UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ALFRED C. WEAVER
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 1
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE ............................... 1
`III. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................... 8
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 12
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... 13
`A. Burden of Proof .............................................................................................. 13
`B. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 13
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 14
`D. Anticipation/Obviousness ............................................................................... 16
`1. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) ................................................................... 16
`VI. THE ’419 PATENT ........................................................................................ 23
`A. Background of ’419 Patent Subject Matter .................................................... 24
`1. HCI in General ............................................................................................ 24
`2. Mobile Devices ............................................................................................ 25
`B. The ’419 patent and the Challenged Claims .................................................. 27
`C. Problem Presented .......................................................................................... 28
`D. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 30
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES .......................................................... 30
`A. Griffin ............................................................................................................. 30
`B. Goertz ............................................................................................................. 31
`C. Davis ............................................................................................................... 33
`D. iOS .................................................................................................................. 34
`VIII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 1. ........ 35
`
` 
`
`- i -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 2
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`A. The cited references do not disclose an activation button separate from a
`power button. ........................................................................................................ 35
`B. The cited art does not disclose turning on the display (displaying a lock
`screen) and performing a fingerprint authentication function in response to a one-
`time pressing of the activation button. .................................................................. 37
`1. Griffin does not disclose turning on the display and performing a
`fingerprint authentication function in response to a one-time pressing of the
`activation button. ............................................................................................... 38
`2. The Deficiencies of Griffin are not resolved by Davis. .............................. 41
`C. A POSITA would not combine Griffin with Davis to arrive at the claimed
`invention. .............................................................................................................. 47
`IX. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 2. ........ 51
`A. The cited references do not disclose an activation button separate from a
`power button. ........................................................................................................ 52
`B. The cited art does not disclose turning on the display and performing a
`fingerprint authentication in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`button. ................................................................................................................... 55
`1. Goertz does not disclose turning on the display and performing a
`fingerprint authentication in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`button. ................................................................................................................ 56
`2. The Deficiencies of Goertz Are Not Resolved by Davis. ........................... 58
`C. A person of skill in the art would not combine Goertz with Davis to arrive at
`the claimed invention. ........................................................................................... 59
`X. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 64
`
`- ii -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 3
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Alfred C. Weaver, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Alfred C. Weaver. I am over the age of 18, have not been
`
`convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and am not otherwise disqualified
`
`from making this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in
`
`this Declaration and am competent to testify on the matters set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether certain prior art
`
`references render claims of United States Patent No. 9,779,419 (“the ’419 patent”)
`
`obvious and my opinions about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood with respect to the ’419 patent in light of various prior art. I provide this
`
`testimony below.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science at the University of
`
`Virginia. I currently serve as the Associate Chair of the Computer Science
`
`Department, co-Director of the Computer Science Graduate Program, and Director
`
`of the Computer Science Ph.D. Graduate Program.
`
`4.
`
`I have over forty years of experience in computer science, including in
`
`the area human-computer interaction (“HCI”). I am qualified by education and
`
` 
`
`- 1 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 4
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`experience to testify as an expert with respect to user interface design and human-
`
`computer interaction, especially as it relates to mobile devices.
`
`5.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Science from the
`
`University of Tennessee in 1971, having taken as many computer-related courses as
`
`were then available.
`
`6.
`
`I earned a Master of Science in Computer Science in 1973 from the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (“UIUC”). My master’s thesis was
`
`related to the design and implementation of a novel programming language
`
`(VIPtran) with which a user could express industrial control logic. I designed a
`
`compiler that would parse the language statements and emit executable code.
`
`7.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1976, also from UIUC. My
`
`Ph.D. dissertation was related to the design and implementation of a graphical
`
`interface by which a human user could draw a relay ladder diagram (used to describe
`
`the control logic of industrial processes), including a graphical compiler that parsed
`
`the user’s drawing and emitted executable code. I am a co-inventor of a patent related
`
`to my work: U.S. Patent No. 4,217,658, entitled “Process Control System that
`
`Controls Its Outputs According to the Results of Successive Analysis of the Vertical
`
`Columns of a Hypothetical Ladder Diagram.”
