Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc., and Apple Inc. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC
`
`IPR2021-00144
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`Petitioners' Demonstrative Slides
`
`Before Hon. Kara L. Szpondowski, Christopher L. Ogden, and Scott B. Howard
`
`September 6, 2022
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EXHIBIT 1074
`Samsung et al. v. Neonode
`IPR2021-00144
`
`1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`• Introduction
`
`• ’879 Patent Overview
`
`• Claim Construction
`
`• Ground 2 (Hirayama-307, Ren)
`
`Slides 3-6
`
`Slides 7-11
`
`Slides 12-22
`
`Slides 23-45
`
`• Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness
`
`Slides 46-54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`’879 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1.pre
`
`1.a
`1.b
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`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:
`a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is provided,
`wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function and
`wherein the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising
`(i) an object touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation is
`provided and then
`(ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location,
`wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`Petition, 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`’879 Patent, Dependent Claims 2-6, 12-17
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the function, when activated, causes the user interface to display icons
`representing different services or settings for a currently active application.
`The computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that a selection of a preferred service or
`setting is done by tapping on a display icon corresponding to the preferred service or setting.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the function, when activated, causes the user interface to display a keyboard
`and a text field.
`The computer readable medium of claim 4, wherein said text field is used for inputting and editing of text through said keyboard.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the function, when activated, causes the user interface to display a list with a
`library of available applications and files on the mobile handheld computer unit.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that an active application, function,
`service or setting is advanced one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from left to right, and that the active
`application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from
`right to left.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that said representation of said function
`is located at the bottom of said touch sensitive area.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the touch sensitive area is 2-3 inches in diagonal dimension.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, characterised in, that said computer program code is adapted to function as a shell
`upon an operating system.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the representation is finger-sized.
`The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the location where the representation is provided does not provide touch
`functionality for a different function.
`
`Petition, 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`’879 Patent Prior Art
`
`Hirayama-307
`U.S. 5,406,307
`
`Ren
`“Improving Selection on Pen-Based
`Systems,” ACM Transactions on
`Computer-Human Interaction
`
`Hirayama-878
`U.S. 6,100,878
`
`Allard
`U.S. 5,615,384
`
`EX1006.
`
`EX1004.
`
`EX1009.
`
`Petition, 1-3, 7-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1010.
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Grounds
`
`Ground
`2A
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 4, 5, 14-17
`
`Basis
`§103
`
`Prior Art
`Hirayama-307, Ren
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`2D
`
`3
`
`6, 13
`
`12
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Hirayama-307, Ren, Hirayama-878
`
`Hirayama-307, Ren, Allard
`
`Hirayama-307, Henckel
`
`The parties stipulated to withdrawal of Grounds 1 and 3.
`Paper 50.
`
`Petition, 1-2, 49-74.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`’879 Patent Overview
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`’879 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1.pre
`
`1.a
`1.b
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`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:
`a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is provided,
`wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function and
`wherein the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising
`(i) an object touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation is
`provided and then
`(ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location,
`wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`Petition, 29-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`’879 Patent
`
`EX1001, 3:50-58.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (emphasis and annotations
`added).
`
`EX1001, 4:1-6.
`
`Petition, 3-4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`’879 Patent
`
`EX1001, 4:7-11.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2
`(emphasis added).
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (rotated
`and labels removed,
`emphasis added).
`
`Petition, 4-5; Reply 19-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`’879 Patent
`
`EX1001, 4:4-6.
`
`Petition, 3-4; Reply 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 3, 5, 6.
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`’879 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1.pre
`
`1.a
`1.b
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`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:
`a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is provided,
`wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function and
`wherein the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising
`(i) an object touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation is
`provided and then
`(ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched
`location,
`wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`Petition, 58-60.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Claim Term
`“gliding … away from the touched location”
`(claim 1)
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`Does not include “drag and drop”
`
`PO’s Response, 19-25.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“gliding”
`(claim 1)
`
`?
`
`PO’s Sur-reply, 7-9, 12-14.
`
`Reply, 1-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Proposed “Construction”
`Claim Term
`Patent Owner’s Proposed “Construction”
`“gliding … away from the touched location”
`Does not include “drag and drop”
`(claim 1)
`
`PO’s Response, 19-25.
`
`Reply, 2, 4.
`
`Rosenberg Decl. (EX2001), ¶ 67;
`Rosenberg Dep. Trans. (EX1053), 25:5-26:23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`Claim’s Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location,
`wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`’879 Patent (EX1001), Claim 1.
`
`Reply, 2-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Bederson S. Decl. (EX1051), ¶ 23.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Proper Claim Construction Standard
`
`The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc).
`
`There are only two exceptions to this general rule:
`1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or
`2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F. 3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`• Neonode does not allege the ordinary meaning of “gliding … away from the touched location”
`excludes any definition of “drag-and-drop”
`• Neonode does not allege that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer
`• Neither “gliding” nor “gliding away” is in the specification
`• Neonode alleges the patentee disavowed the full scope of “gliding … away” during prosecution
`• The alleged disavowal is not clear and unmistakable
`• The alleged disavowal does not disclaim Hirayama-307’s disclosure
`
`Reply, 1-3, 5-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Neonode Misrepresents Prosecution History
`
`Reply, 5-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`EX1003, 169-170.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Neonode Misrepresents Prosecution History
`
`Reply, 7 (citing EX1003, 170)
`
`Reply, 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`Neonode Misrepresents Prosecution History
`
`
`
`Reply, 8-9.Reply, 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`EX1003, 171.
`
`20
`
`

