Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Date: January 5, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
`INC., AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES A. WORTH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Granting In Part Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`37 C.F.R. 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Date: January 5, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
`INC., AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES A. WORTH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`Granting In Part Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`37 C.F.R. 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This is a Final Written Decision in this inter partes review
`challenging the patentability of claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,510,407 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’407 patent”). We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 6(b)(4). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by
`a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2016); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence,
`for the reasons discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated
`by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24
`are unpatentable. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, in
`Section III.I, we grant-in-part Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Paper 31).
`II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
`A. Procedural History
`Lenovo Holding Company, Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and
`Motorola Mobility LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’407
`patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. In view of the preliminary
`record, we concluded that Petitioner satisfied the burden, under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`Accordingly, we instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged
`claims, on all of the asserted grounds. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed its Response. Paper 18 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner
`filed a Reply. Paper 21 (“Reply”). After receiving authorization, Patent
`Owner filed a motion to strike certain portions of the Reply and exhibits
`referenced and Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 23; Paper 24. In an
`order relating to this motion to strike, we granted Patent Owner’s motion and
`determined that a certain portion of the Reply was untimely and, along with
`certain exhibits, would not be considered. Paper 25, 4–7.
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 27 (“Sur-reply”). After
`receiving authorization, Petitioner filed a motion to strike Patent Owner’s
`Sur-reply and a supplemental declaration filed with the Sur-reply. Paper 31
`(“Pet. Mot.” or “Petitioner’s Motion to Strike”). Patent Owner filed an
`opposition. Paper 32 (“PO Opp.”). We address Petitioner’s Motion to
`Strike, infra Section III.I, and grant the motion with respect to the
`supplemental declaration, but not with respect to the Sur-reply.
`On October 28, 2020, we held an oral hearing, the transcript of which
`is of record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner indicates that Lenovo Holding Company, Inc., Lenovo
`(United States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC are the real parties-in-
`interest. Pet. 67.
`Patent Owner indicates that DoDots Licensing Solutions, LLC is the
`real party-in-interest. Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2.
`C. Related Matters
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’407 patent at issue
`here is also asserted in DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Lenovo Holding
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`Company, Inc. et al., No. 18-098-MN (D. Del.) (“the related district court
`action”). Pet. 67–68; Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 2.
`Petitioner notes that the related district court action also involves U.S. Patent
`Nos. 9,369,545 and 8,020,083 (“the ’083 patent”), and that Petitioner filed a
`petition for inter partes review of the patentability of certain claims in U.S.
`Patent No. 9,369,545 in IPR2019-00988 (final written decision finding no
`claims unpatentable issued, see IPR2019-00988, Paper 37 (Sept. 9, 2020))
`and a petition for an inter partes review of the patentability of certain claims
`in U.S. Patent No. 8,020,083 (inter partes review instituted, see IPR2019-
`01278, Paper 8 (Jan. 24, 2020); final written decision pending). Pet. 68.
`D. The ’407 Patent
`The title of the ʼ407 patent is “Displaying Time-Varying Internet
`Based Data Using Application Media Packages.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The
`’407 patent discloses, in part, a software component for accessing and
`displaying network content. Id. at code (57). A Networked Information
`Monitor (NIM) is a “fully configurable frame with one or more controls”
`with content optionally presented through the frame. Id. at 2:61–63, 5:21–
`24. When a NIM is opened by a user, the frame is presented in the user’s
`display and network content is retrieved and presented in a viewer enclosed
`by the frame. Id. at 19:63–20:30. The network content may be identified
`via URLs included in the NIM definition. Id. at code (57), 20:24–27. The
`network content is time-varying, e.g., as in an image that varies over time.
`Id. at code (57). The Specification describes that the frame according to the
`invention “stands in contrast to present web browsers, which are branded by
`the browser vendor and which have limited means by which to alter the
`controls associated with the browser.” Id. at 5:24–28.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 13 are the only independent claims among the
`challenged claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below with Petitioner’s limitation
`designations added in brackets for ease of reference:
`1. [1.Preamble] A client computing device configured to
`access content over a network, the client computing device
`comprising:
`[1.A] electronic storage configured to store networked
`information monitor template associated with a networked
`information monitor, [1.B] the networked information monitor
`template having therein a definition of a viewer graphical user
`interface having a frame within which time-varying content in a
`web browser-readable language may be presented on a display
`associated with the client computing device, wherein the frame
`of the viewer graphical user interface lacks controls for enabling
`a user to specify a network location at which content for the
`networked information monitor is available; and
`[1.C] one or more processors configured to execute one or
`more computer program modules, the one or more computer
`program modules being configured to access the networked
`information monitor defined by the networked information
`monitor template, wherein accessing the networked information
`monitor defined by the networked information monitor template
`results in:
`
`[1.D] transmission, over a network to a web server
`at a network location, of a content request for content to
`be displayed within the frame of the viewer graphical user
`interface defined by the networked information monitor
`template;
`[1.E] reception, over the network from the web
`server at the network location, of content transmitted from
`the web server in response to the content request, the
`content being time-varying;
`[1.F] presentation, on the display, of the viewer
`graphical user interface defined by the networked
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`information monitor template outside of and separate from
`any graphical user interface of any other application; and
`[1.G] presentation, on the display within the frame
`of the viewer graphical user interface defined by the
`networked information monitor, of the time-varying
`content received from the web server.
