IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Magnus Goertz
`U.S. Patent No.:
`8,095,879 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0015IP1
`Issue Date:
`January 10, 2012
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/315,250
`
`Filing Date:
`December 10, 2002
`
`Title:
`USER INTERFACE FOR MOBILE HANDHELD COMPUTER
`UNIT
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 8,095,879 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§311–319, 37 C.F.R. §4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................. 1
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .............................. 1
`B.
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............. 1
`THE ’879 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`A. Alleged Invention .................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 5
`PRIOR ART ..................................................................................................... 6
`A. Known Electronic Devices .................................................................... 6
`B.
`References ............................................................................................. 7
`1.
`Ren .............................................................................................. 7
`2.
`Hirayama307 ............................................................................... 8
`3.
`Tanaka ......................................................................................... 9
`4.
`Allard and IBM Simon .............................................................. 10
`5.
`Henckel ..................................................................................... 12
`6.
`Hirayama878 ............................................................................. 13
`7. Motivation to Combine Ren, Tanaka, Hirayama307,
`Hirayama878, and Allard .......................................................... 14
`Jermyn ....................................................................................... 14
`8.
`IV. EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ............................................... 16
`A. Ground 1A: Claims 1, 14-17 are Obvious Over Ren and
`Tanaka ................................................................................................. 16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Ground 1B: Claims 2, 4, and 5 are Obvious Over Ren, Tanaka,
`and Hirayama307 ................................................................................ 35
`Ground 1C: Claim 3 is Obvious Over Ren, Tanaka,
`Hirayama307, and alternatively Hirayama878 ................................... 39
`D. Ground 1D: Claims 6 and 13 are Obvious Over Ren, Tanaka,
`and Allard ............................................................................................ 43
`Ground 1E: Claim 12 is Obvious Over Ren, Tanaka, and
`Henckel ................................................................................................ 47
`Ground 2A: Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are Obvious Over
`Hirayama307 and Ren ......................................................................... 49
`A. Ground 2B: Claim 3 is Obvious Over Hirayama307, Ren, and
`Hirayama878 ....................................................................................... 70
`Ground 2C: Claims 6 and 13 are Obvious Over Hirayama307,
`Ren, and Allard .................................................................................... 72
`Ground 2D: Claim 12 is Obvious Over Hirayama307 and
`Henckel ................................................................................................ 74
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1, 14, and 15 are Obvious Over Jermyn ............... 75
`INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) ............................................................................................................. 85
`VI. PTAB DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) SHOULD NOT
`PRECLUDE INSTITUTION ........................................................................ 87
`A.
`Factor 1: Institution Will Enable a Stay .............................................. 87
`B.
`Factor 2: Uncertain District Court Schedule ...................................... 88
`C.
`Factor 3: Early Stage of Parallel Proceedings .................................... 89
`D.
`Factor 4: The Petition Raises Unique Issues ...................................... 90
`E.
`Factor 5: The Petition Will Enable Cancellation of Claims That
`Might Be Reasserted ........................................................................... 91
`Factor 6: Other Considerations Support Institution ........................... 92
`
`V.
`
`F.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 92
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 92
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................... 92
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................... 92
`C.
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............... 93
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................. 93
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”)
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Xiangshi Ren & Shinji Moriya, “Improving Selection on Pen-
`Based Systems: A Study of Pen-Based Interaction for Selection
`Tasks,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
`Vol. 7, No. 3, September 2000, pp. 384-416 (“Ren”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,249,296 (“Tanaka”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,307 (“Hirayama307”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,418 (“Shields”)
`CV of Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 6,100,878 (“Hirayama878”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,384 (“Allard”)
`IBM Simon User’s Manual (1994)
`Andrew Sears, et al., “A new era for touchscreen applications:
`High precision, dragging icons, and refined feedback,”
`ADVANCES IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION, Vol. 3, R.
