Paper # 67
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: 04/18/2022
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, March 17, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: 04/18/2022
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, March 17, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`WALTER KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID HOLT, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`202-783-5070
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`holt2@fr.com
`
`TIFFANY MILLER, ESQUIRE
`DLA PIPER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`Suite 2400 - 27th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105-2933
`619-699-3445
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`ROBERT ASHER, ESQUIRE
`SUNSTEIN LLP
`100 High Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`617-443-9292, ext. 224
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`PHILIP J. GRAVES, ESQUIRE
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`301 North Lake Ave
`Unit 920
`Pasadena, California 91101
`213-330-7150
`philipg@hbsslaw.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, March 17,
`2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE OGDEN: Hello. Welcome to the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board. This is the oral hearing for Case
`IPR2021-00145 between Petitioners, Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Apple, Inc. and
`Patent Owner, Neonode Smartphone LLC. And the case is
`challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,812,993.
` I'm Judge Ogden. And with me are Judges
`Ankenbrand and Szpondowski. So let's begin with Counsel
`introductions. Who is appearing today for Petitioners, and
`who will be presenting the arguments?
` MS. MILLER: Tiffany Miller on behalf of
`Petitioners. I'm also joined by Lead Counsel, Karl Renner, and David Holt.
`And also in the room is Benjamin
`Huh, who's the representative from Apple.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Miller. And
`for Patent Owner, who is appearing today?
` THE REPORTER: You are muted, Counsel.
` Counsel, you are muted. We can't hear you.
`Great.
` MR. GRAVES: Apologies. Yeah. Let's try that
`again. Philip Graves for Patent Owner. And also with us
`is Lead Counsel, Robert Asher.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. Welcome. And thank you. So
`before we begin, let me just go over a few preliminary
`matters. First of all, there will be two parts of this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`hearing.
` The first part is open to the public, and there
`is a live stream. The last ten minutes, as the parties
`have agreed, we will be closing the hearing so that the
`parties and the panel may discuss information that is under
`seal. And so, at that time, we will turn off the live
`stream, and only the Board and the parties will be able to
`hear that portion of the hearing.
` I'd also like to ask everybody to try to remember
`to mute their microphones unless they're speaking so that
`we can avoid any unnecessary background noise. And we want
`to make sure that all parties can hear and observe the
`hearing at all times. But if somebody gets disconnected or
`has connection issues, please call the Board staff so that
`we can get reconnected, and we can pause the hearing if
`there are technical difficulties like that.
` And the -- also, the panel does have copies of
`the parties' demonstrative exhibits, as well as the record.
`So it would be helpful if you could identify which slide
`number you are on in the demonstratives or if you refer to
`the record if you could just identify the paper or exhibit
`number that you're referring to and give us a moment to
`find it in the record. So that we can follow along.
` So according to the terms of the oral hearing
`order and the schedule that was subsequently agreed by the
`parties, each side will have a total of 55 minutes to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`present their arguments in the opening portion of the
`hearing. And then in the closed portion of the hearing,
`each party will have a total of 5 minutes each to discuss
`matters that may be -- that may include information under
`seal.
` So in this main part of the hearing, since
`Petitioner has the ultimate burden of persuasion,
`Petitioner will proceed first, followed by Patent Owner.
`And then if the parties reserve rebuttal time, Petitioner
`can make rebuttal arguments. And then Patent Owner will
`also have an opportunity if they want to, to make
`surrebuttal arguments. And then we will end the open part
`of the hearing and go to the closed portion of the hearing.
` And we'll be keeping track of the time on a
`stopwatch, and we'll try to give you a warning when your
`time is drawing to a close. So with that in mind, we'll
`begin with Petitioner. Ms. Miller, would you like to
`reserve any of your initial 55 minutes for rebuttal?
` MS. MILLER: Yes. We expect to do 40 minutes in
`the opening. So reserving 15 minutes.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. Great. You can begin when
`you're ready.