`F. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Reference
`Description
`Van Hoff et al.
`US 5,919,247
`(“Hoff”)1
`Berg
`
`Date
`Issued July 6,
`1999
`Jan. 1, 1998
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Cliff Berg, How Do I Create a
`Signed Castanet Channel?,
`DR. DOBB’S JOURNAL,
`January 1, 1998
`US 5,983,227
`
`US Patent Application
`Publication 2002/0023110 A1
`US 6,401,134 B1
`
`US 5,999,941
`
`Nazem
`
`Fortin et al.
`(“Fortin”)
`Razavi et al.
`(“Razavi”)
`Andersen
`
`
`
`Issued Nov.
`9, 1999
`Published
`Feb. 21, 2002
`Issued June 4,
`2002
`Issued Dec. 7,
`1999
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`1 The last name of the first-named inventor is Van Hoff, but, for consistency
`with the Petition, we refer to this patent as “Hoff.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24 would have been
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`1, 9–13, 21–24
`103
`8, 20
`103
`1, 9–13, 21–24
`103
`8, 20
`103
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Hoff, Berg, Nazem or Admitted
`Prior Art (“APA”)3
`Hoff, Berg, Nazem or APA, Fortin
`Razavi, Andersen
`Razavi, Andersen, Fortin
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Standards
`It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability.
`See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e.,
`
`
`2 Because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to the
`effective date of the AIA’s amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 103, we apply the
`pre-AIA version of § 103 in this Decision.
`3 The Petition cites column 1, lines 56–67 of the ’407 patent as the APA.
`Pet. 23–24, 26.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the
`principles stated above in mind.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`a bachelor’s degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, Computer
`Science, or a related field and have three or more years of experience” in the
`field. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 (“Madisetti Decl.”) ¶ 44). Patent Owner does
`not provide an alternative description of the proper level of ordinary skill or
`comment on Petitioner’s proposal.
`Petitioner’s proposal appears to be consistent with the prior art of
`record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not
`required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for
`testimony is not shown). We adopt this proposal for this Final Written
`Decision.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review based on a petition filed after November 13,
`2018, the claims are construed
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`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, 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2019)) ; see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (setting forth claim construction standard in civil actions). Any
`special definitions for claim terms must be set forth in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. “outside of and separate from any graphical user interface
`of any other application”
`In the Petition, Petitioner requests that we construe one term, found in
`element 1.F of claim 1: that presentation of the viewer graphical user
`interface (“GUI”) defined by the networked information monitor template be
`“outside of and separate from any graphical user interface of any other
`application.” Pet. 4–8. Petitioner argues that the correct construction should
`be “so that the viewer [graphical user interface] is distinct from and not
`presented within the frame of any other GUI generated by another
`application.” Id. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the
`construction of this claim term, we do not construe it. See Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those
`terms need be construed 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) (applying
`Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`2. “network information monitor”
`To resolve Petitioner’s challenge, the parties assert that two claim
`terms need to be construed: “network information monitor” and “network
`information monitor template” (or “NIM template”). PO Resp. 7–9;
`Reply 2–9; Sur-reply 2–7 (“The heart of the dispute between the parties with
`respect to claim construction relates to the term ‘template’ as used in the
`phrase ‘networked information monitor . . . template.’”). Each term is
`introduced in each of the two independent claims from among the
`challenged claims. Ex. 1001, 42:28–64, 43:61–44:31. We address “network
`information monitor” first.
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he inventors defined NIMs in the
`specification as follows: ‘As used herein, the term networked information
`monitor or NIM refers to a fully configurable frame with one or more
`controls; the frame through which content is optionally presented.’”