`Hartson, D. Hix, Ed. 1992 (“Sears”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,463,725 (“Henckel”)
`Jermyn, et al., “The Design and Analysis of Graphical
`Passwords,” Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Security
`Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, August 23-26, 1999
`(“Jermyn”)
`Benjamin B. Bederson & James D. Hollan, Pad++: A Zooming
`Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics,
`USIT ’94 Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on
`User Interface Software and Technology 17 (1994), DOI:
`http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/192426.192435
`David Rogers et al., Tossing Objects in a Desktop Environment,
`submitted to Conference on Human Factors in Computing
`Systems (1996)
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Fisheye Menus, UCIT ’00 Proceedings
`of ACM Conference on User Interface Software and Technology
`217 (2000), DOI: 10.1145/354401.317382
`Leslie E Chipman et al., SlideBar: Analysis of a Linear Input
`
`v
`
`

`

`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Device, 23 Behaviour & Info. Tech. 1 (2004), DOI:
`10.1080/01449290310001638487
`Hilary Browne et al., Designing a Collaborative Finger Painting
`Application for Children, HCIL-2000-17, CS-TR-4184,
`UMIACS-TR-2000-66 (Sept. 2000), available at
`https://hcil.umd.edu/pub-perm-link/?id=2000-17
`Pekka Parhi, Amy K. Karlson, and Benjamin B. Bederson. 2006.
`Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen
`devices. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-
`Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
`(MobileHCI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New
`York, NY, USA, 203–210.
`DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1152215.1152260
`Karlson, Amy & Bederson, Benjamin & Contreras-Vidal, José.
`(2008). Understanding One-Handed Use of Mobile Devices.
`Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation
`for Mobile Technology. 86-101. DOI:10.4018/978-1-59904-871-
`0.ch006
`Apple Newton Message Pad Handbook
`Microsoft Announces Broad Availability of Handheld PCs With
`Windows CE, Nov. 19, 1996
`Palm Pilot 1000 Retrospective, March 27, 2006
`The Microsoft Tablet PC, A detailed look at Microsoft’s
`proposed Tablet PC
`Handbook for Palm m500 Series Handhelds (2001)
`Java History, Javapapers,
`AT&T EO 440 Personal Communicator, oldcomputers.net
`HP Jornada 520 Series Pocket PC User’s Guide (2001)
`“Product of the Month, BellSouth Cellular/IBM Release Simon
`PDA,” TELECOMMUNICATIONS, January 1994
`Declaration of Mr. Jacob Munford
`Trial Delay Statistics
`Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, Neonode
`Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-00505-ADA (W.D.Tex.
`Oct. 5, 2020)
`Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, Neonode
`Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., 6:20-cv-00507-ADA (W.D.Tex. Oct.
`5, 2020)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Order Granting Motion Continue Case Management Conference
`(CMC), Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-
`00505-ADA (W.D.Tex.) (W.D.Tex. [[DATE]])
`Order Granting Motion Continue Case Management Conference
`(CMC), Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 6:20-cv-00507-
`ADA (W.D.Tex. Oct. 7, 2020)
`Order Setting Markman Hearing, Neonode Smartphone LLC v.
`Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-00505-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020)
`Order Setting Markman Hearing, Neonode Smartphone LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc., 6:20-cv-00507-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020)
`November 6, 2020 Letter from Apple Counsel to Neonode
`Counsel
`November 6, 2020 Letter from Samsung Counsel to Neonode
`Counsel
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Samsung”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-6, and 12-17 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify the ’879 patent is available for IPR. This petition is being
`
`filed within one year of service of complaints against Petitioners. Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting this review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`Petitioners request cancellation of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`below.
