`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 10, 2015
`
`Via E-Mail (fumiaki-esaka@maxell.co.jp, kenji-nakamura@maxell.co.jp, yukihiro-
`takemoto@maxell.co.jp, hideyuki-kuwajima@maxell.co.jp)
`
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
`5030 Totsuka-cho
`Totsuka-ku
`Yokohama, 244-0003 Japan
`
`
`
`Dear Sirs,
`
`This letter follows up on our meeting of January 28, 2015, and is in further response to Hitachi’s
`correspondence of September 8, 2014, to Apple regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,396,443, 8,311,389,
`6,748,317, 6,898,078, and 8,214,459. As discussed below, Apple has reviewed each of the patents
`identified by Hitachi Maxell, and does not believe that a license is necessary for these patents.
`Apple’s positions on each patent are summarized below.
`
`Re:
`
`Hitachi Patent Assertions
`
`1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,396,443 (the ’443 patent)
`
`The ‘443 patent expired in October of 2013. Hitachi alleges that certain features of the iPhone 4/5
`series and iPad / iPad2 / iPad mini series infringe claim 1. Specifically, Hitachi argues that the dis-
`play in these devices is set to a non-power saving state if a user finger is detected near the screen
`during a power saving state and that the screen is set in the power saving state if the user finger
`is distant from the screen for a predetermined period of time. For at least the reasons set forth
`below, Apple does not believe it needs a license to the ’443 patent.
`
`As Apple has explained before, the accused devices do not detect the “approach” of a user’s fin-
`ger. The touch screen detects “touch” or contact. Therefore, the claimed “detecting means” is
`not present. Hitachi argues that touch falls within the scope of the claimed detecting means be-
`cause there is a special case in which distance is equal to zero. This argument fails on several
`grounds. The ordinary meaning of detecting approach does not encompass detecting contact.
`The specification makes this distinction repeatedly referring to when the user associated medium
`”approaches or comes in contact” with the detecting means as distinct alternatives throughout
`the description. See e.g., Abstract (“sensor for detecting the approach or contact”); (“approach or
`contact detection sensor”); (“an approach detection type or a contact detection type tablet”);
`(“which can effect both the approach detection and the contact detection”); (“the approach or
`contact detection function are both used”). It also flies in the face of Hitachi’s amendment to
`
`
`
`
`Apple
`1 Infinite Loop, MS 169-3IPL
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`(408) 783-0569
`hmewes@apple.com
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`claim 1, which deleted “or comes in contact with” for the phrase “at least approaches.” Accord-
`ingly, the claims are limited to the approach-detecting function, not contact detection.
`
`During our meeting, Hitachi alternatively argued that it believed that an iPhone would react to
`the approach of a user’s finger without contact with the touch screen. We have not been able to
`replicate this use case, and instead confirmed that the iPhone touch screen is designed to recog-
`nize touch, not approach – if Hitachi has evidence to the contrary, we would gladly review it and
`provide a response. However, based on the evidence produced to date, we maintain that iOS
`devices do not include any “detecting means for detecting whether a user-associated medium at
`least approaches” the device.
`
`In addition, as Apple previously explained, the temporary dimming of the screen before an iOS
`device automatically locks is a user interface feature designed to alert the user that the device is
`about to lock. Touching the screen at this point prevents the device from auto-locking. However,
`once in the locked mode, touching the screen does not put the device back into normal opera-
`tion as required by the claim; the Home button or the sleep/wake button must be pressed. Hita-
`chi argues that because, with the lower brightness, the screen consumes less power, the short
`period when the screen is dimmed before auto-locking a device, what Hitachi calls the “dim
`state,” corresponds to the “power saving state” of the claims. Hitachi further argues that the “in-
`tention for incorporating the elements of the patented invention does not excuse infringement
`under 35 USC 271(a).” However, Hitachi misapprehends Apple’s argument.