` MR. GRAVES: If I may, just before we begin,
`there's a brief matter that I would like to apprise the
`Board of that bears on this -- on the proceeding. We were
`-- I was informed yesterday that the Swedish Appellate
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`Court has granted our appeal of the denial of our efforts
`to obtain discovery in Sweden from the inventor, Mr.
`Goertz, his business partner, Mr. Ericsson.
` And I've been informed that we may be able to
`expect discovery to -- that discovery to actually occur
`within the next month or so, hopefully. We'll see because,
`obviously, it's taken us much longer to get here than we
`had anticipated when we commenced these efforts early last
`year.
` So since that discovery, depending on where it
`goes, may bear on certain issues in the proceeding, such as
`the conception and diligence that may bear on whether the
`Hisatomi reference is prior art with respect to the patent
`and also secondary considerations issues.
` I did want to apprise the Board of that, you
`know, prior to the arguments today, and I have also already
`apprised Petitioner's Counsel of this, as well. We
`understand, of course, that it's very late in the
`proceeding and, you know, we will -- we're reserving our
`right to seek to supplement the record with any relevant
`evidence when and if we obtain it. Thank you.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
`Please keep us apprised of any important events that occur
`in terms of discovery, and we can certainly address that at
`a later time. If you do obtain discovery that's relevant,
`we'll address that after the hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` MR. GRAVES: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OGDEN: All right. Ms. Miller, you can go
`ahead.
` MS. MILLER: Thank you.
` Good afternoon, Your Honors. This afternoon,
`we're talking about the '993 patent, which has eight
`claims. And the petition challenges all eight claims. If
`you'll turn to Slide 3 in Petitioner's demonstratives.
` The '993 patent has only a single independent
`claim. And I've highlighted in here three terms for which
`Patent Owner has proposed constructions. Now, I have some
`introductory slides, but given how straightforward the
`issues are, I'd like to dig into the Hisatomi grounds,
`which I will be addressing. And then my colleague, Mr.
`Holt, will cover the Hansen grounds.
` Let me know if you have any preliminary questions
`or would like any exhibit citations. Turning to Slide 30
`in Petitioner's demonstratives, Neonode argues the
`challenged claims are entitled to an invention date earlier
`than the publication date of the Hisatomi reference. But
`it's well-settled that to establish an earlier invention
`date, a party must show possession of every feature recited
`in the claim, and they must prove that earlier invention
`date by corroborating evidence.
` Here, Neonode has met neither of those
`requirements. Turning to Slide 31. There's insufficient
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`evidence in the record that Neonode is entitled to an
`earlier invention date. They've provided no inventor
`declaration, no contemporaneous corroborating evidence, and
`critical to Neonode's position, they failed to provide a
`limitation-by-limitation analysis.
` So Neonode has failed to offer the necessary
`evidence from an earlier invention date. We think this
`issue's pretty clear, but I'm happy to answer any questions
`at this point. Otherwise, I'll move on to the Hisatomi
`grounds.
` Turning to Slide 34, Claim 1 of the '993 Patent.
`The technology here is very simple. We have an electronic
`device with a touchscreen interface that transitions
`between a tap-absent state and a tap-present state in
`response to a tough and glide gesture.
` There's no dispute that Hisatomi discloses the
`tap-absent state. The dispute is focused on the tap-
`present state, which is at Limitation 1.b on the slide.
`So the dispute is whether the icon shown in Hisatomi's
`second state after the touch and glide gesture could be
`activated in response to a tap as opposed to a touch.
` The second dispute is whether Hisatomi's icons
`are icons for system functions. So those are the only two
`differences between Hisatomi in Claim 1 argued by Neonode.
`Turning to Slide 36. Hisatomi's Figure 5 on the left.
` So you can see why there's no dispute Hisatomi
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`discloses the tap-absent state. Now, Hisatomi describes in
`paragraph 5, for example, the desirability to have a
`workspace cleared off of menus and icons. And you can see
`that in Figure 5. And we've -- Figure 5 includes trigger
`areas around the periphery of the screen, which we've
`colored in blue, green, red, and purple.
