`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: May 10, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 12, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ALI R. SHARIFAHMADIAN, ESQ.
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group, P.C.
`2150 N. First Street
`San Jose, CA 95131
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 12,
`2022, commencing at 9:00 a.m., EDT, by video.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning everyone. This is a
`
`consolidated hearing for IPRs 2021-00335, 336, 337 and 338
`between Petitioner Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics
`America and Patent Owner GUI Global Products. I am Judge
`Medley and with me are Judges Jurgovan and McShane. At this
`time we'd like the parties to please introduce themselves for the
`record beginning with Petitioner, please.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Good morning, Your Honors.
`This is Ali Sharifahmadian representing Petitioner Samsung
`Electronics Company Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you, and you'll be presenting
`
`today?
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Anybody else with you?
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Not officially. There might be
`people observing but not in the hearing room.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And then for Patent
`Owner?
`
`MR. EDMONDS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`John Edmonds.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning. And you'll be
`presenting? Sorry, Mr. Edmonds, I can't hear you. I think you're
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`muted.
`(Pause.)
`
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Edmonds, I think you're muted or
`something's wrong with your audio.
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: Mr. Edmonds, it looks like you're
`still muted.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Are you able to hear me, Your Honors? This
`is Tarek Fahmi.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Mr. Edmonds and I are in the same room.
`We're here on behalf of Patent Owner GUI Global Products
`Limited.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And who will be
`presenting for you?
`
`MR. FAHMI: I will, Your Honor, Tarek Fahmi.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thanks. All right. Thank you. I
`would like to remind the parties that this hearing is open to the
`public and the resulting transcript will be available to the public.
`Each party has 90 minutes total time to present arguments.
`Petitioner, you'll proceed first and you may reserve some of your
`argument time to respond to arguments presented by Patent
`Owner. Thereafter Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's
`presentation and may reserve argument time for surrebuttal.
`Counsel for Petitioner, do you wish to reserve some of your time
`to respond?
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor, 30 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thirty minutes. Okay. Thank you.
`
`And Patent Owner, do you wish to reserve time?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes. We'll reserve also 30 minutes please,
`Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. And just one minute.
`I'm going to set my clock. And we'll likely take a break after
`Petitioner presents for their first shot, so Petitioner when you're
`ready you may begin.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. May
`it please the Board. The four patents that are the subject of this
`morning's hearing share a common specification. They each
`have one independent claim and a number of dependent claims
`and the claims share a great deal of a number of common
`elements as well and before getting into the grounds I think it'll
`be useful to explain some key differences between the claims of
`the '020 patent, particularly claim 1 of the '020 patent and I'm
`referring here to slide 7 of Petitioner's presentation and the
`independent claims of the other three patents. For the purposes
`of the discussion I have here on this slide claim 1 of the '020
`patent and claim 1 of the '021 patent and the other two patents,
`the '077 and the '320 their independent claims are similar to the
`'021 patent in a great deal of respects.
`So each of the independent claims is directed to a system
`having a portable switching device and a portable electronic
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`device that are configured to selectively couple to each other.
`Each of the claims recite that the switching device has a first
`case and that the electronic device has a second case. Each of
`the claims recite that the electronic device comprises at least one
`element selected from the group consisting of a number of
`different shapes that are configured to correspond to
`complementary surface elements on the switching device and
`each of the claims recite that the portable switching device is
`configured to activate, deactivate or send into hibernation the
`portable electronic device.
`Where the differences come in is that the claim 1 of the
`'020 patent recites a magnet that's disposed within the switching
`device whereas the other three patents recite a magnet that is
`disposed within the electronic device. A second difference is
`that claim 1 of the '020 patent states that when coupled the
`second case functions to protect the first case. So in claim 1 the
`case of the electronic device functions to protect the case of the
`switching device whereas in the other three -- excuse me, in the
`other three patents when coupled the first case functions to
`protect the second case.
