`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00336
`Patent 10,259,021 B2
`____________________________________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK N. HORENSTEIN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336 GUI Ex. 2004
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATION ....................................... 1
`I.
`ASSIGNMENT ..................................................................................... 5
`II.
`Legal Principles ..................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................10
`B.
`C. Methodology .......................................................................................11
`D.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................12
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘021 PATENT ................................................13
`IV. ANALYSIS OF SAMSUNG’S CHALLENGES ...............................19
`A. Kim Does Not Teach or Suggest Samsung’s Fig. A
`Embodiment ........................................................................................19
`Overview of Kim (U.S. Patent Application US 2010/0227642 A1) ... 19
`Kim Does Not Teach or Suggest Samsung’s Figure A Embodiment for
`Multiple Reasons ................................................................................. 31
`Kim’s Fig. 5 Shows How a Dual Display Device Should Be Fashioned
` ............................................................................................................. 43
`A Gap Causes More Than Just Esthetic Problems. ............................. 46
`Sandwiching Sub-Device 300 as in Samsung’s Figure A
`Leads to Problems with Displaying Information ................................48
`Samsung’s Proposed Figure A Embodiment Presents Too Many
`Operating Issues That Would Prevent a POSITA From Adoption ..... 49
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Unpatentable in View of
`Kim ......................................................................................................53
`Kim does not teach or suggest “when coupled, the first case
`functions to protect the second case.” .................................................53
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336 GUI Ex. 2004
`
`

`

`Kim does not teach or suggest “a first magnet is fully disposed within
`the electronic device.” ......................................................................... 59
`Kim does not teach or suggest “the electronic device comprises at least
`one element selected from the group consisting of beveled edges,
`ridges, recessed areas, grooves, slots, indented shapes, bumps, raised
`shapes, and combinations thereof; configured to correspond to
`complimentary surface elements on the switching device.” ............... 63
`Kim combined with Koh does not render claim 1 obvious................. 65
`As required by Claim 7, Kim does not teach or suggest the “Lid is
`Recessed to Configure to the Electronic Device” ............................... 69
`Claim 9 and its Dependent Claims are Not Unpatentable in
`View of Kim ........................................................................................72
`Claim 10 is Not Unpatentable in View of the Combined
`Teachings of Kim and Koh. ................................................................74
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Kim and
`Koh. ..................................................................................................... 74
`The Combination of Kim and Koh Does Not Suggest “When Coupled,
`the Fist Case Functions to Protect the Second Case” .......................... 77
` Claim 16 is Not Unpatentable in View of the Combined
`Teachings of Kim and Lee ..................................................................85
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Kim and Lee
` ............................................................................................................. 85
`The Combination of Kim and Lee Does Not Suggest a Magnet
`“Employed in Actuating the Electronic Circuit.” ............................... 86
`Claim 17 is Not Unpatentable in View of the Combined
`Teachings of Kim and Lee ..................................................................87
`Claim 18 is Not Unpatentable in View of the Combined
`Teachings of Kim and Jiang ................................................................87
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336 GUI Ex. 2004
`
`

`

`V. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS ......................................89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336 GUI Ex. 2004
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATION
`
` 1. My name is Mark N. Horenstein. I have been retained by counsel for GUI
`
`Global Products, Ltd. (“Gwee” or “Patent Owner”) as a technical expert in this
`
`case. I have been asked by counsel for the Patent Owner to provide my opinions
`
`with respect to the petition by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung” or “Petitioner”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2021-00338 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,259,021 (“the ‘021 Patent”). In
`
`particular, I have been asked to review and comment upon the opinions in Ex.
`
`1002, the “Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei,” dated December 29, 2020 (“Kiaei
`
`Declaration” or “Kiaei”).
`
` 2.
`
`I am currently Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University. From
`
`1979 – 2020, I was a faculty member in that department, holding the rank of Full
`
`Professor from 2000 to 2020. I have held various other positions at Boston
`
`University, including the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Research for
`
`the College of Engineering (1999-2007), Associate Chair for Undergraduate
`
`Programs for the ECE Department (1990-1998 and 2012-2015), and appointments
`
`at the ranks of Associate Professor (1985-2000) and Assistant Professor (1979-
`
`1985).
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 1
`
`