`PO Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:21–24); Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. Petitioner agrees
`that “network information monitor” is defined in the Specification. Reply 2
`(citing Ex. 1001, 2:59–61, 5:18–29); Tr. 14:20–23 (Petitioner’s counsel
`stating that “[t]he patentee set out a clear and explicit definition of the term,
`network information monitor or NIM, said it refers to a fully configurable
`frame . . . with one or more controls.”); see Ex. 1003 ¶ 33.
`The definition of NIM provided in the Specification describes a frame
`“through which content is optionally presented.” Ex. 1001, 5:21–24. Claim
`1 also describes the subject of the definition in a NIM template alternatively
`as (a) a NIM (in 1.C), (b) “a viewer graphical user interface having a frame
`within which time-varying content in a web browser-readable language may
`be presented on a display associated with the client computing device” (in
`1.B), or (c) a “viewer graphical user interface” (in 1.D, 1.F, 1.G). Id. at
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`42:28–64. Thus the definition of NIM provided in the Specification is
`consistent with the use in the claim. With respect to the word “optionally”
`in the Specification definition, we note that, in the claims, time-varying
`content is recited as being presented on the display within a frame (element
`1.G and the last element of claim 13). Id.; see also id. at 43:61–44:31.
`For these reasons, we determine that the correct construction of a NIM
`is “a fully configurable frame, with one or more controls, through which
`content is presented to the user,” and this is the interpretation we apply here.
`3. “network information monitor template”
`a) The Parties’ Contentions
`Patent Owner asserts: “the NIM template is a data structure that
`defines the NIM; it is not the NIM and it is not an executable program (i.e.,
`compiled code).” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner, while not presenting a proposed
`construction, argues that the Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected
`as not supported by a definition in the ’407 patent, and specifically argues
`that Patent Owner’s proposed definition is flawed because it excludes an
`executable program from being a NIM template. Reply 1–9.
`Patent Owner supports its proposed constructions with references to
`the Specification. Patent Owner quotes the Specification’s description that
`“[e]ach NIM template defines the characteristics of a specific NIM.”
`PO Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 21:48–50) (emphasis omitted). With respect
`to “the definition of the NIM,” Patent Owner quotes the Specification’s
`statement that “the definition of the NIM is content, rather than compiled
`code” and cites additionally Figure 13, which “illustrates a data structure for
`a NIM definition.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 21:48–50, 3:63–65) (emphasis
`omitted). Patent Owner additionally quotes the Specification’s description
`of the NIM definition as “fairly small in size” and “easily distributable”
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`because it “contains just enough information to define and initialize the
`NIM’s components.” Id. at 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 33:55–65).
`Patent Owner additionally relies on the testimony of its expert,
`Dr. Sacerdoti, regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
`“template,” and on Dr. Sacerdoti’s testimony that, according to the ’407
`patent, a NIM template is not compiled code, and cannot be an executable
`application or applet. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 29–36, 47–53).
`Petitioner argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`should control, and that “nothing in the claims or specification limits a NIM
`template to a data structure excluding an executable program.” Reply 1–3.
`Petitioner argues that Figure 13 of the ’407 patent and the accompanying
`disclosure, cited by Patent Owner, are merely directed to a non-limiting
`example of a NIM template. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner also argues that Patent
`Owner’s reliance on the language describing a NIM definition as “fairly
`small in size” is also exemplary. Id. at 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 33:60).
`Petitioner notes that the “fairly small in size” NIM definition is further
`described in this portion of the ’407 patent as “therefore easily distributable
`as an XML file or Blob (binary large object).” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 33:60–
`61). Petitioner contends that this binary large object “might contain any
`binary content, including executable code.” Id. Thus, Petitioner argues,
`rather than finding indications that the patentee acted as lexicographer,
`Patent Owner improperly reads limitations from these examples, which the
`Petitioner contends are non-limiting, into its definition of “NIM template.”
`Id. at 2–5.
`Additionally, Petitioner argues that the Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction improperly excludes disclosed embodiments. Id. at 5.
`Petitioner quotes the ’407 patent’s reference to “[a] second executable
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`module” that “defines a NIM frame for the NIM using the definition.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1001, 3:8–10) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also discusses the
`portion of the Specification that describes users sharing NIMS via database
`that stores “Share Module[s]” including “multiple . . . individual [NIM]
`definition modules” or “multiple packs of NIMs that have been shared . . .
`containing multiple NIM definition modules.” Ex. 1001, 34:4–15, Fig. 24
`(discussed and quoted-in-part at Reply 5–6). Petitioner argues that
`Dr. Sacerdoti “confirmed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that ‘[a] module would be a chunk of code’ and that an
`‘executable module’ is ‘executable computer code.’” Reply 6 (quoting
`Ex. 1019, 69:22–70:13).