`

`PO’s New “Gliding” Argument
`Claim Term
`
`“gliding”
`
`?
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`PO argues: Hirayama’s “dragging” does not disclose “gliding”
`PO Sur-reply, 7-9, 12-15.
`• The Board should reject PO’s claim construction argument as untimely and unsupported by evidence
`• Petitioners need not show Hirayama uses the same language as the claim
`• PO fails to articulate a plain meaning for an “object gliding along [a] touch sensitive area”
`• The relevant context is the movement
`of an object (pen/finger) along the
`surface of a touch sensitive area
`’879 Patent (EX1001), 6:56-57, 4:9-11;
`Reply, 1-2, 19-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Sur-reply, 8.
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`PO’s New “Gliding” Argument
`PO argues: Hirayama’s “dragging” does not disclose “gliding”
`• PO’s expert admitted that a glide and a drag “may have overlapping movements”
`Rosenberg 2nd Dec. (EX2007), ¶ 65; Rosenberg Dep.
`Trans. (EX1053), 25:5-26:23.
`• PO argues: The applicant allegedly “emphasized that the claimed ‘gliding … away’ is not just any
`movement but a ‘gliding’ or swiping’ gesture”
`
`PO Sur-reply, 7-9, 12-15.
`
`PO Sur-reply, 14 (citing ’879 File History (EX1003), 357, 269).
`• PO argues: Petitioner did not substantiate its position that dragging discloses gliding because “Dr.
`Bederson, did not perform any ‘analysis of any potential distinction between the term gliding a pen
`and moving a pen’”
`PO Sur-reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`Ground 2
`Claims 1-6, 12-17 are At Least Obvious
`in view of Hirayama-307 (Ex. 1006) and Ren (Ex. 1004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`

`

`Hirayama-307 – PO argues Two Differences from Claim 1
`1) Whether Hirayama-307 discloses or renders obvious a
`touched icon is “not relocated or duplicated during the gliding”
`2) Whether Hirayama-307 discloses or renders obvious “gliding
`… away from the touched location”
`• Hirayama discloses, or at least renders obvious, the dialer icon 41 is not relocated,
`duplicated, or otherwise dragged during the gliding of the pen
`• Hirayama discloses, or at least renders obvious, “gliding … away from the touched
`location”
`(cid:190) The Board correctly rejected PO’s “not relocated or duplicated” argument: “we find
`that Petitioner shows sufficiently at this stage of the proceeding that Hirayama-307
`alone discloses the limitation at issue.”
`Paper 26, 7 n. 10.
`
`Petition, 58-62; Reply, 9-15, 17-26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`Hirayama-307 (Exhibit 1006)
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), 2:67-3:8.
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 1.
`
`Petition, 8-9, 49-50.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`

`

`Hirayama – Figure 3A
`
`Petition, 51-52.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 3A
`(emphasized).
`
`26
`
`

`

`Hirayama – Activating and Deactivating a Function
`
`Activate:
`FIG. 3A
`
`Hirayama-307
`(EX1006), 1:52-59.
`
`Deactivate:
`FIG. 3B
`
`Petition, 51-54, 60-61.
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 3A (emphasized).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 3B (emphasized).
`
`27
`
`27
`
`

`

`Hirayama – Activating and Deactivating a Function
`Activate:
`Deactivate:
`FIG. 4A
`FIG. 4B
`
`Petition, 55-58; Request for Rehearing, 9, 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 4A.
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 4B.
`
`28
`
`