`In other words, the case of the switching device functions
`to protect the case of the electronic device and where this comes
`into play is the manner in which the Kim reference, which is the
`primary reference on which all the grounds are based, maps on to
`the claims and for purposes of reference, and we'll get into this a
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`little bit more during the discussion, in the '020 patent Kim's
`main device maps to the electronic device and Kim's sub-device
`maps to the switching device. Whereas, with respect to the other
`three patents, the '021, '320 and '077 Kim's main device maps to
`the switching device and Kim's sub-device maps to the electronic
`device.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Counsel, and I apologize for jumping
`into the merits early, but I couldn't find a better place in your
`slide deck for this question. But in Kim, okay, as to the first
`case, okay, and let's assume that the mapping is going to be --
`the first case is going to be the main device, right, and so let's
`assume that mapping. So, there the first case in Kim would be
`the covering I think is what you say, but the first case would be
`the covering of 100a and 100b, I'm breaking up (indiscernible),
`thank you.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Any time, Your Honor, please.
`So as I say Kim is the primary reference on which all of the
`grounds are based and Kim is directed to a mobile terminal
`which is comprised of a main device and a sub- device and Kim
`describes various physical embodiments of how -- of the forms
`that the main device and the sub-device can take as well as
`discusses in great detail how the two devices function, how they
`interrelate to each other, how one may influence the state and
`operation of the other and with reference to slide 10 Kim
`discloses five main physical embodiments of its mobile terminal.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`Particularly there is a folder-type embodiment, a slide-type
`embodiment, a bar-type embodiment, a swivel-type embodiment
`and a watch-type embodiment.
`Now, the grounds that Petitioners have presented focus on
`the watch-type embodiment, what Kim discloses about that
`embodiment as well as what would have been obvious to a
`POSITA, modifications that would have been obvious to a
`POSITA to make to the watch-type embodiment in view of Kim's
`other disclosures, particularly with respect to the folder type
`embodiment shown in figures 11B and 11E.
`I'm on slide 16 now but before I get to what's shown in
`slide 16 itself I wanted to describe briefly what Kim says about
`the watch-type embodiment. Particularly in paragraph 256 of
`Kim which is Exhibit 1010, Kim describes a watch-type
`embodiment that is comprised in part of a first body 100a, a
`second body 100b and these two bodies are connected to each
`other via hinge 100d in a manner so that they can be opened and
`closed in a folding type relationship to each other.
`Kim also describes that a third body which it refers to as a
`sub-device can be selectively coupled or decoupled to the watch-
`type embodiment, the main device of the watch- type embodiment
`and particularly it has a very broad disclosure of how this
`coupling can occur and that's in paragraph 260 of Kim which is
`on slide 16 here and it states specifically,
`"A method of coupling the third body, (i.e., the sub-device)
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`is coupled to one of the first and second bodies in a state that the
`first and second bodies are coupled will now be described."
`And I apologize, Your Honors, I forgot to ask. Would you
`like me to share the slides on the screen with you or prefer to
`follow along?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: This is fine as long as you just keep
`mentioning for the record which slide you're on, so when we go
`back to the transcript we can see the slide corresponding to the
`transcription.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Okay. I'll put them up just in
`case but I'll be sure to mention the slide that I'm on as we go
`along. Okay. So returning to paragraph 260. The disclosure is
`very broad. Kim explicitly states that the first -- that the sub-
`device can be coupled to either the first or the second body.
`Now, Kim doesn't show what -- in the figures doesn't show every
`permutation of what it explicitly describes in the specification
`and what Petitioner's figure A is is an illustration in schematic
`form of what Kim describes in words in paragraph 260, and that's
`what's shown here in slide 16. So that the sub-device is shown
`collectively coupled to the interior of the second body of Kim's
`main device watch-type embodiment main device. Now, again,
`this is an illustration, a schematic illustration of using Kim's own
`figures, particularly figure 15A of what Kim describes in words.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So I have a question, a couple of
`questions here on this figure. It seems to me that in the petition
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`the argument is that Kim describes this figure A, right? And, to
`the extent that it doesn't, it would have been obvious based on
`the folder-type device embodiments. So getting to the first
`position it seems like there's a lot of arguments back and forth
`between the parties as to what figure 15B shows in Kim with
`respect to your position that the sub-device 300 is underneath the
`portion 100b whereas Patent Owner argues that it can only be on
`top of 100b. Is this sounding familiar?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor, it is.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I think that the reason that
`you interpret your figure A this way comes down to paragraph
`261 in Kim which says, and we don't have a figure -- we don't
`have 15B I don't believe in your slide set -- but it's a little
`ambiguous because 15B shows 100a and then it shows the sub-
`device on top of 100a even though it says, hey, this is an
`embodiment where we're putting the sub-device on the second
`body; correct?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: There's arguably a little bit of
`ambiguity in that regard, Your Honor, but we submit that a
`person of ordinary skill reviewing Kim in its entirety, particular
`figure 15B, would recognize that the intent of figure 15B was to
`actually illustrate the coupling mechanisms that could be used to
`couple the sub-device to the main device, particularly the
`coupling mechanisms 510 as distinguished, for example, from the
`other type of coupling mechanisms, the etch-type device or 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`other things shown in 15C or D.