`
`- 2 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 5
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D. I taught Computer Science for one year at
`
`UIUC as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Computer Science. I joined the faculty of
`
`the Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science at the University of
`
`Virginia in 1977. I designed and implemented UVA’s first microcomputer
`
`laboratory,
`
`teaching microprocessor
`
`technologies (hardware, software, and
`
`communications) in a hands-on setting. This subject was new and popular in the
`
`1970s and 1980s. Note that I was teaching microprocessor programming and system
`
`design even before IBM introduced the personal computer in 1980.
`
`9.
`
`I designed and implemented UVA’s first course on Computer Networks
`
`in 1980. I taught both the theoretical and practical aspects of computer networking
`
`technology, with subjects ranging from ALOHAnet to Ethernet to token bus to token
`
`ring. I taught how to construct each network type and how to model mathematically
`
`the performance of each. I was a consultant for a number of networking projects,
`
`including the development of SHIPnet by Sperry Marine, the tram control system at
`
`DFW, and SAFENET (Survivable, Adaptable, Fiber Optic Network) for the U.S.
`
`Navy.
`
`10. The UVA Computer Science faculty separated from the Applied Math
`
`faculty and formed an independent Department of Computer Science in 1984. I
`
`served as the first Chair of the Department. I rose from Assistant Professor to
`
` 
`
`- 3 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 6
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`Associate Professor in 1983, and to full Professor in 1992. I am now the Associate
`
`Chair of the Department, co-director of the Computer Science Graduate Program,
`
`and Director of the Computer Science Ph.D. Graduate Program.
`
`11.
`
`I also was the Founding Director of the Internet Technology Innovation
`
`Center (a state-wide university collaboration to help brick-and-mortar businesses
`
`adapt to eCommerce) and the Founding Director of the Applied Research Institute
`
`(a group of UVA faculty dedicated to working on problems of critical national
`
`importance, especially computer security). I also taught the first UVA course on
`
`Electronic Commerce in 1995.
`
`12.
`
`I have been funded to undertake 134 separate research projects. My
`
`research group is most noted for our co-development of the Xpress Transfer Protocol
`
`for the U.S. Navy. XTP solved the problem of transmitting sensor data to any number
`
`of systems that need that data by utilizing a single multicast distribution; this avoided
`
`serial unicast, thus reducing network bandwidth requirements. XTP was a high-
`
`speed protocol with many new features (especially reliable delivery and multicast
`
`group management) and was a key component of the Navy’s SAFENET system,
`
`now MIL-STD-2204.
`
`13. Much of my research and scholarship has focused on HCI issues. My
`
`most recent journal article, co-authored with my Ph.D. student Liliya Besaleva, is
`
` 
`
`- 4 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 7
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`entitled “Applications of Social Networks and Crowdsourcing for Disaster
`
`Management Improvement.” It describes CrowdHelp, a disaster reporting system
`
`based upon mobile devices and smartphones. The key to creating this system was
`
`developing a usable HCI for victims, bystanders, first responders, and disaster
`
`management officials.
`
`14. Similarly, my most recent conference paper, also co-authored with Ms.
`
`Besaleva, is entitled “CrowdQuake: Social Networking for Crisis Management.”
`
`This paper reported our development of a system that allows disaster management
`
`professionals to cluster data in real time according to the information needs of the
`
`moment (e.g., area with highest number of injured, area of most severely injured,
`
`areas within range of a particular disaster asset). A number of my other conference
`
`publications, such as “m-Health Application for Emergency Response Improvement
`
`through Crowdsourced Information” and “CrowdHelp: An Android Application for
`
`Emergency Response Improvement through Crowdsourced and Sensor-Detected
`
`Information,” also illustrate my expertise in the role of mobile computing and its
`
`HCI.
`
`15. Another journal article in which HCI was a prominent component is
`
`“Body Area Networks: Wireless Access to Physiological Data,” which describes a
`
`system we developed with National Science Foundation funding to allow doctors
`
` 
`
`- 5 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 8
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`anywhere in the world to monitor in real time the heartbeat characteristics of a
`
`soldier in combat. Another journal Article, “Remote Medical Monitoring,” reported
`
`an earlier result from the same study.