` And what happens is, is the user touches down on
`one of those trigger areas with a pen, drags the pen
`towards the center of the screen. And if the pen is
`dragged far enough, the corresponding menu of icons is
`displayed on the screen.
` Turning to Slide 38, this is another embodiment
`disclosed by Hisatomi in reference to Figure 30. Here, a
`user touches down on the left lower corner of the screen,
`designated by a lowercase a, drags their pen towards the
`center of the screen in response to which a settings menu
`of icons is displayed as shown in orange.
` So majority of Hisatomi's disclosure is focused
`on this cleared-off workspace in different ways to interact
`with the periphery of the screen to pull-out these various
`menus. Hisatomi only briefly addresses how to go about
`selecting the icons that are displayed as part of the menu.
`And they actually used the word select. Thereby leaving
`open whether the icons are selected upon the pen landing on
`the screen or the pen lifting off the screen.
` Turning to Slide 39, for Claim 1, Ground 1 relies
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`on the combination of Hansen -- or excuse me -- Hisatomi
`and Ren. There are only two disputes for the Hisatomi-Ren
`Grounds for Claim 1. One is whether it would have been
`obvious to make Hisatomi's icons tap-activatable. And the
`second is whether Hisatomi's icons are icons for system
`functions.
` So there's no dispute Hisatomi discloses all the
`other limitations of Claim 1. Now, Petitioners have
`established that making Hisatomi icons tap-activatable
`using the common and well-known tap selection technique
`disclosed by Ren would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill.
` The Petitioners have also established that
`Hisatomi discloses icons for system functions even under
`Patent Owner's construction. Turning to Slide 43. I have
`listed on this slide eight of the motivations established
`by Petitioners to make Hisatomi's icons tap-activatable.
`None of these depend on a construction of tap-activatable
`or tap. There's no dispute the common tap gesture is a tap
`within the meaning of the claim.
` There's also no dispute that Ren's ACA direct-off
`route is a tap within the scope of the claim. I'm going to
`use touch in this discussion to refer to activation when
`the pen or a finger lands on the screen. And I'm going to
`use tap to refer to activation when the pen or a finger
`lifts off the screen.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` So going through a few of these motivations,
`number one, both experts agree that tap was a commonly used
`and well-known gesture for selection of icons or buttons.
`This is also confirmed by Ren as being familiar to users.
`So this familiarity to users through common use is itself a
`motivation to use tap in a user interface like Hisatomi's.
` Number two, both experts also agree that tap was
`one of a handful of selection techniques well known to a
`person of ordinary skill for selecting icons or buttons
`like Hisatomi's. This is also confirmed by Ren. The KSR
`teaches us that if there are a handful of options, then
`those options are obvious.
` Turning to Slide 45, the Board recognized the
`strength of Petitioner's obviousness arguments in the
`institution decision. That evidence was further bolstered
`by the declaration and testimony of Patent Owner's own
`expert, Dr. Rosenberg. Also, further examination of the
`record further supported Petitioner's positions.
` And I have two examples on Slide 45. At the top,
`I have the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg. He confirmed that
`tap was a common gesture in 2002. He also testified that
`tap was extremely well known. That's at page 23 of his
`deposition.
` On the bottom I have an excerpt of the file
`history. Neonode told the Patent Office during prosecution
`of the '993 patent that tap gestures were the most
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`intuitive for selecting GUI on a touch screen. Neonode
`also told the Patent Office that it would be
`counterintuitive to not use tap to active a GUI button. So
`it's disingenuous --
` JUDGE OGDEN: Ms. --
` MS. MILLER: Yeah.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Ms. Miller, in this quote from the
`pile -- from the file history, it's not clear to me whether
`the Applicant is making a distinction between tap gestures
`and touch gestures. It seems possible that maybe the
`Applicant was just referring to the word tap to include
`both what you refer to as touch and what you refer to as
`tap.
` Is there anything in this quotation that makes
`that distinction more clear or lets us know whether that
`distinction was made?