`

` 3.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
`
`of Technology (MIT), which I earned in 1978 while working in the Electric Power
`
`Systems Engineering Laboratory. I also hold an M.S. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley (1975), and an B.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT (1973).
`
` 4.
`
`I am a Life Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and have been a Registered Professional Engineer (Electrical) in the
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hold certification from the National
`
`Association of Radio and Telecommunications Engineers.
`
` 5.
`
`I am the author of two textbooks: Microelectronic Circuits and Devices,
`
`2nd Ed. (Prentice-Hall 1996) and Design Concepts for Engineers, 5th Ed. (Pearson
`
`Education, 2016). I have authored book chapters in two reference books related to
`
`applied electromagnetics. I have authored or co-authored over 70 journal articles
`
`on a variety of topics in my fields of expertise, and approximately 125 conference
`
`papers. I have advised various Ph.D. students performing research in my fields of
`
`expertise; these students have gone on to hold positions in industry and academia.
`
` 6. My course teaching repertoire over the past 37 years has encompassed
`
`about ten different courses, each of which I have taught numerous times to over
`
`4000 undergraduate and graduate students. The subject matter of these courses has
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 2
`
`

`

`included circuits, analog and digital electronics, power electronics, electro-
`
`magnetics, robotics, and engineering design. I have been named “Teacher of the
`
`Year” in Engineering at Boston University four times.
`
` 7.
`
`I am a named inventor on five U.S. patents. I have also provided technical
`
`expertise in the design and analysis of electrical and electronic products, integrated
`
`circuits, power supplies, DC/DC converters, and electromagnetic devices.
`
` 8.
`
`I have extensive experience in the design, analysis, and testing of
`
`electrical power products, including DC/DC, AC/DC, and DC/AC converters (at
`
`both fixed and modulated outputs), microcontroller-based systems, and linear
`
`power supplies of all types. In support of my research in deformable mirror
`
`systems, for example, I designed two different analog-multiplexed, high-voltage
`
`storage arrays. Similarly, as part of my work in developing self-cleaning solar
`
`panels, I have designed switching power supplies that produce low-frequency, 3-
`
`phase, 1-kV outputs which in turn are powered by low-voltage DC/DC power
`
`converters. As part of my work overall in applied electromagnetics, I have
`
`designed DC power controllers for thermal management systems, power amplifier
`
`circuits, and analog amplifiers. I also have designed and used transformers of all
`
`types, including ferromagnetic, ferrite, and air-core varieties.
`
` 9. At Boston University, I was in charge of and taught our department’s
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 3
`
`

`

`course in power electronics, which I developed from the ground up over a period
`
`of eight years. In support of this activity, I designed circuits for laboratory
`
`experiments in power electronics, including buck and boost converters and
`
`controllers, H-bridge DC/AC switching converters, and DC-AC interface circuitry
`
`for connecting solar energy systems to the AC power grid.
`
` 10. My curriculum vitae (“CV”), which includes a summary of my
`
`background, experience, publications, and expert-witness experience, is being
`
`provided at Exhibit 2005 to Gwee’s Response.
`
` 11. I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I express in this
`
`report involve the application of my engineering knowledge, expertise, and
`
`experience to invalidity issues related to the ‘021 Patent. The opinions contained
`
`in this report are based on the documents I have reviewed (including Samsung’s
`
`Petition and the Exhibits thereto), my experience and background, my knowledge,
`
`and my professional judgment.
`
` 12. My opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of the level of
`
`skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention date of
`
`the ʼ021 Patent. I do not know the exact dates when the inventions as claimed were
`
`made, thus for purposes of my opinions I have assumed that Aug. 5, 2011 of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/515,752 is the relevant point in time for
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 4
`
`