`
`16. Other conference publications report the results of our funded research
`
`to build low-power body sensors whose data can be read and displayed by mobile
`
`devices such as smartphones. “Securing Mobile Devices with Biotelemetry” reveals
`
`our design of a low-power heartrate sensor with a Bluetooth connection to a
`
`smartphone that can program the sensor and read and display the sensor data in real
`
`time. “Mobile Health Monitoring Through Biotelemetry” and “Control, Analysis,
`
`and Visualization of Body Sensor Streams” report on other aspects of this National
`
`Science Foundation funded research project that connects body sensors to mobile
`
`devices (e.g., smartphones, personal digital assistants, laptops) for the purpose of
`
`making real-time physiological data available to authorized personnel.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been asked to deliver several keynote speeches around the
`
`world. For example, I delivered speeches entitled “Providing Privacy and Security
`
`for Mobile Devices” in Hawaii, “Achieving Data Privacy and Security Using Web
`
`Services” in Hong Kong, “A Security Architecture for Distributed Data Security” in
`
`Italy, “Industrial Informatics” in Virginia, and “Electronic Commerce on the
`
`Internet” in Hawaii.
`
` 
`
`- 6 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 9
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`18. Finally, I am active in a number of professional organizations. The
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) was formed in 1963 and
`
`encompassed another group, the Computer Society, formed in 1946, that promoted
`
`research and conferences on computing technologies. I joined IEEE in 1973 and the
`
`Computer Society shortly thereafter, and I have participated in numerous IEEE-
`
`sponsored events, with many papers published in IEEE-sponsored journals,
`
`conferences, and workshops. I was awarded the rank of IEEE Fellow in 1996
`
`(limited to 0.1% of the membership in any given year) for contributions to the design
`
`of computer communications protocols. I was awarded the rank of IEEE Life Fellow
`
`in 2015. I was also awarded the IEEE 3rd Millennium Medal, the IEEE Mittelmann
`
`Research Achievement Award, and the IEEE Hornfeck Service Award for my
`
`contributions to industrial electronics. I am also a Life Member of the IEEE
`
`Industrial Electronics Society, having served in numerous leadership positions,
`
`including IES President in 1994-95.
`
`19.
`
`I am currently a member of the Editorial Board of IEEE Computer
`
`magazine. I have been an area editor for computer networks and also for electronic
`
`commerce, and I was the editor for three years of the column “How Things Work.”
`
`20. The Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”) was formed in
`
`1947 and, with its 100,000 current members, is the world’s largest professional
`
` 
`
`- 7 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 10
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`computing society. ACM brings together educators, researchers, and professionals
`
`to address the field’s challenges. I have been a professional member of ACM since
`
`1973 and have participated in many ACM-sponsored conferences and published in
`
`ACM-sponsored venues.
`
`21. A copy of my curriculum vitae is included with this declaration as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`III. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
`22.
`I have been retained by Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. on behalf of
`
`Patent Owner Firstface Co., Ltd., to provide an analysis and opinions regarding
`
`United States Patent No. 9,779,419.
`
`23. Specifically, I have been asked to review and respond to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review filed by Petitioner Apple Inc. in Case IPR2019-00614 and
`
`Case IPR2019-01012 (“Petition”)1 and the Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`(Exhibit 1003 to the Petition).
`
`                                                            
`1 Although two petitions, Petitioner Apple Inc. filed two petitions, the matters were
`
`consolidated for trial by the Board. My declaration is applicable to the Petition in
`
`both matters.
`
` 
`
`- 8 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 11
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions about what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would know and understand about
`
`the ’419 patent and the prior art references cited in the Petition and whether the
`
`challenged claims of the ’419 patent would have been obvious to a POSA at the time
`
`of invention in view of the cited prior art.
`
`25. All of the opinions set forth in this Declaration have been made from
`
`the standpoint of a POSA. My understanding of the legal definition of a POSA and
`
`my opinion about what qualifications a POSA would have relative to the ’419 patent
`
`are provided below.
`
`26. The opinions expressed herein are my own opinions. They are based on
`
`my own education, experience, knowledge, and the information I have reviewed
`
`while preparing this Declaration. As of the date of this Declaration I have reviewed
`
`at least the following materials:
`
`Exhibit/Pap
`er
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 to Jung et al.
`
`Prosecution History File of Application No. 14/848,191, which
`
`matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
` 
`
`- 9 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 12
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit/Pap
`er
`
`1004
`
`1007
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Declaration of Michael Hulse
`
`Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0017872 to Goertz
`et al.