`

`Hirayama: Activating a Function
`
`icon 41 = “representation of a function”
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006) at 4:57-5:12.
`
`Petition, 51-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), FIG. 3A
`(emphasized) (arrow in original).
`
`29
`
`29
`
`

`

`(cid:43)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:40)(cid:81)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:143)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:180)
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006) at 4:57-5:12.
`
`Petition, 60-62; Request for Rehearing, 6-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307
`(EX1006), FIG. 3A
`(emphasized).
`
`Hirayama-307
`(EX1006), FIG. 3B
`(emphasized).
`
`30
`
`30
`
`

`

`Hirayama’s “Enlarged Icon,” “Processing Display Mode,” is Window 43
`
`“In step S6, the processing display form of the icon 41 designated is enlarged as a window 43
`shown in FIG. 3B.” Hirayama-307 (EX1006), 5:64-66; Paper 26, 7.
`
`“In step S8, when the user wants to move the window 43 shown, for example, in FIG. 3B to the
`central position of the display portion 1 as shown by an arrow B in FIG. 3B, the user moves the
`point of the pen 3 in the arrow B direction and drags the pen 3 to the position shown by the
`broken line, then the large display icon, i.e. the window 43 is moved to the position shown by
`the broken line in FIG. 3B.” Hirayama-307 (EX1006), 6:7-14; Paper 26, 7.
`
`“It is determined in decision step ST2 whether or not the point of the pen 3 touches the large
`icon, i.e. the upper edge portion 44 of, for example, the window 43 shown in FIG. 3B … .”
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), 6:44-47.
`
`Petition, 51, 56; Request for Rehearing, 8, 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`

`

`Hirayama: Activating a Function
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), Fig. 3A
`(emphasized).
`
`Petition, 55-60; Reply, 10-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), Fig. 4A
`(emphasized, annotated).
`
`32
`
`32
`
`

`

`Hirayama: Activating a Function
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006) at 6:7-16.
`
`Petition, 53-56; Reply, 10-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), Fig. 4A
`(emphasized, annotated).
`
`33
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006),
`Fig’s. 3A, 3B (emphasized).
`
`33
`
`

`

`Hirayama’s FIG. 4A Flowchart Would Practice Claim 1
`Dr. Bederson:
`
`Reply, 12-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Bederson S. Dec. (EX1051), ¶ 65.
`
`34
`
`

`

`Hirayama Discloses Claim 1
`
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`wherein the function is activated by a
`multi-step operation comprising
`(i) an object touching the touch sensitive
`area at a location where the
`representation is provided and then
`(ii) the object gliding along the touch
`sensitive area away from the touched
`location,
`wherein the representation of the function
`is not relocated or duplicated during
`the gliding.
`
`Petition, 55-62; Reply, 10-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), Fig. 4A
`(emphasized, annotated).
`
`35
`
`35
`
`

`

`’879 Patent
`
`Hirayama-307
`
`’879 Patent (EX1001),
`FIG. 2 (emphasis added).
`
`’879 Patent (EX1001),
`FIG. 1 (emphasis
`added)(annotated).
`
`Menu area
`
`Display area
`
`Display area
`
`Menu area
`
`Petition, 4-5, 52; Reply 19-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006),
`FIG. 3A (emphasis
`added)(annotated).
`
`36
`
`36
`
`

`

`’879 Patent
`
`Hirayama-307
`
`’879 Patent (EX1001), 4:7-11.
`
`Menu area
`
`Display area
`
`’879 Patent (EX1001),
`FIG. 1 (emphasis
`added)(annotated).
`
`Petition, 4-5, 52; Reply 19-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Display area
`
`Hirayama-307
`(EX1006) at
`5:3-12.
`Menu area
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006),
`FIG. 3A (emphasis
`added)(annotated).
`
`37
`
`37
`
`

`

`Hirayama’s Disclosure as a Whole Renders Claim 1 Obvious
`PO Argues:
`
`PO Resp., 36-40.
`
`• “Icon display coordinate position” is never mentioned again in Hirayama.
`
`Reply, 18.
`
`• It would have at least been obvious to implement the flowchart of FIG. 4A as written, which
`would not drag the touched icon.
`Bederson Supp. Dec. (EX1051), ¶¶ 65,
`80-82; Reply, 12-13, 18.
`• Implementation of Hirayama’s FIGs. 3A-3B that consistently show the dialer icon 41 in its
`original location in the hatched menu area (1) during gliding of the pen, (2) when the
`window 43 is displayed, and (3) when the user moves the pen from the window to the
`menu area to deactivate the dialer function, would not drag the icon 41.
`Petition, 61-62; EX1051, ¶ 63; Reply,
`10, 12.
`
`• Hirayama’s claims do not mention the “icon display coordinate position” or moving the icon
`– breadth of the claims reflects the breadth of the disclosure
`Bederson Supp. Dec. (EX1051), ¶ 81; Hirayama-
`307 (EX1006), 7:44-56; Reply, 18.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`38
`
`