`

`purposes of invalidity of the claims of the ʼ021 Patent. However, my opinions
`
`would be unchanged even if this date was as early as the Nov. 3, 2011 filing date
`
`of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/555,310, or as late as the Aug. 3, 2012
`
`date for the national stage entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US2012/049562.
`
` 13. I submit this Declaration based on the information I have reviewed for
`
`purposes of this case and my own personal knowledge and experience.
`
` 14. In this Declaration, when I write, “for example,” or when I cite an
`
`example, I am not limiting my opinion to that example.
`
` 15. The opinions expressed in This Declaration are based upon the
`
`information made available to me as of the date of submission of this Declaration. I
`
`understand that I may be asked to review information produced by either party
`
`after the date of this Declaration and to update this Declaration as necessary to
`
`reflect any additional analysis and conclusions.
`
` 16. I am being compensated for my time on this case at my customary rate of
`
`$325 per hour. No part of my compensation is based on the outcome of this case or
`
`the substance of my opinions.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
` 17. I have been asked to review Samsung’s petition and its supporting
`
`exhibits and to offer my opinions as to whether one or more claims of the ‘021
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 5
`
`

`

`Patent would be unpatentable in view of the references cited in the petition and in
`
`the Kiaei Declaration. My understanding is that Samsung alleges three grounds for
`
`unpatentability:
`
`i. Ground 1: Claims 1-9, 11-15, and 19 are alleged to be unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Kim, US PGPUB 2010/0227642
`
`(Ex. 1010);
`
`ii. Ground 2: Claim 10 is alleged to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
`
`view of the combined teachings of Kim and Koh, KR 10-2008-0093178 (Ex.
`
`1012); and
`
`iii. Ground 3: Claims 16-17 are alleged to be unpatentable as being obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of Kim and Lee,
`
`US PGPUB 2010/0298032 (Ex. 1013).
`
`iv. Ground 4: Claim 18 is unpatentable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`obvious over Kim in view of U.S. Patent 5,946,121 (“Jiang”) (EX1014).
`
`Pet. at 1-2.
`
`A. Legal Principles
`
` 18. Like Dr. Kiaei, I am not an attorney and have not been asked to offer any
`
`opinions on the law. I understand, however, that I am obliged to follow existing
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 6
`
`

`

`law and to offer opinions on the ultimate issue of obviousness. I have therefore
`
`been asked to apply the following legal principles in my analysis.
`
` 19. I have been informed by counsel and understand that in an Inter Partes
`
`Review proceeding, the party challenging the patent’s validity must prove by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the patent claims are unpatentable. I have been
`
`further advised that the first step in assessing validity of a patent claim is to
`
`properly construe the claim at issue.
`
` 20. As noted above, I understand that all of Samsung’s challenges to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ‘021 Patent are based on obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. To be patentable under this statute, an invention much be such that it
`
`would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`
`the time the invention was made. That is, the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art must not be such that the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
` 21. I further understand that when determining whether a claimed invention is
`
`obvious, one should consider the scope and content of the prior art, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art, the differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art, and whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 7
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the art in light of those differences. I understand that hindsight
`
`must not be used when comparing the prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
` 22. I also understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single reference to arrive at
`
`the patented invention, and/or by showing that it would have been obvious to
`
`combine the teachings of more than one reference to arrive at the patented
`
`invention. I recognize that in determining whether prior art references would have
`
`been combined with one another and/or with other information within the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, multiple approaches and rationales
`
`may be considered, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products
`
`in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 8
`
`