`The point (audio interference) understood by a POSITA is
`not to limit where the sub-device is coupled so much as to
`demonstrate and provide additional detail regarding coupling
`mechanisms 510 and that Kim explicitly says that, again back in
`paragraph 260 which says,
`"The method of coupling the sub-device in an overlapping
`manner to the second body will now be described for the sake of
`brevity."
`So in the first sentence of paragraph 260, Kim explicitly
`states that the sub-device can be coupled to either the first body
`or the second body and it's not limiting in any way in terms of
`which side of the second body. Obviously as to the first body it
`would be the top of the first body, but as to the second body it's
`not limiting as to which side of the second body it would be
`coupled to.
`It goes on for the sake of brevity to describe the coupling
`mechanisms with respect to the figure 15B but what would e
`understood is that it's not then showing it in every permutation
`because it shows the coupling mechanism that could be used to
`couple the sub-device to any of those bodies in any manner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So, it's shown in 15B when it
`says, “the method of coupling the sub-device in an overlapping
`manner to the second body will now be described,” and then
`continues on, “as shown in figure 15B a coupling member for
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`fixing the sub-device is provided on at least one side of the
`second body of the main device and the sub-device.” So, it says,
`“as shown in 15B a coupling member is provided –."
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Right.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- “on the second body,” but I don't see
`the second body.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: I understand, Your Honor, and
`I think there is a little bit of -- it does say second body even
`though it only shows 100a. But again, we submit that the focus
`of a POSITA when reading that, what the POSITA would take
`away from that discussion is not necessarily whether it's the first
`body or 100a that is there, but the coupling member and how you
`would use the coupling members to couple the sub-device to one
`of the bodies. It is not intended to further limit the very broad
`disclosure of paragraph 260 that the sub-device can be coupled to
`any of the first or the second bodies and paragraph 261 itself
`also says it can be coupled to at least one of the sides
`(indiscernible) --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, you're -- I understand your position
`is that then it could be on either side of the second body. Could
`you -- do you understand what Patent Owner's position is with
`respect to that? That's your argument in your reply, then they
`just say as far as I understand that no, that's not right, but I don't
`understand why it's not right. Do you understand what their
`argument is?
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Well, I can try and state as
`best how I interpret Patent Owner's arguments and I think it is
`part of a theme that runs through their entire set of arguments
`with respect to what a POSITA would understand about Kim
`which is anything that is not explicitly shown is not disclosed or
`would not be understood.
`Now, there is a bit of ambiguity in Patent Owner's own
`arguments because they say that what is shown in 15B is
`necessarily that the sub-device is coupled to the top of the main
`device, to the top of the second body of the main device and
`that's all that it could possibly be. As you very well note, Your
`Honor, there is no mention -- there is no labeling of 100b in that
`figure. It only shows 100a, and in addition it doesn't show, for
`example, the hinge in a closed manner. You would expect to see
`part of the hinge in figure 15B which you don't see.
`So Patent Owner, at least my understanding, is taking a
`very literal and very myopic view of what is disclosed in Kim
`and particularly what is disclosed in figure 15B of Kim, that it
`can only be on top of the second body and our position obviously
`is that's not how a POSITA would understand Kim. Kim's
`disclosure is much broader and I would submit that Patent Owner
`has, in any of its briefing, has not come to terms with paragraph
`260 of Kim and that broad disclosure that it can be -- that the
`sub-device can be coupled to any of the first and the second
`bodies.