`
`The temporary dimming of the screen brightness is not a “dim state” or “power saving state” as
`the claims require because it is not a “state” at all; it is a user interface feature. The claims require
`a “power saving state,” which cannot reasonably be construed to cover all downward change in
`power consumption during the operation of the device. For example, when a user receives a call,
`more power is consumed due to the vibration mechanisms or the production of ringing signals
`through the audio circuitry. Similarly when data is being transmitted, more power is consumed
`by the radio components than when there is not. This does not mean that when a phone call is
`being received or data is being transmitted an iPhone is in a “non-power saving state” but once
`the ringing or vibrating stops or data is no longer being transmitted, the phone is in “a power
`saving state.” This interpretation is inconsistent with the written description of the ‘443. The
`“power saving state” and “non-power saving state” have to be states designed and intended for
`saving power or not, and cannot be defined to correspond to just any functionality that results in
`changes in power consumption. Thus, it is not a matter of the intention for incorporating a claim
`element; to satisfy the claimed element, there has to be a state intended for saving power. The
`temporary dimming of the screen to indicate that the phone is about to auto-lock is not a “power
`saving state” as required by the claims, and thus there is no infringement.
`
`Apple has also provided prior art that invalidates the asserted claim, including U.S. Patent No.
`5,189,393 to Charles Hu (“Hu”). Hitachi argues that the Hu reference does not anticipate claim 1
`of the ’443 patent because it does not disclose “an information processing apparatus” and be-
`cause it discloses detecting motion, not whether a user-associated medium at least approaches
`the housing of the apparatus. These distinctions fail. First, the “information processing appa-
`ratus” language is only found in the preamble of the claim, which are not typically limiting. Fur-
`ther, the specification describes broadly what is meant by an information processing apparatus,
`and includes things such as “household furniture.” The Hu reference discloses that its sensors can
`be used for activating lights “or other apparatus.” This disclosure is broad enough to teach or
`
`
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`suggest the use of the Hu system with an information processing apparatus. Second, Hitachi’s
`distinction based on motion detection is also inapplicable. The operation of the sensors of Hu are
`exactly the type of “detecting” operation claimed in the ‘443 patent. Hu discloses using ultrasonic
`sensors to receive ultrasonic waves and an infrared sensor to detect heat. These are precisely the
`types of sensors encompassed by the “detecting means” of the ‘443 patent. See claim 28 (“where-
`in said detecting means includes a temperature sensor … by utilizing a detected change of a
`temperature …”); claim 17 (“wherein said detecting means is a transmission pen type ultrasonic
`system tablet and said user-associated medium is a stylus pen having an ultrasonic oscillation
`function.”) That Hu may use the detected signals to infer motion does not distinguish the actual
`disclosed sensors from the sensing means in the ’443 patent. Thus, Hu invalidates at least claim 1
`of the ‘443 patent.
`
`In addition, based on Hitachi’s argument that detecting “approach” encompasses detecting
`touch, the ‘443 patent is invalid over a large volume of prior art information processing systems
`with a power savings mode. Apple’s own notebooks pre-dating the 1992 priority date of the ‘443
`patent included power savings features that would anticipate the claims of the ‘443 patent if
`broadly read to cover touch as a measure of approach. For example, the Apple Macintosh Pow-
`erBook 140, released for sale more than one year before the October 1992 priority date of the
`’443 patent, included an “Automatic sleep” mode that anticipates claim 1 of the ‘443 patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`A 1. An information
`processing appa-
`ratus comprising:
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion Prior Art - Macintosh PowerBook 140
`The phone is an
`“Macintosh User’s Guide for Macintosh® Power-
`information pro-
`Book™ computers”
`cessing apparatus
`and has following
`elements.
`As shown in figure
`1, the phone has a
`housing.
`
`B
`
`a housing;
`
`Getting Started at 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`C a detecting means
`for detecting
`whether a user-
`associated medi-
`um at least ap-
`proaches at least a
`part of a housing
`of said apparatus;
`and
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion Prior Art - Macintosh PowerBook 140
`As shown in figure
`“You use the keyboard to type text and numbers,
`2, the phone has a
`just as you would on a typewriter.”
`projected capaci-
`
`tive touch screen,
`“Multi-Touch
`screen”, which is a
`part of the phone.
`And also, the
`phone can detect
`approach of user-
`associated medi-
`um such as a user
`finger.