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis (§103)
`
`1A
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`2A
`
`1, 14-17
`
`Ren, Tanaka
`
`2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Ren, Tanaka, Hirayama307
`
`3
`
`6, 13
`
`12
`
`Ren, Tanaka, Hirayama307, Hirayama878
`
`Ren, Tanaka, Allard
`
`Ren, Tanaka, Henckel
`
`1, 2, 4, 5,
`
`Hirayama307, Ren
`
`1
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Basis (§103)
`
`14-17
`
`3
`
`6, 13
`
`12
`
`Hirayama307, Ren, Hirayama878
`
`Hirayama307, Ren, Allard
`
`Hirayama307, Henckel
`
`1, 14, 15
`
`Jermyn
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`2D
`
`3
`
`For the purpose of this Petition, Petitioners treat 12/10/2002 as the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the Challenged Claims (“the Critical Date”). The following
`
`are prior art:
`
`Reference
`
`Date(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Ren
`
`9/20001
`
`§102(b)
`
`Tanaka
`
`9/28/1993
`
`§102(b)
`
`Hirayama307
`
`8/11/1995
`
`§102(b)
`
`Jermyn
`
`8/26/19992
`
`§102(b)
`
`
`
` 1
`
` EX1031, ¶¶6-8 (authenticating public availability date).
`
`2 EX1031, ¶¶12-14 (authenticating public availability date).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Basis
`
`Date(s)
`
`Reference
`
`Allard
`
`3/25/1997
`
`§102(b)
`
`Hirayama878
`
`8/8/2000
`
`§102(b)
`
`Henckel
`
`10/31/1995
`
`§102(b)
`
`II. THE ’879 PATENT
`A. Alleged Invention
`The ’879 patent “relates to a user interface for a mobile handheld computer
`
`unit, which computer unit comprises a touch sensitive area.” EX1001, 1:6-8. The
`
`’879 patent recognized “[m]obile handheld computers are known in various
`
`embodiments,” e.g., “the personal digital assistant (PDA)” and “the mobile phone.”
`
`Id., 1:24-33. EX1002, ¶¶34-36.
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a “user interface” with “a touch sensitive area 1, which is
`
`divided into a menu area 2 and a display area 3.” EX1001, 3:51-54. Menu area 2
`
`is “adapted to present a representation of a first 21, a second 22 and a third 23
`
`predefined function.” EX1001, 4:1-3; EX1002, ¶37.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`“FIG. 2 shows that any one of these three functions 21, 22, 23 can be
`
`activated when the touch sensitive area 1 detects a movement of an object 4 with
`
`its starting point A within the representation of a function on the menu area 2 and
`
`with a direction B from the menu area 2 to the display area 3.” EX1001, 4:7-11;
`
`EX1002, ¶38.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated). The ’879 patent discloses “the object 4 can be a
`
`finger” or “a pen or other pointing device.” EX1001, 6:11-15. EX1002, ¶¶38-40.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’879 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/315,250 (“the
`
`’250 Application”). EX1003, 655. The examiner applied Carlson in several
`
`rounds of prosecution, which led to extensive amendments by Patent Owner.
`
`EX1003, 326-27, 607-15. Patent Owner added the limitation “wherein the
`
`representation consists of only one option for activating the function” to
`
`distinguish over Hirshberg. EX1003, 121-128. An Examiner’s amendment added
`
`the limitation “wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or
`
`duplicated during the gliding.” EX1003, 33-34; EX1002, ¶¶41-47.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`When determining validity, “claim terms need only be construed to the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`
`642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Petitioners reserve the right to respond to
`
`constructions offered by Patent Owner or adopted by the Board. Petitioners are not
`
`waiving arguments under 35 U.S.C. §112 or arguments regarding claim scope
`
`possibly raised in litigation. Petitioners acknowledge that the present analysis is
`
`performed under the Phillips standard. EX1002, ¶51.
`
`III. PRIOR ART
`A. Known Electronic Devices
`Touch-sensitive mobile devices that presented graphical user interfaces with
`
`icons representing functions were well-known by the Critical Date. Examples are
`
`shown below. EX1002, ¶52.
`
`EX1022-29; EX1002, ¶52.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date (“POSA”)3 also
`
`knew well-established design considerations for touch screen user interfaces,
`
`including target size, on-screen placement of targets, and target selection strategies.
