issues, any proposed claim
`
`construction or alleged supporting evidence offered by Qualcomm, and any claim
`
`construction briefing filed by Qualcomm. Apple further reserves the right to
`
`supplement or amend these Invalidity Contentions as needed under Patent L.R. 3.6
`
`following the Court’s claim construction ruling and assessment of the ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Apple additionally reserves the right to supplement or amend these
`
`contentions should Qualcomm attempt to modify the scope of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents in any way, including through the testimony and/or reports of its
`
`experts, discovery responses, or otherwise.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the
`
`Asserted Claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to
`
`show the state of the art in the relevant time frame. The suggested obviousness
`
`combinations are provided in the alternative to Apple’s anticipation contentions and
`
`are not to be construed to suggest that any reference included in the combinations is
`
`not by itself anticipatory.
`
`In its contentions below and in the accompanying claim charts, Apple has
`
`endeavored to cite to the most relevant portions of the identified prior art. However,
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`other portions of the identified prior art may additionally disclose, either expressly
`
`or inherently, and/or render obvious one or more elements of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Apple reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art to
`
`establish the invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Moreover, Apple reserves the right
`
`to rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art, other prior art, or expert
`
`testimony to provide context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of the
`
`identified prior art. Where Apple cites to a particular drawing or figure, the citation
`
`encompasses the description of the drawing or figure, as well as any text associated
`
`with the drawing or figure. Similarly, where Apple cites to particular text
`
`concerning a drawing or figure, the citation encompasses that drawing or figure as
`
`well. Additional evidence regarding the features and elements of the prior art
`
`reference may be provided by witness testimony, or by additional documents that
`
`describe the prior art reference that are discovered through the course of ongoing
`
`discovery.
`
`II. CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 3.3
`
`A.
`
`Identification of the Prior Art [Patent L.R. 3.3(a).]
`
`Based on a diligent search of prior art to date, Apple asserts that at least the
`
`prior art listed in Appendix A of these Invalidity Contentions, individually or in
`
`combination, invalidates the Asserted Claims. Where a patent or publication has
`
`been listed, Apple also reserves the right to rely on any products described by those
`
`patents or publications as prior art. Where a product has been listed, Apple reserves
`
`the right to rely on any documentation relating to that product as prior art.
`
`Consistent with this, Apple has made an effort to identify related products and
`
`documentation in the reference chart of Appendix A. Apple reserves the right to
`
`supplement or amend supporting documentation to a prior art product, patent,
`
`document or prior invention identified in Appendix A, including in connection with
`
`responses to third-party discovery relating to the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Apple also adopts and incorporates by reference herein (1) any and all
`
`materials contained in documents produced thus far by Qualcomm to Apple in this
`
`case, (2) any and all materials contained in documents that may be produced by
`
`named inventors to the Asserted Patents, (3) any and all materials contained in
`
`documents that may be produced by attorneys who participated in the prosecution of
`
`the Asserted Patents, and (4) any and all additional materials regarding invalidity
`
`that should have been produced to Apple by Qualcomm but which have not been
`
`produced to date, to the extent that any exist.
`
`B.
`
`Basis of Invalidity and Invalidity Charts [Patent L.R. 3.3(b) and
`
`3.3(c).]
`
`Based on a diligent search of the prior art and information obtained to date,
`
`the Asserted Claims are invalid because the prior art listed in Appendix A,
`
`anticipates the identified claims and/or because the prior art cited in Appendix A,
`
`individually or in combination, renders the identified claims obvious.
`
`Apple’s Invalidity Charts, attached as exhibits to Appendix B and
`
`incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, as well as the text in this
`
`pleading, (1) identify whether each item of prior art anticipates each identified claim
`
`or renders it obvious; (2) identify where in each item of prior art each element of the
`
`identified claims is found; (3) identify, for each element governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(6), the structure(s), material(s), or act(s) in each item of prior art that perform
`
`the claimed function (to the extent such exists); and (4) identify combinations of
`
`prior art that make each claim obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the
`
`Asserted Claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to
`
`show the state of the art in the relevant time frame.
`
`The suggested obviousness combinations are provided in the alternative to
`
`Apple’s anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any
`
`reference included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`C. Asserted Patents – Invalidity References
`
`The prior art includes various documents, products, patents and inventions
`
`that separately and together render the identified claims of the Asserted Patents
`
`invalid.
`
`1.
`
`’362 Patent
`
`a)
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’362 patent is a continuation-in-part of an application filed May 23, 2008,
`
`to which Qualcomm asserts the ’362 patent claims priority. Apple reserves the right
`
`to challenge Qualcomm’s assertion that the ’362 patent is entitled to claim the
`
`benefit of that application’s filing date to the extent that the application does not
`
`support the full scope of the ’362 patent Asserted Claims, for example, depending
`
`on scope of the ’362 patent Asserted Claims as properly construed. To the extent
`
`the application does not support the full scope of the ’362 patent Asserted Claims,
`
`the priority date of the ’362 patent should be the filing date of the ’362 patent,
`
`which is April 1, 2009.