`Therefore, the
`phone has a de-
`tecting means.
`
`User’s Guide at 24.
`
`
`
`
`D a control means
`for effecting con-
`trol wherein, if said
`user-associated
`medium at least
`approaches said
`detecting means, a
`controlled object is
`set in a non-power
`saving state, and
`
`wherein, if said
`user associated
`medium is distant
`from said detect-
`ing means for at
`least a predeter-
`mined constant
`period of time, at
`least a part of said
`controlled object is
`set in a power sav-
`ing state.
`
`As shown in figure
`3, “Apple Retina
`display” is set in a
`non-power saving
`state, if approach
`of a user finger is
`detected near the
`screen during a
`power saving
`state. And also, the
`display is set in the
`power saving
`state, if the user
`finger is distant
`from the screen for
`predetermined
`periods during the
`non-power saving
`state.
`Therefore, the
`phone has a con-
`trol means.
`
`
`
`Getting Started at 4.
`“Most electronic devices, including other com-
`puters you may have used, have two power
`states: on and off. Macintosh PowerBook com-
`puters, however, have three power states: on,
`sleep, and off.” Getting Started at 15.
`
`“A working Macintosh PowerBook computer that
`appears to be off is in one of two power states:
`sleep (a “resting” state designed to
`conserve power) or shut down (off ).” Macintosh
`User’s Guide at 87.
`
`“System sleep is a power-conserving state in
`which your computer uses only the power it
`needs to maintain the contents of RAM. A com-
`puter in system sleep has a darkened screen and
`appears to be off, though it is still drawing bat-
`tery power at a low level. When you’re not using
`the computer, system sleep goes into effect au-
`tomatically after a time interval that you desig-
`nate.”
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion Prior Art - Macintosh PowerBook 140
`
`Macintosh User’s Guide at 102-3.
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Apple’s PowerBook 140 anticipates claim 1 of the ‘443 patent. Moreover, to the ex-
`tent Hitachi argues that the PowerBook’s keyboard is distinguishable from a touch-sensitive input
`device, by 1992 touch-input devices, including capacitive-sensing keyboards were well known.
`See e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,733,222 (issued in 1988); see also, U.S. Patent No. 4,290,052 (issued in
`1981) (disclosing a touch-pad with “’touch’ electrodes, is adhesively fastened to the surface of the
`transparent, insulative substrate (formed of glass and the like) opposite that surface contactable
`by user personnel.”) Accordingly, using capacitive-sensing touch keyboards in combination with
`the disclosed Sleep Mode in the PowerBook 140 would render obvious the ‘443 patent.
`
`2. U.S. Pat. No. 8,311,389 (the ’389 patent)
`
`Hitachi alleges that Apple’s iPhone 4/5 series and iPad / iPad 2 / iPad mini and iPad Air series in-
`fringe claim 5 of the ’389 patent based on their ability to download and play rental movies from
`the iTunes store. The ’389 patent has a priority date of December 13, 2000.
`
`Apple’s iOS devices do not fall within the scope of the claims of the ‘389 patent. As previously
`pointed out by Apple, the claim language requires receiving and recording “audio/video infor-
`mation.” Downloading and storing mpeg-encoded digital data files is not receiving and record-
`ing audio/video information. The applicants specifically amended the claims to delete “digital”
`and replace it with “audio/video” information as suggested during and Examiner interview in or-
`der to overcome the prior art. The applicants stated that the claims overcome the 103 rejections
`because “the claims have been amended in the manner indicated/suggested during the examiner
`interview and Interview Summary” which indicated that such amendments would overcome the
`prior art. Accordingly, the removal of the “digital” information limitation in favor of the “au-
`dio/video” recitation is an unambiguous statement that “digital” information (disclosed in the pri-
`or art being overcome) is different and not within the scope of the claimed “audio/video” infor-
`mation. Moreover, the only embodiment disclosed in the specification relates to the recording of
`broadcasted television signals. If the claims were interpreted to cover downloading data files,
`enablement and written description invalidity issues would apply.