`
`EX1012 (“Sears”)4, 8, 14; EX1002, ¶¶53-55.
`
`B. References
`1.
`Ren
`Ren describes “selection strategies suitable for selecting small targets”
`
`relating to “touch-sensitive type tablets (touch-screens) which are used in general-
`
`purpose pen-based systems.” EX1004, 386; EX1002, ¶¶56-59.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` EX1002, ¶¶25, 48-50 (defining a POSA) .
`
`4 EX1031, ¶¶9-11 (authenticating public availability date).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EX1004, FIG. 3 (excerpt; annotated).
`
`
`
`2. Hirayama307
`Hirayama307 discloses a “portable computer of a very small type.”
`
`EX1006, 2:64-65; EX1002, ¶¶60-64. FIG. 1 shows “display portion 1,” and “[a]n
`
`input apparatus, i.e. an input tablet 2 formed of a so-called transparent touch sensor
`
`or the like, is mounted on the surface of the display portion 1.” EX1006, 2:67-3:6.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 1 (annotated). “A pen 3 is adapted to input desired data or the like
`
`in cooperation with the input tablet 2.” EX1006, 7-8. EX1002, ¶61-64.
`
`3.
`Tanaka
`Tanaka discloses a “window controlling apparatus allows the user to pick
`
`one of the icons displayed on the screen,” such that “[w]hen a given icon is
`
`selected, the window corresponding thereto appears on the screen.” EX1005, 1:25-
`
`28. EX1002, ¶¶65-68. Tanaka describes Hirayama307’s system as an example of
`
`“prior art apparatuses that rely on one of…two methods” for icon selection.
`
`EX1005, 1:48-50, 1:60-67, 2:3-5. EX1002, ¶¶67-68.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EX1005, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`4.
`Allard and IBM Simon
`The IBM Simon, a touch-screen mobile phone available by 1995, provided a
`
`GUI that received touch input through a stylus or a user’s finger to select on-screen
`
`targets. EX1011, 9. EX1002, ¶¶69-70.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`
`EX1011, 10, 11. The IBM Simon includes “two main screens,” “the Phone screen
`
`and the Mobile Office screen,” which can be accessed “at any time by touching
`
`their picture (icon) on the bottom of the display area.” EX1011, 11. EX1002, ¶69.
`
`Allard discloses “[a] small touchscreen display is located between [a]
`
`speaker and [a] microphone;” the “touch sensitive display provides a graphic user
`
`interface and is used as an input/output device for a variety of functions or
`
`applications.” EX1010, 1:57-64; EX1002, ¶70.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`EX1010, FIGS. 1, 4 (excerpt); see EX1010, 6:8-14.
`
`
`
`5. Henckel
`Henckel discloses “[a]n interface for making information available to a user
`
`provides a display similar to a printed book or magazine,” wherein, “the user
`
`touches the screen with his hand or a pointing device, and moves it across the
`
`screen” to “turn the page” of the book. EX1013, Abstract. EX1002, ¶¶71-72.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EX1013, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`6. Hirayama878
`Hirayama878 has the same inventor and assignee as Hirayama307, and
`
`presents a similar user interface. Compare EX1006, FIGS. 3A-B, EX1009,
`
`FIGS. 5A, 5D. EX1002, ¶73.
`
`EX1009, FIG. 5A (annotated).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`7. Motivation to Combine Ren, Tanaka, Hirayama307,
`Hirayama878, and Allard
`It would have been obvious to combine Ren, Hirayama307, Tanaka, Allard,
`
`and Hirayama878. This knowledge is reflected, for example, in Sears, and the
`
`IBM Simon and Palm devices. All references are directed to solutions to the same
`
`problem—target selection techniques in touch user interface systems. These
`
`references also reflect well-known selection techniques and features of user
`
`interfaces so a POSA would have been motivated to combine them. EX1002,
`
`¶¶74, 115-16.