`

`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success);
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led
`
`one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
` 23. I have been advised by counsel to Gwee that if an independent claim is
`
`not obvious over a combination of references, then a claim that depends from the
`
`nonobvious independent claim is likewise not obvious in view of those references,
`
`because the dependent claim contains all of the limitations of the independent
`
`claim plus one or more further limitations.
`
` 24. In considering the question of obviousness, I understand that the POSITA
`
`is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all of the pertinent prior
`
`art. The POSITA is not an automaton and may be able to combine the teachings of
`
`multiple patents or references employing ordinary creativity and common sense,
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`and that familiar items may have obvious uses in another context or beyond their
`
`primary purposes. The POSITA faced with a problem is able to apply his or her
`
`experience and ability to solve the problem and also look to any available prior art
`
`to help solve the problem. I also recognize that it is not necessary to demonstrate a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a fact finder can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA
`
`would employ. A patent that merely claims predictable uses of old elements
`
`according to their established functions to achieve predictable results may be found
`
`invalid as obvious. Hence, an invention may be obvious if a POSITA, facing the
`
`wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. And, when there is a design
`
`need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, it may have been obvious to a POSITA to try the
`
`known options. Also, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique may have been obvious.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
` 25. I understand Dr. Kiaei has testified that in his opinion a POSITA in the
`
`relevant time frame would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 10
`
`

`

`computer science, or a similar field and one year of experience in consumer
`
`electronics product design, or could have also obtained similar knowledge and
`
`experience through other means. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 22. I generally agree that for
`
`purposes of evaluating claims of the ‘021 Patent, a POSITA would have been
`
`someone having either a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or mechanical engineering with some level of post-baccalaureate
`
`electronic device or system design experience, or someone with an equivalent level
`
`of experience and training through other means. Dr. Kiaei’s definition of a
`
`POSITA is somewhat different than mine, nevertheless my opinions in This
`
`Declaration would be the same regardless of whether or not my description or Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s description of a POSITA is used.
`
` 26. In arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this report, I have
`
`considered the invalidity issues from the perspective of this hypothetical person
`
`skilled in the art during the relevant time period.
`
`C. Methodology
`
` 27. In reaching my opinions as expressed herein, I studied and analyzed all of
`
`the documents and references cited in the petition and the Kiaei Declaration as
`
`presented in this proceeding, as well as in related IPR proceedings: 2021-00335,
`
`2021-00336, and 2021-0033. I have also considered the other documents and
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 11
`
`

`

`references cited herein as well as my own extensive experience in industrial and
`
`product technology and design, development, manufacturing, marketing, use, and
`
`deployment. This experience includes my supervision, training, or direction of
`
`persons destined to become POSITAs. I have also had conversations with Mr.
`
`Walter Mayfield. one of the named inventors of the ‘021 Patent. Although my
`
`qualifications exceed those of a POSITA for the ‘021 Patent, my statements and
`
`opinions expressed herein are so expressed from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
` 28. Except for a general statement from Dr. Kiaei that he gave the claim terms
`
`their plain and ordinary meanings, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 72, I did not see any expressed
`
`indication in Dr. Kiaei’s Declaration as to how he read and understood the claims,
`
`nor did he provide any express construction of the claims offered in the petition.
`
`See Pet. at 17-18. For my own part, in reading and understanding the ‘021 Patent
`
`and the various references cited in the petition and in the Kiaei Declarations
`
`submitted in this and the related IPRs, I also assigned the claim terms their plain
`
`and ordinary meanings as a POSITA would have understood them. Where
`
`necessary, I looked to intrinsic evidence within the specification before turning to
`
`any external sources to determine how a POSITA would have understood the claim
`
`terms. Where I believe it is necessary in my analyses below, I highlight instances
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 12
`
`