`
`b)
`
`Anticipation
`
`The ’362 patent Asserted Claims are anticipated by one or more references as
`
`indicated in the attached charts:
`
`1. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0271731 to Lin, et al. (“Lin”), which was
`
`filed on December 25, 2008 and claims priority back to Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/048,219 (“Lin Prov.”) filed on April 27, 2008, and thus
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and
`
`§ 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 8,633,900 to Jin, et al. (“Jin”), which qualifies as prior art
`
`under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 9,772,751 to Anzures, et al. (“Anzures”), which was filed
`
`on June 30, 2008 and claims priority back to Provisional Application No.
`
`6
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`60/937,993 (“Anzures Prov.”) filed on June 29, 2007, and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e). See
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015).
`
`4. The Safari Browser Application as Implemented in the iPhone 1st Gen.
`
`(“Safari System”), which qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b), and § 102(g). Evidence of this system’s
`
`teachings is found in numerous documents, including, for example,
`
`Anzures, and Steve Jobs’ iPhone Presentation at MacWorld 2007
`
`(“MacWorld 2007”).
`
`c)
`
`Obviousness
`
`The ’362 patent Asserted Claims are rendered obvious by each of the
`
`anticipatory references, either alone or in combination with other references,
`
`including:
`
`1. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0102638 to Jiang, et al. (“Jiang”), which
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b),
`
`and § 102(e).
`
`2. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0177803 to Elias, et al. (“Elias”), which
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and §
`
`102(e).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 8,564,543 to Chaudhri (“Chaudhri”), which qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and § 102(e).
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 to Jobs et al. (“Jobs”), which which qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`5. Multi-Touch: A New Tactile 2-D Gesture Interface for Human-Computer
`
`Interaction, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonoics Society 45th
`
`Annual Meeting (2001) by Westerman et al. (“Westerman Article”), which
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and §
`
`102(b).
`
`6. The Mac Expose of Mac OS 10.5, 10.4, and 10.3, which qualifies as prior
`
`art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b), and § 102(g).
`
`Evidence of this system’s teachings is found in numerous documents,
`
`including, for example, Welcome to Panther (2004) (“Panther Manual”),
`
`and Welcome to Leopard (2007) (“Leopard Manual”).
`
`7. Mac Dashboard of Mac OS 10.4 and 10.5, which qualifies as prior art
`
`under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b), and § 102(g).
`
`Evidence of this system’s teachings is found in numerous documents,
`
`including, for example, Welcome to Leopard (2007) (“Leopard Manual”).
`
`8. U.S. Patent No. 8,214,768 to Boule et al. (“Boule”), which qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e).
`
`9. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0117440 to Hellyar et al. (“Hellyar”),
`
`which qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), §
`
`102(b), and § 102(e).
`
`10. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0250787 to Kawahara et al.,
`
`(“Kawahara”), which qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) and § 102(e).
`
`11. U.S. Patent No. 6,577,330 to Tsuda et al. (“Tsuda ’330”), which qualifies
`
`as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b), and §
`
`102(e).
`
`The technical concepts disclosed in the ’362 patent Asserted Claims were not
`
`new as of May 23, 2008, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to
`
`combine these features found in the prior art at that time, rendering the ’362 patent
`
`Asserted Claims obvious, as described in exemplary detail below.
`
`The ’362 Patent is directed to the concept of receiving and responding to
`
`touch inputs to transition between applications. In the field of graphical user
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`interfaces on computing devices, by May 23, 2008, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be very familiar with techniques for multitasking. See, e.g., D.I. 1 at ¶ 27
`
`(“Users of popular desktop computer operating systems, like Microsoft Windows or
`
`Mac OS, were accustomed to multitasking between multiple applications with
`
`ease.”). At that time, one of ordinary skill in the art knew about computer systems
`
`comprising physical buttons and processors. See, e.g., Anzures (Figs. 1 and 2); Lin
`
`at [0014] (“The operating action includes pressing a button. The button may be a
`
`physical button installed on the electronic device…”); Jiang at [0010] (“The mobile
`
`device includes system components, including memory and processor, to facilitate
`
`the image movement…”). One of ordinary skill would also know about a touch
`
`sensitive display screen. See, e.g., Anzures 12:10-13 (“Figs 1A and 1B are block
`
`diagrams illustrating portable multifunction devices 100 with touch-sensitive
`
`displays 112 in accordance with some embodiments. The touch-sensitive display
`
`112 is sometimes called a ‘touch screen’ for convenience, and may also be known
`
`as or called a touch-sensitive display system.”). One of ordinary skill would have
`
`known that a processor could receive gesture input through the touch screen. See,
`
`e.g., Lin at [0019] (“The user may operate this UI through a touch panel of the
`
`handheld electronic device. The control mechanism connecting the operating actions
`
`of the user on the touch panel ad the displayed book-like UI may be prvided by the
`
`hardware or software of the handheld electronic device.”).