`

`Hirayama’s Cursor Provides Feedback, Not the Icon
`PO Argues:
`
`PO Resp., 49.
`
`• PO relies on the unsupported speculation of its expert, which should be rejected
`PO Resp., 49-50 (quoting Rosenberg
`Dec. (EX2007), ¶¶ 86-88.
`• Petitioners’ expert (Dr. Bederson) explained that the cursor feedback during the gliding
`would be sufficient.
`Petition, 60-62; Bederson Dec. (EX1002),
`¶¶ 157-159; Reply 16-17, 21.
`• Dr. Bederson’s opinion, unlike Dr. Rosenberg’s, is supported by additional evidence:
`(cid:190) Sears (EX1012) corroborates the use of a cursor as feedback during touch-interface
`gliding gestures, teaches additional feedback that does not drag the icon
`Bederson Supp. Dec. (EX1051),
`¶ 100-104, (quoting Sears
`(EX1012), 19); Reply, 22-23.
`
`(cid:190) Neonode has no response to the Sears evidence
`
`• PO’s argument that Hirayama’s cursor is allegedly insufficient also relies on its faulty
`“drag-and-drop” argument – Hirayama does not move or “drop” the icon
`Sur-reply, 25-26; Reply, 18-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`39
`
`

`

`Dragging the Icon Was Not Standard or Necessary
`PO Argues:
`
`PO Resp., 47-50
`(quoting Rosenberg
`Dec. (EX2007), ¶ 85).
`• PO’s expert relies solely on a non-contemporaneous desktop example (MacOS 2021)
`EX2007, ¶¶ 84-85, 87.
`• Petitioners’ expert (Dr. Bederson), relying on contemporaneous evidence, explained why PO’s
`expert is wrong:
`
`(cid:190) Visually dragging the icon on a tablet would have been computationally expensive, resulting
`EX1051, ¶ 107 (discussing supporting disclosures from EX1009,
`in flickering and a poor user experience
`EX1005, EX1060, EX1063); Reply, 25.
`
`(cid:190) Visually dragging the icon was unnecessary
`because the cursor provides feedback
`EX1051, ¶ 96, 106; EX1006, 4:66-5:3; Reply, 21, 23-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Bederson Supp. Dec.
`(EX1051), ¶ 105;
`Reply, 23-24.
`40
`
`40
`
`

`

`PO’s Alleged “Schematics” of Hirayama are Wrong
`
`• PO relies on the embodiment where
`window 43 is displayed when the pen
`leaves the hatched region
`• PO’s expert agreed that window 43 is not a
`duplication of icon 41
`Rosenberg Dep. Tr. (EX1053),
`94:10-95:12.
`• No reason to drag the icon in the hatched
`region—would be confusing and
`undesirable for icons in the middle to be
`dragged left or right over other icons
`• Along vertical path from icon 41, no reason
`to drag the icon down the few millimeters
`between where pen touches and pen
`leaves hatched area
`• Ignores the cursor—cursor 42 already
`provides feedback, no need to drag icon
`• Nothing in column 5 supports dragging
`icon 41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Resp., 38-39.
`
`41
`
`Reply, 21 (citing Bederson S. Dec. (EX1051), ¶ 96).
`
`41
`
`

`

`Hirayama Discloses Dragging Back To Still-Displayed Icon 41
`PO argues: Hirayama’s reference to a “vacant icon position” means the icon
`must have been relocated or moved with the pen
`PO Resp., 41-42, 46, 63; PO Sur-reply, 24.
`• Is contrary to Hirayama’s express disclosure about dragging back to the icon 41:
`
`(cid:190) This means the icon 41 was not
`relocated or moved with the pen
`
`Reply, 21-22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hirayama-307 (EX1006), 6:22-35.
`
`42
`
`42
`
`

`

`A POSA Given Hirayama’s Disclosure Would Have Looked to Ren
`
`Hirayama-307
`
`Ren’s “Slide Off”
`
`Hirayama-307 (Exhibit 1006), Fig. 3A
`(emphasis added).
`
`Ren (Exhibit 1004), Fig. 3 (emphasis
`added).
`
`Petition, 61-62; Reply, 26-28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`43
`
`