`

`of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms as they would have been
`
`understood by a POSITA.
`
`III.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘021 PATENT
`
` 29. The ‘021 Patent is entitled, “Apparatus for cleaning view screens and
`
`lenses and method for the use thereof.” The patent application was filed on
`
`December 22, 2017 and issued on April 16, 2019. It claims priority through a
`
`series of continuations and related filings to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No.
`
`61/515,752, filed on Aug. 5, 2011. I understand that Samsung alleges that the ’752
`
`provisional application does not provide an adequate written description of the
`
`invention claimed in the ‘021 Patent, and that the ‘021 Patent is entitled to a
`
`priority date no earlier than November 3, 2011, Pet. at 7-9. As none of the
`
`challenges depend on a difference in priority date between Aug. 5, 2011 and Nov.
`
`3, 2011, I have been asked to assume for the purposes of This Declaration that the
`
`Nov. 3, 2011 priority date is operative.
`
` 30. The ‘021 Patent discloses and claims a switching device in combination
`
`with a portable electronic device, with embodiments comprising, for example:
`
`In one aspect, the invention is a switching device for use
`
`with a portable electronic device having a view screen and at least
`
`one switch that can be activated or de-activated by introducing a
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 13
`
`

`

`magnetic field to the at least one switch wherein the switching
`
`device has at least one magnet and at least one surface that is non-
`
`abrasive to the surface of the view screen.
`
`In another aspect, the invention is a switching device for an
`
`electronic apparatus that can be activated or deactivated by
`
`employing a magnet, the switching device having (i) at least one
`
`magnet, (ii) a body surrounding the magnet, and (iii) at least one
`
`surface configured to contact any surface of the device, including
`
`the view screen; wherein the surface configured to contact the
`
`electronic apparatus is non-abrasive to the view screen of the
`
`apparatus.
`
`In another aspect, the invention is a method of conserving
`
`power when using a portable electronic device having a view
`
`screen and at least one switch that can activated or de-activated by
`
`introducing a magnetic field to the at least one switch wherein the
`
`switching device has at least one magnet and at least one surface
`
`that is non-abrasive to the surface of the view screen, wherein the
`
`method includes using the switching device to turn the portable
`
`electronic device off when the portable electronic device is not in
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 14
`
`

`

`actual use and then on when the portable electronic device is
`
`needed.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:64-4:23.
`
` 31. Thus, the ’021 Patent claims a system comprising a portable switching
`
`device coupled to a portable electronic device, which system includes a number of
`
`elements and features. For example, the two portable devices (switching and
`
`electronic) are configured to selectively couple to one another employing magnetic
`
`force; the switching device comprises a case (first case), as does the electronic
`
`device (second case); the electronic device comprises an electronic circuit that is
`
`responsive to the switching device; a magnet (first magnet) is fully disposed (i.e.,
`
`entirely contained) within the electronic device; the electronic device has one or
`
`more physical form elements including beveled edges, ridges, recessed areas,
`
`grooves, slots, bumps, raised or indented shapes, and combinations thereof which
`
`correspond to complementary physical form elements on the switching device; and
`
`the portable switching device is configured to activate, deactivate or send into
`
`hibernation the electronic device; and when coupled, the first case (the case of the
`
`switching device) protects the second case (the case of the portable electronic
`
`device). Id. at 21:28 – 22:7. Various features of the portable switching device and
`
`the portable electronic device can thus be summarized as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 15
`
`

`

`Portable switching device:
`
`-
`
`is configured to selectively couple to portable electronic device
`
`employing magnetic force;
`
`- has a first case which protects the case of the portable electronic device
`
`when the two are coupled to one another;
`
`- has surface elements complementary to at least one beveled edge,
`
`recessed area, raised or indented shape, ridge, groove, slot, bump, or
`
`combinations thereof of the portable electronic device;
`
`-
`
`is configured to activate, deactivate, or send into hibernation the portable
`
`electronic device.
`
`Portable electronic device:
`
`-
`
`is configured to selectively couple to portable switching device
`
`employing magnetic force;
`
`- has a second case which is protected by the case of the portable switching
`
`device when the two are coupled to one another;
`
`- has a magnet fully disposed within it;
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`- has at least one beveled edge, recessed area, raised or indented shape,
`
`ridge, groove, slot, bump, or combinations thereof that correspond to
`
`complementary surface elements of the portable electronic device.
`
` 32. I note that when the ‘021 Patent recites a magnet “fully disposed” within
`
`the portable electronic device, it should be construed as “entirely contained”
`
`therein. This is because that is how a POSITA would understand the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term “fully disposed within” as used in the claims. A
`
`POSITA would understand that the common definition of “fully” is “entirely,” and
`
`that to be “disposed” within something is to be arranged within it. Additionally, the
`
`context of the ‘021 Patent makes clear that the arrangement is such that the magnet
`
`is entirely contained within the portable electronic device. Id. at 6:48-50 (“Turning
`
`to FIGS. 2A and 2B, a side view of the cleaning component, it can be seen that
`
`disposed within the cleaner material (201) is a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic
`
`substrate (202).”); 18:23-25 (referring to FIG. 25, “Disposed within the switching
`
`device is a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic substrate (2504).”). Hence, the POSITA
`
`would understand the term “fully disposed within” to mean “entirely contained
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 17
`
`