`
`German Patent Application Publication No. DE 197 10 546 A1 to
`Herfet (certified English translation + German language
`publication)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0138914 to Davis et
`al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,443,199 to Kim et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,965,449 to Rivera et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0082974 to Kerr et
`al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,468 to Reeves et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,104,288 to Wever et al.
`
`Peter H. Lewis, THE EXECUTIVE COMPUTER; Compaq Finally
`
`Makes a Laptop, The New York Times (October 23, 1988)
`
`(https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/business/the-executive-
`computer-compaq-finally-makes-a-laptop.html)
`
`J. Flinn & M. Satyanarayanan, Energy-aware adaptation for
`mobile applications, 33 SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 48-63
`(December 12, 1999)
`
` 
`
`- 10 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 13
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit/Pap
`er
`
`1023
`
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/319344.319155)
`
`A. Roy, S. M. Rumble, R. Stutsman, P. Levis, D. Mazières, & N.
`Zeldovich, Energy Management in Mobile Devices with the
`Cinder Operating System, Proceedings of the sixth conference on
`Computer systems (EuroSys ’11), Pages 139-52 (April 10, 2011)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1966445.1966459)
`
`1024
`
`Your Palm Treo 680 Smart Device User Guide (2006)
`
`1025
`
`(https://www.att.com/support_static_files/manuals/Palm_Treo_68
`0.pdf)
`
`D. Muthukumaran, A. Sawani, J. Schiffman, B. M. Jung, & T.
`Jaeger, Measuring Integrity on Mobile Phone Systems,
`Proceedings of the 13th ACM symposium on Access control
`models and technologies (SACMAT ’08), Pages 155-64 (June 11,
`2008) (DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1377836.1377862)
`
`1026
`
`M. Landman, Managing Smart Phone Security Risks, 2010
`
`Information Security Curriculum Development Conference
`
`(InfoSecCD ’10), Pages 145-55 (October 1, 2010)
`
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1940941.1940971)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0133484 to Griffin
`
`Declaration of Yosh Moriarty
`
`iPhone 3G Finger Tips (2009)
`
`P. Tarr, W. Harrison, H. Ossher, A. Finkelstein, B. Nuseibeh, &
`
`- 11 -
`
`1027
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
` 
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 14
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit/Pap
`er
`
`D. Perry, Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of
`Concerns in Software Engineering, Proceedings of the 2000
`International
`
`Conference on Software Engineering: ICSE 2000 the New
`
`Millennium, Pages 809-810 (2000)
`
`(DOI=https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337827)
`
`1035
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No.
`57, Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02245
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`2008
`
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent in this matter at a rate of US
`
`$500 per hour plus reasonable expenses incurred in connection with my testimony.
`
`This compensation is not dependent on the opinions I provide nor the outcome of
`
`this proceeding and is not otherwise contingent in any way on the issues involved in
`
`this matter.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`28. As expressed herein and described further below, my opinions in this
`
`matter are:
`
` 
`
`- 12 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 15
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`a. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-17 are not unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Griffin in view of iOS
`
`and Davis; and
`
`b. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-17 are not unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Goertz in view of iOS
`
`and Davis.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`29.
`In this section, I address my understanding of various legal principles
`
`regarding invalidity of a United States patent.
`
`A.
`30.
`
`Burden of Proof
`I understand that the party challenging the validity of an issued United
`
`States patent bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that such patent is invalid. I
`
`understand that in the context of an Inter Partes Review, a petitioner bears the
`
`burden to prove invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand this is a
`
`different legal standard than a District Court litigation, where the challenger of a
`
`patent’s validity is required to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. I
`
`have applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to my opinions as
`
`expressed in this Declaration.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`- 13 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 16
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the first step in determining validity is to properly
`
`construe the claims of a patent and that the second step is to compare the prior art to
`
`the properly construed challenged claims to determine whether the claim is valid. I
`
`am not a patent attorney or patent agent. My opinions regarding claim construction
`
`are limited to what I believe a POSA would have understood based on the relevant
`
`documents.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that validity is determined on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`Thus, if one claim of a patent is invalid, it does not necessarily mean that any other
`
`claim is invalid.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that terms within a patent claim should be given their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning to a POSA at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning is determined from the language of the claims, the
`
`written description, and the prosecution history of the patent at issue. I understand
`
`that an inventor can act as his or her own lexicographer, ascribing a specific meaning
`
`to claim terms.