`
`Further, the claims are invalid over the prior art. As previously stated, U.S. Patent No. 5,400,402
`renders the claims obvious as now asserted by Hitachi. While the examiner considered the refer-
`ence, in the conditions for allowance the examiner stated that the prior art references did not
`“teach or suggest in detail the disabling of reproduction … where an elapsed time from the re-
`cording of the audio/video information is out of the first period even if the audio/video infor-
`
`
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`mation is initially accessed” within the second period. However, this two-time-period access limi-
`tation was well known in the prior art before December 2000. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`5,023,741 (issued Jun. 11, 1991) teaches a programmable limited play video tape cassette in
`which “a movie or program is recorded on the tape 46 together with a disruptive code (FIG. 4).”
`The tape also includes an “IC module 64” that can be “programmed to set the play limit on the
`basis of time, for example a predetermined number of hours, a calendar period such as a particu-
`lar date, or the number of times that the tape is played.” The ‘741 patent teaches that in a typical
`rental arrangement, “[f]or example, the duplicator using a password not available to either the
`distributor or rental agent may program the IC module 64 to provide a play limit at the end of six
`months.” At the same time, the “rental agent may interrogate and reset a transaction counter in
`the IC module 64” for each rental. Thus, each rental would provide time limit for the tape but if a
`rental is made at the end of the distributor’s six month limit, the IC module 64 would prevent re-
`production even if the rental period was not over.
`
`This same two-period restriction is disclosed in other prior art. For example, U.S. Pat. No.
`5,629,980 (“Stefik”) issued May 13, 1997, over a year before the earliest priority date of the ’389
`patent, teaches a system for controlling the distribution and use of digital works based on usage
`rights that allow the specification of multiple time periods. The following claim chart shows how
`the Stefik patent anticipates every limitation of claim 5 as Hitachi interprets those limitations:
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`A A recording and re-
`producing apparatus,
`comprising:
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 5,629,980 (“Stefik”)
`
`The phone is a re-
`cording and repro-
`ducing apparatus and
`has following ele-
`ments.
`
`“A system for controlling use and distribu-
`tion of digital works is disclosed. A digital
`work is any written, aural, graphical or video
`based work including computer programs
`that has been translated to or created in a
`digital form, and which can be recreated
`using suitable rendering means such as
`software programs. The present invention
`allows the owner of a digital work to attach
`usage rights to the work. The usage rights
`for the work define how it may be used and
`distributed. Digital works and their usage
`rights are stored in a secure repository.”
`
`“FIG. 4b is an example of a computer system
`as a rendering system. A computer system
`may constitute a "multi-function" device
`since it may execute digital works (e.g. soft-
`ware programs) and display digital works
`(e.g. a digitized photograph).”
`
`“Herein the terms "digital work", "work" and
`"content" refer to any work that has been
`reduced to a digital representation. This
`would include any audio, video, text, or mul-
`timedia work and any accompanying inter-
`
`
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 5,629,980 (“Stefik”)
`
`B
`
`a receiver which re-
`ceives audio/video
`information;
`
`preter (e.g. software) that may be required
`for recreating the work.”
`
`As shown in figure 1,
`the phone receives a
`rental movie for
`downloading.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a receiver.
`
` “A repository is comprised of a storage
`means for storing a digital work and its at-
`tached usage rights, an external interface
`for receiving and transmitting data, a pro-
`cessor and a clock. … When operating in
`requester mode, the repository is requesting
`access to a digital work.”
`
`“The repository transactions embody a set of
`protocols for establishing secure sessions
`connections between repositories, and for
`processing access requests to the digital
`works.”
`
`C a recorder which rec-
`ords audio/video in-
`formation received by
`the receiver to the
`recording medium;
`and
`
`As shown in figures 1,
`3 and 4, the phone
`records the down-
`loaded rental movie.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a recorder.
`
`“A repository is comprised of a storage
`means for storing a digital work and its at-
`tached usage rights, an external interface for
`receiving and transmitting data, a processor
`and a clock. … When operating in requester
`mode, the repository is requesting access to
`a digital work.”