`
`8.
`Jermyn
`Jermyn describes using “graphical passwords” for user authentication.
`
`EX1014, Abstract; EX1002, ¶¶75-80. A graphical password is a pattern drawn on
`
`a “graphical input interface” as an alternative to typing a textual password using a
`
`keyboard. Id., §1. A graphical password “serves the same purpose as a textual
`
`password” in that the outcome of comparing an input pattern and a valid pattern is
`
`used for user authentication. Id.; EX1002, ¶75.
`
`Jermyn describes a “draw a secret” (DAS) input scheme for inputting a
`
`graphical password. EX1014, §2. Using this scheme, a “picture [is] drawn on a
`
`grid” and does not involve use of an alphabet or an alphanumeric string. Id.;
`
`EX1002, ¶76.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`EX1014, FIG. 2. A graphical password is drawn on a rectangular grid with sixteen
`
`individual grid squares/cells (i.e., a 4x4 rectangular grid). EX1014, §3. Each grid
`
`square/cell is assigned a coordinate ((2,2), (3,2)) identifying its positioning within
`
`the rectangular grid. Id. A user uses a stylus to draw the pattern and once
`
`complete, the drawing is “mapped to a sequence of coordinate pairs by listing the
`
`cells through which the drawing passes in the order in which it passes through
`
`them…” Id., §3.1. The coordinate sequence below is generated for the drawing
`
`pattern shown in Figure 2.
`
`
`
` The first cell touched by the stylus has the coordinate “(2, 2),” and the last cell that
`
`is touched is assigned the coordinate pair “(5, 5).” The last cell is determined
`
`based on detecting a “‘pen up’ event,” which is “whenever the user lifts the stylus
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`from the drawing surface.” Id.; EX1002, ¶77.
`
`The term “stroke” is used to refer to a sequence of movements separated by
`
`“pen up” events. Id. A stroke identifies coordinates touched between “pen up”
`
`events (i.e., while a stylus touches the screen surface) so that “[t]he length of a
`
`stroke is the number of coordinate pairs it contains, while the total length of a
`
`password is the sum of the lengths of its component strokes (excluding the ‘pen
`
`up’ characters).” Id. Jermyn teaches that the stroke and the coordinate sequence
`
`identified within it define a graphical password. Id.; EX1002, ¶¶78-80.
`
`IV. EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1A: Claims 1, 14-17 are Obvious Over Ren and Tanaka
`Claim 1 - [1pre] “A non-transitory computer readable medium
`storing a computer program with computer program code, which,
`when read by a mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer
`to present a user interface for the mobile handheld computer unit,
`the user interface comprising”
`Ren discloses the preamble to the extent it is limiting. Ren discloses “[p]en-
`
`based systems (incorporating a small touch-sensitive screen),” and “mobile
`
`products, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), personal information
`
`managers (PIMs), and other mobile pen-based applications.” EX1004, 385. The
`
`Ren “article looks at selection strategies” relating to “touch-sensitive type tablets
`
`(touch-screens) which are used in general-purpose pen-based systems.” EX1004,
`
`386. Ren’s selection strategies (“user interface”) used a “Wacom tablet-cum-
`
`display with a stylus” (“mobile handheld computer unit presenting a user
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`interface”). EX1004, 393; EX1002, ¶¶82.
`
`A POSA would have recognized Ren’s tablet and interface includes a non-
`
`transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program with computer
`
`program code, which, when read by the tablet (“mobile handheld computer unit”),
`
`allows presentation of targets for selection (“user interface”). EX1002, ¶82.
`
`Alternatively, it would have been obvious, based on POSA knowledge, to
`
`incorporate one or more of Ren’s selection strategies into pen-based user interfaces
`
`for conventional mobile devices, as discussed in Section III.A. Devices that
`
`present a GUI interface like Ren’s selection targets were known to include the
`
`“non-transitory computer readable medium” as basic device components.