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And then just as a
`follow-up. So, if we agree with you that Kim describes exactly
`what's shown in this figure A then it seems to me that most of
`the other arguments of theirs go away because it doesn't matter if
`it, you know, wouldn't close or some of these other things that
`they argue because it is what it is. If it describes it, it describes
`it.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: That's exactly right, Your
`Honor. Those arguments do go away and I don't think those
`arguments withstand scrutiny. There is two main arguments that
`Patent Owner makes in terms of why Kim can't disclose figure A
`or figure A, and the first is that if you couple the sub-device in
`the manner shown in figure A, that the main device would not be
`able to close and that argument rests entirely on the assumption
`that Kim's figure 15A which is what figure A is based on is
`limited to the hinge that is shown in that figure. That the only
`manner that Kim discloses implementing the watch-type
`embodiment of figure A is using the very exact and specific type
`of hinge that is shown in figure 15A, and of course a POSITA
`would not understand that to be the case. Kim is not limiting in
`any way in its description of what the hinge is.
`In paragraph 256 again, Kim states that there is a hinge that
`is used to couple the first body and the second body on the side
`so that they can open and close. That's the only description of
`the hinge and a POSITA would understand that the figure is
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`illustrative. In fact, Kim explicitly states that figures 15 are
`illustrative. They're not detailed mechanical drawings. So in
`that sense the hinge -- Kim is not limiting in the manner in which
`its hinge can be implemented in figure 15A and again, that's
`what figure A of Petitioner's is based on.
`The second argument they make in terms of why you
`wouldn't be able to couple the sub- device in the manner shown in
`figure A is that figure 15A, and accordingly as a result figure A,
`are limited to an embodiment in which the watch-type device is
`implemented using two screens where one of the screens is a
`TOLED, a see through LED device, and again that is incorrect
`and a POSITA would not understand figure 15A or figure A to be
`so limited.
`Going back to the description of Kim in paragraph 256,
`Kim says that the first body 100a may be a display but it doesn't
`require that it be a display device and again, in paragraph 257
`(audio interference) type device can be implemented as a dual
`screen implementation -- or, excuse me, it says may, it doesn't
`say can -- it says may be implemented as a dual screen
`implementation but it doesn't require it. So a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, again, would understand that the watch- type
`embodiment of figure 15A is not limited to a dual screen device
`or to a device that necessarily has a TOLED and as Your Honor
`notes, once you understand what Kim is disclosing in its figure
`15A which is what figure A is based on, then all of those
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`arguments do fall away.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, those TOLED arguments, those
`come out though with respect to Patent Owner's challenge
`against the obviousness. That is when you're blending Kim's
`figure 11B embodiments with the watch-type device; is that
`correct?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: I have not understood their
`arguments to be limited in that way, Your Honor. I have
`understood their arguments to say that figure 15A can't or figure
`A can't be implemented or Kim does not describe figure A
`because it would interfere with the TOLED (audio interference)
`for the watch- type embodiment. So I agree with you that they
`certainly raised those arguments in terms of -- in response to our
`obviousness arguments but at least I have understood them to
`also raise them to whether Kim actually discloses figure A.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to
`get clear in my head what's what. It just seems to me that, for
`example, if you have a prior art reference that anticipates then it
`doesn't matter if it doesn't look pretty or those sorts of things. It
`is what it is. If it's described, it's described.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: That's exactly our position,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for
`explaining. You can continue.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: So, again, the Board noted in
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`its Institution decisions that Kim describes an embodiment that a
`POSITA would have understood to resemble Petitioner's figure A
`and as Your Honor noted, we also have an obviousness argument.
`That even if for the sake of argument one assumes that Kim does
`not describe in words what Petitioners have shown illustrated in
`figure A, that it would have been obvious to implement figure A
`using the teachings of Kim particularly what Kim describes with
`respect to the folder-type embodiment in figures 11B and 11E
`and a POSITA recognizing that what it teaches with respect to
`those embodiments are applicable to the watch- type embodiment
`and Kim of course itself states in paragraph 179 that its various
`embodiments can be used singly and/or by being combined
`together.
`Now, Patent Owner takes issue with that and says that that
`statement is limited only to the control embodiments and we
`submit, Your Honor, that that's not how a POSITA would
`understand it, not the least of which is that immediately after
`that paragraph and that sentence (audio interference) proceeds to
`discuss for the next 88 paragraphs the physical aspects of the
`various embodiments and not the control methods. But in any
`event, even if paragraph 179 was not in Kim, Kim could still be
`used for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`and Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner's expert, explained in great detail why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`teachings with respect to the folder type embodiment were
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`applicable and could inform a person of ordinary skills in the art
`a POSITA's understanding and implementation of the watch- type
`embodiment and I'm referring now to slide 23 of the
`presentation.