`
`
`
`“FIG. 4b is an example of a computer system
`as a rendering system. A computer system
`may constitute a "multi-function" device
`since it may execute digital works (e.g. soft-
`ware programs) and display digital works
`(e.g. a digitized photograph).”
`
`“Generally, a repository will process each
`request to access a digital work by examin-
`ing the work's usage rights.”
`
`D a reproducer which
`reproduces au-
`dio/video information
`recorded by the re-
`corder from the re-
`cording medium ac-
`cording to a control
`information related to
`the audio/video in-
`formation, the control
`information including
`a first period for re-
`taining the au-
`dio/video information
`on a recording medi-
`um and a second pe-
`riod for enabling re-
`production of the
`audio/video infor-
`
`As shown in figure 3,
`the phone reproduc-
`es the rental movie.
`And also, as shown in
`figure 2, the rental
`movie is reproduced
`according to control
`information which
`includes a first period,
`for example 30 days,
`for retaining the rent-
`al movie on the
`phone and a second
`period, for example
`24 hours, for enabling
`reproduction of the
`rental movies after
`the movie is initially
`accessed for repro-
`
`
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 5,629,980 (“Stefik”)
`
`duction.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a reproducer.
`
`mation recorded on
`the recording medi-
`um after the au-
`dio/video information
`is initially accessed
`for reproduction from
`the recording medi-
`um,
`
`
`
`“The terms ‘time’ and ‘date’ are used synon-
`ymously to refer to a moment in time. There
`are several kinds of time specifications. Each
`specification represents some limitation on
`the times over which the usage right ap-
`plies. The Expiration-Date specifies the mo-
`ment at which the usage right ends. For ex-
`ample, if the Expiration-Date is ‘Jan. 1, 1995,’
`then the right ends at the first moment of
`1995.”
`
`“Grammar element 1514 "Sliding-
`Interval:=Interval: Use-Duration" is used to
`define an indeterminate (or ‘open’) start
`time. It sets limits on a continuous period of
`time over which the contents are accessible.
`The period starts on the first access ….”
`
`“Grammar element 1515 "Meter-
`Time:=Time-Remaining: Remaining-Use" is
`used to define a "meter time," that is, a
`measure of the time that the right is actual-
`ly exercised. …”
`
`E wherein the repro-
`ducer enables repro-
`duction of the au-
`dio/video information
`from the recording
`medium in a case
`where an elapsed
`time from the record-
`ing of the au-
`dio/video information
`is within the first pe-
`riod and an elapsed
`
`As shown in figure 3,
`the phone allows to
`reproduce the rental
`movie when elapsed
`time from the down-
`loading of the rental
`movie is within the
`30 days and elapsed
`time from the initial
`access of the rental
`movie is within the
`
`“Grammar element 1514 ‘Sliding-
`Interval:=Interval: Use-Duration’ is used to
`define an indeterminate (or ‘open’) start
`time. It sets limits on a continuous period of
`time over which the contents are accessible.
`The period starts on the first access and
`ends after the duration has passed or the
`expiration date is reached, whichever
`comes first. For example, if the right gives
`10 hours of continuous access, the use-
`duration would begin when the first access
`
`
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 5,629,980 (“Stefik”)
`
`24 hours.
`
`was made and end 10 hours later.”
`
`And also, as shown in
`figure 4, the phone
`does not allow to re-
`produce the rental
`movie when elapsed
`time from the down-
`loading of the rental
`movie is out of the 30
`days even if the rental
`movie is initially ac-
`cessed for reproduc-
`tion at a timing when
`a remaining time of
`the 30 days period is
`less than the 24 hours
`and elapsed time
`from the initial access
`is within the 24 hours.
`
`“Grammar element 1515 ‘Meter-Time:=Time-
`Remaining: Remaining-Use’ is used to define
`a ‘meter time,’ that is, a measure of the time
`that the right is actually exercised. It differs
`from the Sliding-Interval specification in that
`the time that the digital work is in use need
`not be continuous. For example, if the rights
`guarantee three days of access, those days
`could be spread out over a month. With this
`specification, the rights can be exercised
`until the meter time is exhausted or the
`expiration date is reached, whichever
`comes first.”