`
`One of ordinary skill would also know that a processor is able to operate at
`
`least two applications concurrently. See, e.g., ’362 Patent, 1:32-36 (“Many
`
`currently available computing devices run operating systems that offer users the
`
`opportunity to run several appications at the same time, and even to perform several
`
`activities simultaneously, within a single application and/or among two or more
`
`applications.”); Jin, 8:64-67 (“[T]he control unit 107 executes multiple applications
`
`selected by the user (S901). The user can direct the control unit 107 to execute
`
`multiple stored applications if necessary.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would know that
`
`computing devices can operate in a full screen mode. See, e.g., ’362 Patent, 2:44-47
`
`(“[T]he entire screen [of mobile devices known in the art] is often devoted to a
`
`single application, document, message, task, or activity, so as to make the most
`
`effective use of the extremely limited amount of space available.”); Anzures 24:43-
`
`51 (explaining that in some embodiments, “in response to a predefined gesture by
`
`the user on a block… the width of the user-selected block is scaled to fill the touch
`
`screen display”).
`
`Further, one of ordinary skill knew that computing devices can operate in a
`
`windowed mode, displaying applications in windows where the first window is
`
`visible in full, at the second window is visible only in part. See, e.g., ’362 Patent,
`
`1:48-53 (“Thus, each application may have a window or several windows; at any
`
`given time, one window has focus (usually indicated as such by being situated on
`
`top of the other windows). Other windows may be visible, invisible, or partially
`
`visible (for example if they are partially or completely obscured by other
`
`windows).”); see also Jin, Fig. 6A; id. at 4:39-58 (“The control unit 107 controls the
`
`display unit 109 to display abridged content information in windows other than the
`
`front window.”). Further, one of ordinary skill knew of touch screen devices that
`
`allowed manipulation of images in a GUI, including closing a window and its
`
`corresponding application. See, e.g., Elias, Abstract (discussing a “multi-touch
`
`gesture dictionary”); Jiang, Abstract (discussing an “approach for moving an image
`
`in a mobile device” through touch input); Lin at [0069] (“A user may delete a book
`
`page in the stand-up view.”).
`
`The following combinations, based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of May 23, 2008, as described above and in each particular reference,
`
`further render obvious, and invalid, the ’362 patent Asserted Claims as shown
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1.
`
`Jin in combination with: the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and Elias (see Exhibit A-1): One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention would have been motivated to modify Jin in view of the disclosures in
`
`Elias, at least because each of them relates to a graphical user interface for mobile
`
`devices and, specifically, to various concepts and techniques for multitasking. See,
`
`e.g., Jin 2:1-4 (“The present invention further provides a screen display method for a
`
`mobile terminal wherein a plurality of applications in execution can be
`
`simultaneously displayed on the screen.”); Elias, Fig. 5 (“The previous application
`
`and next application commands, discussed above, may be executed in many
`
`popular GUI environments by using an Alt modifier key followed by a Tab key (for
`
`next application) or Alt and shift modifier keys followed by a Tab key (for previous
`
`application).”). Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`would have found it obvius to supplement Jin’s primary functionality of displaying
`
`amd manipulating a plurality of applications at once on a touch screen with Elias’
`
`multitouch gesture dictionary providing many gestures and allowing the user to
`
`assign gestures to actions. In particular, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the “requested function” described by Jin could be a swipe up
`
`or swipe down to close or exit feature as defined by Elias. For example, Jin
`
`contemplates responding to a “requested function,” and a “termination request,”
`
`from a user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`
`“requested function” and “termination request” described by Jin could be met by
`
`one of the multitouch gestures disclosed by Elias, including the swipe up or swipe
`
`down to close feature as defined by Elias.
`
`2.
`
`Jin in combination with: the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and Elias and Jiang (see Exhibit A-1). One of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify Jin in view of the
`
`disclosures in Elias and Jiang, at least because each of them relates to a graphical
`
`user interface for mobile devices and, specifically, to various concepts and
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case No. 3:17-CV-02403-CAB-MDD
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 2009
`Apple v. Qualcomm, IPR2018-01279
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`techniques for multitasking. See, e.g., Jin 2:1-4 (“The present invention further
`
`provides a screen display method for a mobile terminal wherein a plurality of
`
`applications in execution can be simultaneously displayed on the screen.”); Elias,
`
`Fig. 5 (“The previous application and next application commands, discussed above,
`
`may be executed in many popular GUI environments by using an Alt modifier key
`
`followed by a Tab key (for next application) or Alt and shift modifier keys followed
`
`by a Tab key (for previous application).”); Jiang, Abstract, [0051] (describing
`
`methods for manipulating “images” on a GUI, including a “thumbnail” mode
`
`showing multiple images simultaneously). Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the relevant time would have found it obvious to combine Jiang with the
`
`combination of Jin and Elias to improve the process for manipulating the windows
`
`disclosed in Jin and Elias. Specifically, Jiang’s “proposed approach to image
`
`movement” is intended to “minimiz[e] the impact of image movement on the
`
`memory bandwidth consumption in a mobile device[s].” Jiang, Abstract.
`
`3. Lin/Lin Prov. in combination with: the kno