`
`C.
`34.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that an important consideration when evaluating a patent’s
`
`validity is the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art. For example, in determining
`
`how much technical information is taught by a particular reference, that reference’s
`
` 
`
`- 14 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 17
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`disclosure should be considered from the perspective of a POSA. Similarly, when
`
`evaluating the disclosure of the patent at issue, the understanding of a POSA is taken
`
`into account.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that several factors are considered in determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, including the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field, the types of problems encountered in the art, the nature of prior art solutions
`
`to those problems, prior art patents and printed publications, the activities of others,
`
`the sophistication of the technology involved, and the rapidity of innovations in the
`
`field.
`
`36.
`
`
`
`I generally agree with Dr. Bederson’s assessment of a person of
`
`ordinary skill:
`
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest possible priority date of
`
`the ’419 patent, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of
`
`relevant experience in the fields of user interface design and mobile devices.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 29.
`
`37. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the earliest possible priority date of
`
` 
`
`- 15 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 18
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`the ’419 Patent. Further, I have had at least those capabilities myself at the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’419 Patent.
`
`
`
`D. Anticipation/Obviousness
`38.
`I understand that there are two general ways to prove that a patent claim
`
`is invalid: anticipation and obviousness. I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 102 relates to
`
`anticipation and 35 U.S.C. § 103 relates to obviousness.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a person may not obtain a
`
`patent—even if the entire invention is not disclosed in a single piece of prior art—if
`
`the differences between the invention claimed and the prior art would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA at the time of the applicant’s invention date.
`
`1.
`
`Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
` 
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences
`
`between the invention and a prior art reference (or a combination of prior art
`
`references) are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a POSA. I understand that an analysis of
`
`obviousness is based on the “Graham Factors,” including an assessment of the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the
`
` 
`
`- 16 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 19
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, and secondary considerations of non-obviousness,
`
`to the extent they exist.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined from the point of view of
`
`a POSA at the time of the claimed invention. I further understand that a POSA is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all relevant prior art at the time
`
`of the invention. I further understand that a POSA may be able to combine the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references by using ordinary creativity and the
`
`common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`purposes.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that for obviousness, a reference need not itself be
`
`enabling, but is prior art for all that it discloses. I understand that when analyzing
`
`the differences between a claimed invention and the prior art, one must consider the
`
`impact of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention
`
`as a whole—not merely some portion of it.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that if a single element of the claim is absent from the prior
`
`art, the claims cannot be considered obvious.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that an invention may be obvious if a POSA, faced with a
`
`problem created by advancements in a particular field, would have recognized an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the patent applicant. For example, where
`
` 
`
`- 17 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 20
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a particular problem and there are
`
`a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, it may be obvious to a POSA to
`
`try the known options. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device
`
`or provide a solution to a known problem, and a POSA would recognize that it would
`
`improve a similar device or solve a problem in a similar device in the same way,
`
`using the technique may be obvious.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that it is not necessary to identify in the prior art a precise
`
`teaching directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. Rather, I understand
`
`one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSA would have
`
`employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For example, if the
`
`claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art, and the combination
`
`of those elements yielded results that a POSA would find predictable, then it would
`
`be more likely that the claimed invention was obvious. If, however, the combination
`
`of elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining the elements, then it would be more likely that the claim was
`
`not obvious.
`
`a) Motivation to combine
`
`46.
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent claim,
`
`one should consider whether a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine the
`
` 
`
`- 18 -
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., Ltd.
`Firstface Ex. 2001 - 21
`Weaver Declaration
`IPR2019-00614
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`Case IPR2019-01012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight when considering
`
`the prior art. I understand this test should not be rigidly applied, but that the test can
`
`be important to avoiding such hindsight.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not proved obvious by only
`
`demonstrating that each of the claim elements was independently known in the prior
`
`art. Instead, I understand that proving obviousness requires finding that a POSA
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to achieve
`
`the claimed invention and that a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so. I understand that the analysis showing a motivation to combine