`
`
`
`time from the initial
`access of the au-
`dio/video information
`is within the second
`period, and disables
`reproduction of the
`audio/video infor-
`mation from the re-
`cording medium in a
`case where an
`elapsed time from
`the recording of the
`audio/video infor-
`mation is out of the
`first period even if the
`audio/video infor-
`mation is initially ac-
`cessed for reproduc-
`tion at a timing when
`a remaining time of
`the first period is less
`than the second peri-
`od and an elapsed
`time from the initial
`access of the au-
`dio/video information
`is within the second
`period.
`
`Accordingly, because the accused iOS devices do not include the claimed receiver and recorder
`and if broadly interpreted as urged by Hitachi, the claims are invalid, Apple does not believe it
`needs a license to the ‘389 patent.
`
`3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,748,317 (“the ‘317 patent”)
`
`Hitachi alleges that Apple’s iPhone 4/5 series and iPad / iPad 2 / iPad mini and iPad Air series in-
`fringe claims 1, 15, and 17 of the ‘317 patent through the “walking directions” feature available in
`Apple Maps. The ‘317 patent claims priority to July 12, 1999. As an initial matter, Apple does not
`infringe the asserted claims because, as Hitachi’s own allegations show, there is no single “dis-
`play” image that displays all the required limitations of these claims. Specifically, the “said direc-
`tion” limitation, which is at best ambiguous, appears to refer to the “direction information denot-
`ing an orientation of the terminal” of the prior element in the claim. That direction information is
`what Hitachi alleges is disclosed in the compass screen shot of its claims charts. But the “display”
`showing the compass is a different display than the display showing the map with a route. Thus
`
`
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`there is no single “display” with all the claimed elements: “destination,” “present place,” “relation
`of said direction,” and “direction from said present place to said destination.” Moreover, the map
`display does not display “a direction of movement by the arrow” as claim 15 requires and the
`compass display does not display “bent line using symbols denoting starting and ending points
`and displays symbols denoting said present place on said route” as claim 17 requires. Claim 15 is
`also indefinite because the term “the arrow” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, none of the as-
`serted claims is infringed by Apple.
`
`In any case, the asserted claims of this patent are also invalid, particularly as Hitachi interprets
`them with respect to Apple’s iOS devices. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,133,853 (filed July 30, 1998
`claiming priority to June 20, 1997) describes a personal communication and positioning system
`that anticipates every limitation of claims 1, 15, and 17 of the ‘317 patent:
`
` Claims
`A 1. A portable termi-
`nal, comprising:
`
`
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`The phone is a porta-
`ble terminal and has
`following elements.
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 6,133,853
` “The PCD is a cellular-phone-sized electronic
`device, combining the capabilities of a GPS
`receiver, transceiver, digital beeper, cell
`phone and projection system into one com-
`pact unit.”
`
`B
`
`a device for getting
`location information
`denoting a present
`place of said porta-
`ble terminal;
`
`As shown in figures 1
`and 2, the phone gets
`location information
`using data services
`such as GPS and cellu-
`lar network.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a device for get-
`ting location infor-
`mation.
`
`
`
` “The PCD is also capable of downloading
`information via a request to a data provider,
`… the requested information is automatical-
`ly downloaded to and stored in the memory
`of the user's PCD.”
`
`“The major components of the system com-
`prises personal communication devices
`(PCDs) 20 and one or more of the following:
`a cellular phone network 60 … . The PCD
`receives signals from a GPS satellite system
`10.”
`
`“The microprocessor may also access or con-
`trol communications with telephone net-
`works, either hardwired or cellular, radio
`transmissions, infra-red transmissions, or
`communications with other computer devic-
`
`
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Claims
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`C a device for getting
`direction infor-
`mation denoting an
`orientation of said
`portable terminal;
`
`As shown in figures 1
`and 3, the phone gets
`direction information
`using “Compass”.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a device for get-
`ting direction infor-
`mation.
`
`D an input device for
`inputting a destina-
`tion; and
`
`As shown in figure
`4(b), the user can input
`a destination.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has an input device.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 6,133,853
`es.”