`Petitioner additionally argues that, in the related ’083 patent, the
`claims describe one or more processors that “execute the first [NIM]
`template such that the graphical user interface of the first [NIM] is presented
`to a user.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted); see Tr. 63:19–64:5, 71:6–14 (Patent
`Owner’s and Petitioner’s counsel each agreeing that “NIM template” in the
`’407 patent should be construed the same way in this inter partes review as
`it is in the inter partes review (IPR2019-01278) of claims of the ’083
`patent). Additionally Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s definition is
`contradicted by Patent Owner’s statements in the prosecution history of
`other related patents and by Patent Owner’s infringement allegations against
`Petitioner in the related district court action. Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1016, 6–
`7, 14; Ex. 1015, 6, 7, 10–12). As discussed in our analysis below,
`Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive.
`b) Construction
`After considering the usage of “NIM template” in the claims, the
`Specification, and the prosecution history, and reviewing the parties’
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`contentions and evidence, we determine that a NIM template is a data
`structure that defines the characteristics of a NIM, including the NIM frame,
`view and control characteristics, and that excludes executable
`applications/compiled code.
`Turning to the usage of NIM template in the claims, from the
`language of claim 1, we understand that the NIM template, stored in
`electronic storage of a client computing device (1.A), includes the definition
`of a NIM (1.C) / “viewer graphical user interface having a frame . . .” (1.B,
`1.D, 1.F). Ex. 1001, 42:28–64; see also id. at 43:61–44:31 (similar
`limitations in claim 13). From our examination of the claims, we understand
`that the NIM template defines the characteristics of the viewer and the
`content on the viewer.
`As to the prosecution history of the ’407 patent, the parties did not
`identify, and we did not find, any portion of the prosecution history that is
`helpful in determining the meaning of NIM template.
`The Specification of the ’407 patent does address the meaning of NIM
`template. The Specification states the “NIMs allow a developer to provide
`an application feel without developing custom client applications”
`(Ex. 1001, 26:38–40), and the “NIM template defines the characteristics of a
`specific NIM, including fully configurable frame characteristics, viewer and
`control characteristics, and NIM content references” (id. at 6:66–7:2). See
`also id. at 21:12–14 (“The NIM definitions, as discussed above, include[]
`the NIM frame definition and the definition of the controls for filling the
`viewer within the frame with content.”).
`Figure 13 of the ’407 patent is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`
`Figure 13 “illustrates a data structure for a NIM definition.” Id. at
`21:32, 3:63–65. According to the Specification, in the exemplary
`embodiment of Figure 13 “the definition of a NIM includes tags that identify
`the NIM 270, define and configure the NIM frame 271, specify and layout
`the controls 273 in the NIM viewer, and specify parameters to initialize all
`the NIM’s components with content or data.” Id. at 21:61–65. This
`disclosure does not indicate that the data structure for the NIM template
`contains compiled code.
`The Specification states that “a NIM is defined as a frame that
`contains a collection of controls, or functional units, such as a web rendering
`control or a GIF rendering control,” and the NIM definitions “include all the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`information needed to build a NIM frame and fill the NIM with NIM
`content.” Id. at 21:33–35; 21:41–43. The Specification further states:
`In one embodiment, the NIM definitions are defined using
`Extensible Markup Language (XML), so that the NIM as a
`whole–the frame and the content within the viewer––is
`advantageously as flexible as standard web content. NIMs are
`extremely flexible, because the definition of the NIM is content,
`rather than compiled code. The NIM definition defines the
`structure of the NIM, and everything that is visible in a NIM is
`based on standard Internet content, such as HTML, dHTML, or
`GIFs, and is referenced or pointed to by the NIM definition. An
`“application”–type NIM, such as a web calendar or web mail,
`may be changed by the user, by the content provider, or by other
`content, while advantageously avoiding the need to distribute
`and support a hard-coded compiled application. The definition
`of a NIM thus includes everything that is needed for the NIM to
`be rendered and filled with Internet content.
`Id. at 21:45–60 (emphases added). From this disclosure, we understand that
`the Specification prohibits the NIM template from using compiled code or
`an executable application. Our review of the Specification did not identify
`disclosure of use of compiled code or an executable application by the NIM
`template.