` MS. MILLER: Not in this quote because I believe
`they were distinguishing the touch and glide gesture that's
`also recited in the claim. So they were saying -- I think
`-- I believe they were saying that the prior art -- it
`would not have been obvious to use touch and glide because
`the tap gesture was the most common.
` So I don't think there's any specific
`distinction, but I think there's no reason to believe that
`Neonode was using the word tap here inconsistent with how
`they're using it in the rest of the record.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. MILLER: So to continue with Neonode's
`statements to the Patent Office, it's disingenuous for
`Neonode to now tell the Board that it would not be obvious
`to make Hisatomi's icons activatable in response to this
`same intuitive tap gesture.
` Turning to Slide 48, Dr. Rosenberg, Patent
`Owner's expert, also agreed that tap was amongst the
`handful of well-known selection techniques for GUI
`elements. He testified during his deposition, as shown on
`the right of the slide, that touch, tap, and drag were the
`default gestures known to UI designers. KSR confirms this
`makes those options obvious.
` Going to Slide 58. So the record is robust with
`evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have found
`it obvious to make Hisatomi's icons tap-activatable. This
`includes the agreement upon the experts that tap was one of
`the handful of commonly used gestures for selection of
`icons.
` Patent Owner asked the Board to find that Ren
`teaches away from tap so strongly that a person of ordinary
`skill would disregard all of those motivations they would
`have known to use tap. This is just not supported by the
`record. Ren examined error rates and selection times for a
`small sets of selection techniques, including the commonly
`used touch and tap gestures, again, confirming the handful
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`of selection gestures known in the art.
` There's no dispute that Ren's ACA route for
`direct-off is a tap within the scope of the claim.
`Ultimately, Patent Owner's teaching away argument turns on
`their argument that Ren teaches touch with superior to tap.
`But this contradicts the statement of their own expert in
`his declaration that Ren explicitly states no preference.
` Neonode's surreply wholly ignores this admission
`by their own expert. Now, I have two slides here, 58 and
`59, that address why Ren does not teach away from tap. But
`ultimately, the disclosures in Ren do not rise to the level
`of a teaching away from the use of tap because Ren does not
`criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of tap.
` We're happy to leave it here on the papers on
`this issue if there are no questions and turn to the
`construction of tap-activatable.
` Going to Slide 16, ultimately, the Board does not
`need to construe the term tap-activatable for this
`proceeding. We believe all three references, Hisatomi,
`Ren, and Hansen, disclose both the Board's and Neonode's
`construction. Also, Neonode does not dispute that Ren, for
`Ground 1, and Hansen, for Ground 2, disclosed tap-
`activatable icons.
` Now, turning to Neonode's proposed construction,
`they proposed in their preliminary response a construction
`that included the language, "Followed quickly and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`directly." The Board rejected that temporal requirement in
`the institution decision. Neonode changed that language
`to, "Follow directly and immediately," in their Patent
`Owner response.
` As recognized by the Board in the institution
`decision, the distinction of how long an object is in
`contact with the screen is not an issue that needs to be
`clarified for this proceeding because none of the issues
`turn on how long the object is in contact with the screen.
` Neonode's temporal limitation directly and
`immediately is also not supported by the record for at
`least three reasons. One, the specification does not
`describe any temporal aspects in reference to the Figure 4
`gesture that relies -- that Neonode relies on further
`construction.
` Second, Dr. Rosenberg's description of tap
`focused on the location of liftoff as the salient point.
`He never suggests that the analysis of tap is dependent on
`duration of contact with the screen. That's in his
`deposition at pages 83 through 84.
` Third, Ren, a contemporaneous disclosure of tap,
`as explained by Dr. Bederson in his supplemental
`declaration, makes no distinction for tap as to how long
`the pen is in contact with the screen. That's in
`Bederson's supplemental declaration at paragraph 24.
` JUDGE OGDEN: So is it Petitioner's position that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`a gesture would be a tap even if the finger remains on the
`touchscreen for a long period of time and then it's
`released?