`
`EX1002, ¶83.
`
`Tanaka also discloses the preamble through a “window controlling
`
`apparatus” with well-known pen input, including “organizers.” EX1005 3:47-48,
`
`1:22-28, 1:60-65. Tanaka discloses an “interface 2 has a tablet 8, a display unit 9;”
`
`the “interface 2 is also connected via a bus line with the CPU 4, a ROM 5, a RAM
`
`6 and a backup memory 7.” EX1005 3:60-63. EX1002, ¶84.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`EX1005, FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`Tanaka discloses “icons…displayed on the display unit 9 are used as input
`
`buttons of the tablet 8” (“presenting a user interface for the mobile handheld
`
`computer unit”). EX1005, 3:64-4:3. A POSA would have recognized a computer
`
`program with computer program code, which, when read by a mobile handheld
`
`computer unit, allows the notebook device (“computer”) to present the user
`
`interface for the notebook device (“mobile handheld computer unit”) is stored in
`
`Tanaka’s memory. EX1002, ¶¶85-86.
`
`Motivation to Combine Ren and Tanaka
`It would have been obvious to implement Ren’s selection targets on
`
`Tanaka’s device that includes memory (“non-transitory computer readable
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`medium”) storing a computer program with computer program code, which, when
`
`read by the device, allows the device to present a user interface with the disclosed
`
`selection targets. Ren and Tanaka both are directed to solutions to the same
`
`problem—target selection techniques in pen-based tablet systems. A POSA would
`
`have recognized Ren as disclosing a handful of selection techniques that would
`
`have been obvious to try and implement with pen-based GUI interaction systems,
`
`such as those in Tanaka. Tanaka discloses an example GUI environment on “an
`
`electronic ‘organizer’ notebook device” (“mobile handheld computer unit”) that
`
`includes memory for storing the computer program that allows the device to
`
`present the windows-displaying user interface. A POSA would have been
`
`motivated to try and implement Ren’s selection techniques on such a device, and
`
`which a POSA could have done with predictable results, particularly given
`
`disclosure in Tanaka that prior art apparatuses had done so already. EX1002, ¶87.
`
`[1a] “a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function
`is provided”
`Ren discloses “accessing information by the selection of a target” in “small
`
`pen-based systems.” EX1004, 385, 405. Ren describes “selection strategies
`
`suitable for selecting small targets” in the context of “touch-sensitive type tablets
`
`(touch-screens) which are used in general-purpose pen-based systems.” EX1004,
`
`386. EX1002, ¶88.
`
`Ren illustrates “six-strategies for selecting a target.” EX1004, 386, 389;
`
`19
`
`

`

`EX1002, ¶89.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`EX1004, FIG. 1 (left), FIG. 3 (right) (annotated), FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`Ren discloses “[c]ommon targets are menus, data (one character of the text
`
`or graphic segment, etc.), ranges etc., and the selection of keys on a software
`
`keyboard displayed on a screen.” EX1004, 385. These targets are examples of a
`
`“representation of a function.” Given Ren’s disclosure that common targets are
`
`menus, data, etc., the point of the experiment is that the studied interaction
`
`techniques would apply equally to those other kinds of targets. That is, a POSA
`
`would understand Ren’s “targets” include graphical representations in a GUI that
`
`represent or correspond to a function. EX1002, ¶90.
`
`A POSA also would have been knowledgeable about the well-known pen-
`
`based mobile device user interfaces that use icons as representations of functions.
`
`Section III.A; EX1011, 10-11. For these touch screens a person could use either
`
`their finger or a pen to touch a visual element directly on the screen. EX1002,
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`¶¶91-93.
`
`Alternatively, Tanaka discloses a “window controlling apparatus allows the
`
`user to pick one of the icons displayed on the screen,” such that “[w]hen a given
`
`icon is “selected,” the window corresponding thereto appears on the screen.”