`

`within.”
`
`
`
` 33. According to the ‘021 Patent, the switching device and the portable
`
`electronic device can be coupled together magnetically. The coupling/decoupling
`
`can cause an action to occur and be advantageously used for saving power or
`
`battery life. See, for example, id. at 20:14-23. I note that claim 1 recites, “the
`
`switching device and the electronic device are configured to selectively couple to
`
`each other employing magnetic force.” Id. at 21:42-44. The ‘021 Patent explains
`
`this by stating,
`
`The switching devices of the application selectively couple with
`
`the case or cases of the portable electronic devices. The term
`
`"selectively couple" describes the process wherein a switching
`
`device of the disclosure is applied to a portable electronic device
`
`and adheres to it because of a magnetic force. In one embodiment
`
`of the disclosure, there is sufficient magnetic force to allow the
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`switching device to remain in place despite casual movements of
`
`the portable electronic device, but to still be easily removed by a
`
`human operator.
`
` 34. Id. at 17:62 – 18:5. Accordingly, A POSITA would have understood the
`
`term “selectively couple” to mean “adhere.”
`
` 35. According to the ‘021 Patent, the portable switching device and the
`
`portable electronic device conform to one another physically with complementary
`
`surface elements, and each has a corresponding case. The lid of the switching
`
`device is configured to conform to the electronic device, and when coupled, the
`
`case of the switching device protects the case of the electronic device. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 19:1-18; 21:31-38.
`
`IV.
`
`ANALYSIS OF SAMSUNG’S CHALLENGES
`
`A. Kim Does Not Teach or Suggest Samsung’s Fig. A Embodiment
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Kim (U.S. Patent Application US 2010/0227642
`A1)
`
` 36. All of Samsung’s alleged grounds for unpatentability rely on Kim, either
`
`alone or in combination with Koh or Lee. Pet. at 1-2. To this end, I understand Dr.
`
`Kiaei has alleged that Kim, “discloses an embodiment of the mobile terminal in
`
`which a watch-type main device comprises a first body 100a connected to a second
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 19
`
`

`

`body 100b by a hinge 100d so that the first and second bodies can be opened or
`
`closed with respect to each other, and wherein the mobile terminal further
`
`comprises a sub-device 300 detachably coupled to the second body 100b,” Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶ 87 (emphasis omitted), and that he believes this disclosure would be
`
`understood by a POSITA as represented by a hypothesized “Figure A”
`
`embodiment reproduced below. I note that this rendition of the watch device does
`
`not actually appear in Kim nor is it described in Kim. Id. Rather, Dr. Kiaei and
`
`Samsung have modified the original, conjuring up an unstated fictitious
`
`combination of Kim’s Figures 15A and 15B in an effort to support his opinion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung v. GUI Global Products
`IPR2021-00336, GUI Ex. 2004, Page 20
`
`

`

` 37. It actuality, Kim discloses in Figure 15A one embodiment of a mobile
`
`terminal in which a watch-type main device includes a first body 100a connected
`
`to a second body 100b by a hinge 100d so that the first and second bodies can be
`
`opened or closed w