`

`Claim 15 is Obvious in View of Hirayama
`PO Argues:
`
`Dr. Bederson:
`
`PO Resp., 66.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Bederson Dec. (EX1002),
`¶ 171; Petition, 67.
`
`44
`
`44
`
`

`

`Claim 15 is Obvious in View of Hirayama
`PO Argues:
`
`(cid:190) No support for PO’s argument
`
`Petition:
`
`PO Resp., 66.
`
`Petition, 67.
`(cid:190)Neonode’s N1 and N2 devices were likewise a “shell” on top of Windows CE
`N1 Review (EX2012), 4; N2 Review (EX2013), 6, 11.
`(cid:190)Neonode did not respond to this
`
`Petition, 67; Reply, 28-29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`45
`
`

`

`Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`46
`
`

`

`PO’s Evidence Does Not Meet Nexus Requirements
`
`Nexus Standard
`
`In order to accord substantial weight to secondary considerations in an obviousness analysis, "the evidence of secondary
`considerations must have a `nexus' to the claims, i.e., there must be `a legally and factually sufficient connection' between
`the evidence and the patented invention." Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). "The patentee bears
`the burden of showing that a nexus exists." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F. 3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Nexus Presumption Standard
`
`That is, presuming nexus is appropriate "when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific
`product and that product `embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.'" Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat,
`Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d
`1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Conversely, "[w]hen the thing that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the
`patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or
`process," the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392.
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F. 3d 1366, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Reply, 25-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`47
`
`

`

`Secondary Considerations
`PO’s alleged evidence of non-obviousness should be rejected:
`(1) No nexus
`•
`PO did not prove coextensiveness (cid:198) no presumption of nexus
`•
`No direct showing of nexus to the allegedly non-obvious limitations of claim 1
`(2) No industry praise or expert skepticism for the non-obvious limitations of claim 1
`•
`No link to the allegedly non-obvious limitation “the representation of the function is
`not relocated or duplicated during the gliding”
`PO conflates a “swipe interface” with the disputed limitation, fails to untangle from
`zForce and other “swipe” gestures enabled by zForce
`(3) No actual commercial success or “licensing” success attributed to non-obvious limitations
`•
`No market share evidence
`•
`No nexus between the allegedly novel features and technology agreement
`
`•
`
`Reply, 29-33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`48
`
`

`

`Secondary Considerations – No Presumption of Nexus
`
`A patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a "critical" unclaimed feature that is
`claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the product's functionality by "lead[ing]
`to a chainring that will retain a chain in even the worst conditions."
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F. 3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Reply, 29-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`49
`
`

`

`Prior Panel: Products Not Coextensive
`
`Reply, 32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`IPR2021-00145, Paper 71 (FWD), 45.
`
`50
`
`

`

`Secondary Considerations – PO Failed to Prove Nexus
`“[T]here must be a nexus to some aspect of the claim not already in the prior art”
`In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Reply, 30.
`
`• No evidence of praise directed to “not relocated or duplicated during the gliding”
`• Alleged praise was focused on unclaimed features, including zForce
`
`Reply, 31-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Pen Computing Magazine (EX2012), 2.
`
`51
`
`

`

`Prior Panel: No Nexus to Industry Praise
`
`Reply, 29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`IPR2021-00145, Paper 71 (FWD), 48.
`
`52
`
`

`

`Inventor/Witness Admissions Contradict PO’s Arguments
`
`Mr. Goertz (named inventor):
`Q. BY MR. GRAVES: At the time you
`created this document in or about May
`of 2001, were you thinking of other
`functions that a user might be able to
`execute, using the touch and glide
`operation depicted in the image?
`...
`THE WITNESS: I could say that we
`were almost inspired by the palm pilot
`that I used previously, and they had
`this type of sliding, but you did it
`through the stylus, for example, for
`making a reverse texting, so it was
`probably with inspiration from that.
`
`Goertz Tr. (EX1057), 37:2-13.
`
`Mr. Eriksson (co-developer):
`Q. Did you provide demonstrations of
`the capabilities of the prototype phone
`at CeBIT in 2002?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And did you demonstrate any touch
`and glide functionality on the display
`of the device?
`A. No.
`
`Eriksson Tr. (EX1058) at 66:10-15.
`
`Reply, 31-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`53
`
`

`

`Prior Panel: No Nexus to Alleged “Licensing Success”
`
`IPR2021-00145, Paper 71 (FWD), 50.
`
`Reply, 29, 33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`54
`
`

`

`Additional Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`55
`
`

`

`No Disavowal
`
`Reply, 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`EX1003, 326-327.
`
`56
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`57
`
`57
`
`