` MS. MILLER: Yes. Based on the record, the term
`tap is broad enough to encompass that type of gesture, as
`explained by Dr. Bederson in his declaration and
`supplemental declaration.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Thank you.
` MS. MILLER: Turning to the Board's construction,
`we believe it contains detail that's just not needed for
`this proceeding because ultimately there's no dispute that
`both Neonode and the Board's construction for tap or tap-
`activatable is met by the commonly known tap gesture, Ren's
`ACA route, and the Hansen reference. So there's no
`construction needed for tap-activatable to resolve this
`proceeding.
` If there are no questions, I'll move on to system
`functions.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Ms. Miller, this is Judge
`Ankenbrand. I did have one question on your last point
`there. You're not -- are you -- is Petitioner arguing that
`the Board's construction is not correct for the term tap-
`activatable, or is Petitioner simply arguing that we don't
`need to construe the term at all to resolve the parties'
`issues?
` MS. MILLER: It's our position that there's no
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`need to construe the term to resolve the issues in this
`proceeding.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: And if we disagreed with you,
`is there any argument that the Board's construction from
`the DI is not the proper construction?
` MS. MILLER: I think the issue is that it
`includes detail that's not necessary for this proceeding,
`and the term tap can have various meanings in different
`contexts. And it doesn't address all issues with regard to
`what could be or could not be the outer bounds of tap. So
`we just believe that it's an issue that doesn't need to be
`resolved for this proceeding. So that's our position.
` JUDGE ANKENBRAND: Thank you.
` MS. MILLER: Moving to system functions, Slide
`24. So for system functions, Patent Owner proposes the
`construction you see on the top right of this -- the slide,
`which is, "Services or settings of the operating system."
` Now, part of their construction is pulled from
`the specification, which is on the lower right of the
`slide. You can see it there underlined at lines 36 through
`40 of column 4. And so they pull some of their
`construction from here, but they also insert the word
`operating, which is not in the specification or the claims.
` Neither of the two options afforded by Thorner v.
`Sony for deviating from the normal meaning of the claim --
`of the term system functions is supported here. The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`specification does not define the term system functions.
`There's also no clear and unmistakable disavowal of the
`scope afforded to the term system functions.
` JUDGE OGDEN: When the specification refers to
`system, though, isn't it sort of implied that they're
`talking about the operating system?
` MS. MILLER: No. Because they used the term
`operation system. And there's no limitation with regard to
`the operating system that's used in the embodiment in the
`specification.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Well, the term operation system
`seems like it means the same thing as operating system.
` MS. MILLER: Right. But the --
` JUDGE OGDEN: What's the distinction there?
` MS. MILLER: I guess one is that they didn't use
`the term operation system in the claims. They used just
`the word system. Second, the term system functions
`together do not have an established meaning in the art. So
`it's not -- a person of ordinary skill would not read
`system functions to be narrowly construed to operating
`system functions.
` For example, Dr. Rosenberg's testimony, if you
`turn to Slide 25 -- 20 -- oh, sorry, back to 24 -- 23. You
`can see Dr. Rosenberg expressed an ordinary meaning of
`system function, but there's -- he didn't provide any
`support for narrowing that term to operating system.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` JUDGE OGDEN: As I believe Petitioner pointed out
`in the -- I believe it was the reply, during prosecution of
`the application leading to the '993 patent, the Applicant
`made an amendment that changed a word that -- I can't
`remember the exact wording, but it was something like an
`application into the present language of the claim, which
`referred to a system function.
` Isn't that kind of -- isn't it -- wouldn't a
`person of ordinary skill in the art infer from that that
`there's a distinction between a system function and just an
`operate -- and just an application?
` MS. MILLER: No. I think you're referring to the
`excerpt we have on Slide 26 of Petitioner's demonstratives
`-- or maybe an amendment that came after this. But this
`section of the file history demonstrates that the
`disclosure that Neonode relies on for their operating
`system definition is at the lower left of the corner --
`lower left of the slide.