`As discussed, Petitioner argues that the data structure illustrated in
`Figure 13 and the related discussion of Figure 13 merely describe one non-
`limiting embodiment, and that the Figure 13 embodiment merely describes
`implementing a NIM template as XML rather than compiled code. Reply 3–
`4 (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
`F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in
`the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has
`broader effect.”)). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. Although we
`agree with Petitioner that the XML embodiment is one possible embodiment
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`of a NIM template, the Specification distinguishes the XML embodiment
`from embodiments using other languages for data structures, rather than
`distinguishing the XML embodiment from embodiments in which the
`template is compiled code. The Specification’s broad statement that a NIM
`template is content, rather than compiled code or executable applications,
`applies to all NIM templates, not just one particular embodiment. The
`Specification does not describe any NIM template that uses compiled code
`or executable applications.
`With respect to Petitioner’s argument that a NIM template “might
`contain any binary content, including executable code,” Petitioner’s
`argument is not persuasive. Reply 4. The Specification refers to distribution
`of an NIM definition “as an XML file or Blob (binary large object)” and
`later, in the same context, to an “XML Blob.” Ex. 1001, 33:61, 34:28. In
`addition, Petitioner’s contention is attorney argument unsupported by
`persuasive expert testimony. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470–71 (Fed.
`Cir. 1997) (argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence); In re
`Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a
`brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Unlike Patent Owner, Petitioner
`provided no declarant testimony probative to the issue of how the ordinary
`artisan would have understood and interpreted the relevant passages from
`the Specification and their bearing on the limitation in dispute.
`With respect to the “second executable module” and “NIM definition
`modules” described in the Specification, Petitioner’s arguments are again
`not persuasive. Reply 5–6. Petitioner does not identify, and we do not find,
`any portion of the Specification that discloses that the second executable
`module contains compiled code. In the context of the Specification, the
`“second executable module” described as acting to “define[] a NIM frame
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`for the NIM using the definition” is preceded by the description of a first
`executable module that “identif[ies] a definition of a Networked Information
`Monitor.” Ex. 1001, 3:6–9. Although Petitioner argues that the second
`executable module is a NIM template, the second executable module is
`described in the Specification as “using the definition” that was identified by
`the first module. Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner only highlights the
`described action of the second executable module to “define a NIM frame”
`but does not explain the interaction with the first executable module, or
`support the assertion that the second executable module is a NIM template
`or that the discussed NIM definition modules are executable modules.
`See Reply 5–6. Although Petitioner cites Dr. Sacerdoti’s deposition
`testimony relating to the word “module,” Petitioner’s contentions about the
`meaning of NIM template, and whether the “second executable module” or
`“NIM definition module” are NIM templates or executable modules, are
`attorney argument unsupported by persuasive expert testimony. In re
`Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470–71. The Specification does not describe any NIM
`template that uses compiled code or executable applications. Rather, the
`Specification provides that “[e]ach NIM definition contains just enough
`information to define and initialize the NIM’s components (NIM frame,
`controls, etc.)” and “the definition of the NIM is content, rather than
`compiled code.” Ex. 1001, 33:55–57; Ex. 2004 ¶ 46.
`Petitioner’s argument regarding the claim term of the ’083 patent
`describing “execut[ion of] the first networked information monitor template
`such that the graphical user interface of the first networked information
`monitor is presented to the user” amounts to one sentence, and does not
`address the context of the phrase in the claims of that patent, or present any
`testimony regarding whether one of ordinary skill in the art, reading those
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01279
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`claims, would determine that, in the cited claim 1 of the ’083 patent, the
`networked information monitor template is described as executable code.
`Reply 7; Ex. 1013, 47:42–48:8. Petitioner’s contentions about the meaning
`of the disputed terms in the context of the ’083 claims and the prosecution
`history of a related application (Reply 6–7) are attorney argument
`unsupported by citations to persuasive intrinsic evidence or testimony from a
`witness competent to opine about how an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`understand the terms. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470–71. As such,
`Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive.
`Lastly, Petitioner’s argument with respect to the positions taken by
`Patent Owner in the related district court action, in which, according to
`Petitioner, “Patent Owner has contended that each step of Claim 1 is
`performed by the use of” an “app” is again attorney argument. See Reply 8–
`9. Although Petitioner cites the Second Amended Complaint, that
`document, with respect to the ’407 patent, describes generally that
`“Yogabook, in connection with the weather app” satisfies the limitations,
`and does not specifically describe what in that combination is mapped to the
`NIM template. Ex. 1015, 10–12; see also id. at 8–10 (discussing generally
`that “Lenovo’s YogaBook also infringes Claim 1 of the ’083 patent” without
`specific mapping to the NIM template). Petitioner’s argument is not
`persuasive because it does not present any evidence about how these apps
`work and how they apply to the disputed NIM template. In addition,
`Petitioner’s contentions about the meaning of the disputed terms and apps
`are attorney argument unsupported by persuasive evidence. In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d at 1470–71. A party’s infringement al
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