`Dr. Kiaei spends eight pages of testimony describing the
`similarities between the folder type embodiment and the watch-
`type embodiment including that they both have a first body 100a
`and a second body 100b, that they both can be connected -- those
`bodies in both embodiments can be connected using a hinge so
`that they can open or close in a folding manner. They use many
`of the same reference numbers across the two embodiments.
`They use nearly identical description of the coupling members
`that are used to couple the sub-device to the either the folder-
`type main device or the watch- type main device. They both
`allow for a permutation where one of the first or second bodies
`can actually be replaced. So instead of having a third body that
`is a sub-device, it's just a first body and a sub-device that can be
`coupled or decoupled from each other and they both describe that
`the sub-device can be coupled to the first or the second body.
`So, all of these similarities between the two embodiments,
`as Dr. Kiaei testified, would inform a POSITA's understanding
`and would make the POSITA recognize that the teachings with
`respect to figure 11B and 11E could be applied to the watch- type
`embodiment.
`Now, and recognizing that similarity it solves -- it would
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`solve the alleged problem that Patent Owner has identified which
`is you couldn't get a sub-device to be sandwiched between the
`first and second bodies because the first and second bodies could
`not then close.
`As Patent Owners have admitted, and I'm referring to
`paragraph 24 of the presentation here, the folder type device of
`figure 11B can accommodate the placement of sub-device 300
`between the first and the second bodies. So that's an admission
`that it is actually possible to design a folder-type embodiment
`that can accommodate the sub-device between the two bodies and
`still close, close when it's actually there and close when it's not
`there.
`So, what do they argue in terms of why the teachings of
`11B are not relevant or couldn't be applied to the watch-type
`embodiment of 15A? Well, they raise a number of arguments.
`The first is that the teachings of 11B is not combinable. So B,
`the folder-type device cannot fully open. It can't open to 180
`degrees.
`First of all, that's a red herring argument because there is
`nothing in Kim's disclosure with respect to the watch-type
`embodiment that requires the watch-type embodiment to open to
`180 degrees. All Kim says is that there is a hinge that allows the
`first and the second bodies to open or close. It doesn't place any
`restriction on how much it must open or how much, you know, in
`terms of upper bound or lower bound. It just needs to open 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`close, and in any event on cross-examination, Dr. Horenstein,
`which is Patent Owner's expert actually admitted that the
`embodiments in figure 11B can fully open to 180 degrees. So to
`that extent that that argument is even relevant, their own expert
`has repudiated it and recognized that figure 11B can open fully.
`The second argument that they raised is that the hinge
`(phonetic)structure that is shown in 11B dual display
`implementation of a folding-type device. Now again, that's an
`irrelevant argument because as for the reasons that we discussed,
`the watch-type embodiment of Kim is not limited to a dual
`display implementation. It does not require dual displays. It
`does not require a TOLED. So that argument is irrelevant on its
`own terms.
`But in any event, Patent Owner in its own briefing
`recognizes that figure 5 shows an implementation of a dual
`screen device that has a hinge structure that is basically the same
`as the hinge structure of figure 11 -- embodiment of 11B. So
`again, I would submit that the argument is irrelevant in the first
`instance. But in any event, factually incorrect that the hinge
`structure of 11B is incompatible with a dual screen structure
`because figure 5B shows that it can be used to implement exactly
`such a structure.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a few questions on the hinge
`arguments, if you will --
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Sure.
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- entertain those. I believe that Patent
`Owner's position is that your figure A that you've arrived at is
`based on what you're saying, “hey, we could arrive at this figure
`if you combine embodiments” and so they're really honing in on,
`hey, you picked the hinge, that's the hinge you picked, that hinge
`is no good and here are all the reasons why, and then your
`response is, “well, hey, even Dr. Horenstein confirmed that an
`individual choosing the hinge for a design project would apply,”
`and I'm quoting "common sense as to what type of hinge would
`work and which would not," and then in your reply you say, “a
`POSITA would have been able to use routine design skills to
`select an appropriate hinge.” Patent Owner comes in and says,
`hey, that's all new, that wasn't in your petition. I just wanted to
`get your response on that, all of that.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Of course, Your Honor, and
`what I would say is that Patent Owner's premise that we picked a
`hinge is incorrect. We didn't limit the embodim