` So represents services or settings of the
`operation system of the computer unit. Now, Neonode told
`the Patent Office that this disclosure was broad enough to
`support the claims that they inserted into the application
`directed to icons representing an application. Because
`they told the Patent Office these new claims to icons
`representing applications, such as applications for setting
`the time for a clock, applications for help was supported
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`by the same section of the specification that they now
`point to as allegedly being narrowed to services or
`settings of the operation system. And that somehow
`excludes applications.
` And you can see here, they rely on page 6, lines
`8 through 11 of the original specification, which
`corresponds to lines 36 through 40 in the issued patent.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Just for the record, the place in
`the prosecution history that I was referring to is on page
`403 and 404 of Exhibit 1003, which shows the amendment that
`was made to original Claim 21. But I just wanted to point
`that out. You can continue.
` MS. MILLER: Okay. And my colleague, Mr. Holt,
`will explore a little bit more the metes and bounds of
`system functions with regards to applications in the
`context of the Hansen grounds because that's really where
`the meat of Neonode's arguments for the construction of
`system functions come up.
` So we're turning to Slide 23. So we have on
`there Patent Owner's expert's understanding of the ordinary
`meaning of the term system function. So he was able to
`express an ordinary meaning. We don't disagree that these
`are examples of system functions, but we believe this is
`too narrow. Because, again, it ties it to the operating
`system, one, and it also refers to things that the provider
`of the operating system might do, such as testing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` But Dr. Bederson, Petitioner's expert -- turning
`to Slide 25 -- also explained his understanding of ordinary
`meaning of the term system functions. Thus confirming that
`a person of ordinary skill understood the meaning of this
`term. He provided some examples applying the ordinary
`meaning, which would include functions related to the
`system of the particular device, such as a mobile phone
`having a dialer app.
` So both experts understand the meaning of the
`term. So there's no reason to pull limitations from the
`specification into the claim to understand the term system
`functions.
` JUDGE OGDEN: I'm still having a little bit of
`trouble understanding what Petitioner's position is as to
`what the term means. Because it does seem like it has some
`meaning that is different from just any function. They use
`the word system to have -- to mean something other --
`the -- that modifies the term function.
` And in the specification, column 4 of the '993
`patent, where it's describing Figure 3. Figure 3 is a
`device with some icons on it that are tappable. And in one
`case, the icons are related to an application that is
`currently active. And then in the second case, if there's
`no application that's currently active, then this is where
`the specification refers to these icons as representing
`services and settings of the operation system.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
` So it seems like there's some sort of a
`distinction made there. I was wondering if you could help
`me figure out what that distinction is and how the term
`system is used in this passage of the specification
`compared to the term system as it appears in the claims.
` MS. MILLER: Right. Well, I'll note that the
`term system here, there's no indication that they use the
`term system inconsistent with its ordinary meaning. And
`I'll point out that between these two different scenarios,
`when there's an active application and when there's not.
`And the specification calls them, "Service or settings of
`the operation system."
` I'll note that in both scenarios, the
`specification describes that there's an icon for the help
`function. But the specification doesn't differentiate
`between how that help function is supposedly different in
`the first scenario when there's an active application and
`in the second scenario when there's no active application,
`and this is supposedly somehow a system function allegedly
`different the first scenario.
` So the specification doesn't really provide any
`guidance as to how the help function, for example, is
`different when they call it a system function. The second
`thing I'll point out is, the plain meaning of the term
`system is really quite broad. And I don't think we're
`reading it out of the claim. I think if you think of one
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00145
`Patent 8,812,993 B2
`
`example, you can think of functions that are not on the
`device, such as if you're looking at a menu of icons for
`applications that you want to download.
` So that would not be icons for functions -- or
`for functions that are on the system. So that's another
`example, but I -- Mr. -- like I said, Mr. Holt might
`explore this in better detail in reference to the Hansen
`grounds.
` JUDGE OGDEN: Thank you.
` MS. MILLER: So going back to Slide 23,
`ultimately, for Grou
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