`
`EX1005, 1:25-28 (emphasis added). Tanaka discloses “the user puts a pointing
`
`pen,…down to one of the icons (1A, 1B, etc.)…and drags the pen to a suitable
`
`position thereon. This causes a window W corresponding to the selected icon to
`
`appear in the position from which the pen is lifted up.” EX1005, 2:3-10.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 1 (annotated). A POSA would have recognized the selection
`
`strategies disclosed in Ren refer to selection or activation of functions
`
`corresponding to targets, as disclosed in Tanaka. EX1002, ¶94. It would have
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`been obvious to combine Ren with Tanaka for the reasons expressed with regard to
`
`[1.pre].
`
`[1b] “wherein the representation consists of only one option for
`activating the function”
`Ren discloses “six strategies for selecting a target.” EX1004, 389, FIG. 3.
`
`A POSA would recognize the reference to “selecting” to disclose “activating the
`
`function” that corresponds to the target, such as a menu. EX1004, 385
`
`(“[c]ommon targets are menus”). EX1002, ¶¶95-97.
`
`
`EX1004, FIG. 3 excerpt (annotated) (showing “representation of each route”), 390.
`
`In Ren’s Direct Off strategy, “selection is made at the moment the pen is
`
`taken off the target,” and the route a→c→a reflects a typical “tap” selection
`
`technique for activating a target’s corresponding function. EX1004, 390.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`EX1004, FIG. 3 excerpt (annotated). Ren describes the Direct Off strategy as “the
`
`same as the familiar mouse technique.” EX1004, 403. EX1002, ¶98.
`
`In the Slide Off strategy, which “is an extension of the Direct Off strategy,”
`
`“the selection is made when the pen is removed from any point on the screen either
`
`inside or outside the target area.” EX1004, 391. One route for the Slide Off
`
`strategy is a→c→b→a in which the pen touches down within the yellow target,
`
`slides outside the target, and the selection is made (red) when the pen is removed
`
`from the screen outside the target area.
`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 3 (annotated). A POSA would recognize this as yet another
`
`selection technique for activating a target’s corresponding. EX1002, ¶99.
`
`Tanaka discloses “the representation consists of only one option for
`
`activating the function.” It would have been obvious to implement Ren’s
`
`23
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`selection techniques in the user interface of the portable device disclosed in
`
`Tanaka. Tanaka discloses, similar to Ren’s Direct Off and Slide Off strategies, that
`
`“[t]raditionally, there are two ways to select an icon by use of a pointing device,
`
`illustratively a pen.” EX1005, 1:36-37. Tanaka discloses “[o]ne way is to ‘check’
`
`one of the displayed icons using the pointing pen,” in which “[t]he checking action
`
`involves placing the pointing pen down to the icon position and then lifting up the
`
`pen therefrom” (EX1005, 1:37-41), which a POSA would have recognized as
`
`Ren’s Direct Off technique. Tanaka discloses the second traditional “way to select
`
`the icon is to ‘drag’ it,” in which “the pointing pen is placed on the desired icon
`
`position and is moved as held down up to a new position where a new window is to
`
`be opened.” EX1005, 1:43-47 (“drag” here refers to the action of the pen; the icon
`
`itself is not dragged). A POSA would have recognized this is similar to Ren’s
`
`Slide Off strategy with route a→c→b→a. EX1002, ¶100.
`
`Tanaka further teaches “[c]onventional information processing apparatuses
`
`for controlling window positions adopt exclusively one of the two icon-selecting
`
`methods, ‘check’ or ‘drag.’” EX1005, 1:48-59. Tanaka describes the system
`
`disclosed in Hirayama307 as an example of one of the “prior art apparatuses that
`
`rely on one of the two methods.” EX1005, 1:60-67. In “such information
`
`processing systems,…the user puts a pointing pen,…down to one of the icons (1A,
`
`1B, etc.) on the screen and drags the pen to a suitable position thereon. This causes
`
`24
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0015IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No.