`
`“The Location page comprises the current
`map, the location on the map of the device,
`and a plot of the trail of the device on the
`map.”
`
`“The Location page indicates the PCD posi-
`tion 801, indicated by a walking person, as
`being located on a highway 810.”
`
`“The heading and directional information are
`displayed in real time and are dynamic.”
`
`“The limited GPS information, providing loca-
`tion, heading and north, is also displayed.”
`
`“The caller requests specific information (lo-
`cation of gas stations, names of restaurants,
`local banks, etc.) via a voice command
`("Download e.g., Wells Fargo Banks") or via
`digital commands using a keypad or other
`input device … .”
`
`“The PCD also has a [sic] alphanumeric key
`pad 26, which includes many of the standard
`keys generally found on computer key-
`boards. The location of the keys, and the se-
`lection of the characters used on a single key,
`may be varied as desired. The PCD also has
`specialized keys 27a-g, n related to GPS, tele-
`communications, and other functions.”
`
`“The application module includes a GPS en-
`gine 53 providing GPS functions, including
`interfacing with the GPS receiver 243 (shown
`in FIG. 4). A query menu program 54 of the
`application module controls the graphical
`user interface and related functions for the
`device.”
`
`“A waypoint 802 is along the highway en
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Claims
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`
`E a display,
`
`As shown in figures 1
`and 4, the phone has a
`display.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a display.
`
`F wherein,
`
`said display displays
`[1] positions of said
`destination and said
`[2] present place,
`and a [3] relation of
`said direction and a
`[4] direction from
`said present place
`to said destination ,
`and
`
`As shown in figures
`4(c) and (d), the phone
`displays a position of
`the destination in red
`point and a position of
`the present place of
`the phone in blue
`point.
`
`And also, the phone
`displays the direction
`of the phone and a
`route from the present
`place of the phone to
`the destination.
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 6,133,853
`route to the desired destination address
`803 located on a local street 804 which inter-
`sects the highway.”
`
`“The PCD has a display 28a. The display may
`be of a LCD type or other types known in the
`art. Incorporated with the display is a touch
`screen input device 28b, which are known in
`the art.”
`
`“The PCD can display a singular or a plurality
`of images and displays, project an image on
`to a screen or viewing surface, store or com-
`municate data (depicted as a line, graphic,
`icon, etc.) to and/or receive latitude and lon-
`gitude data from third parties.”
`
`“The limited GPS information comprises of
`the user's location (latitude and longitude),
`an arrow pointing to north and an arrow in-
`dicating direction of device travel.”
`
`“The sample page shown is an encoded map
`showing the device position [2], plot trail [4]
`and the encoded map location of the select-
`ed waypoint [1]. … The Location page indi-
`cates the PCD position 801 [2], indicated by
`a walking person, as being located on a
`highway 810. A waypoint 802 is along the
`highway en route to [1] the desired destina-
`tion address 803 located on a local street
`804 which intersects the highway. … The
`limited GPS information, providing location,
`[3] heading and north, is also displayed.”
`
`“CRD location data may be used in conjunc-
`tion with route information (plot trail)
`stored by the PCD.”
`
`“FIG. 43 illustrates a PCD display showing a
`user's route 1300 comprised of multiple
`segments 1300a-d.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2002
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Claims
`G said display chang-
`es according to a
`change of said di-
`rection of said port-
`able terminal orien-
`tation for walking
`navigation.
`
`Hitachi’s Assertion
`As shown in figures
`4(c) and (d), the dis-
`play of the phone is
`changed according to
`the direction of the
`phone for walking nav-
`igation.
`
`
`
`H 15. A portable ter-
`minal with walking
`navigation accord-
`ing to claim 1, fur-
`ther comprising:
`
`I
`
`a device for retriev-
`ing a route from
`said present place
`to said destination,
`wherein
`
`As shown in figures 1
`and 4, the phone re-
`trieves the route using
`the data services.
`
`Therefore, the phone
`has a device for re-
`trieving a route.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Prior Art - U.S. Pat. No. 6,133,853
`“The heading and directional information are
`displayed in real time and are dynamic.”
`
`“The location inf