`
`
`
`Paper No. ______
`Filed: July 21, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`b.
`
`i
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The Robertson Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims .................. 1
`A.
`Robertson Is Analogous Art .................................................................. 1
`1.
`Robertson is in the same field as the ’879 patent ....................... 1
`2.
`Robertson is reasonably pertinent to the ’879 patent’s
`problem ....................................................................................... 4
`Robertson Discloses the “Gliding … Away” Limitation ...................... 7
`1.
`The ’879 patent lacks written description for Neonode’s
`construction ................................................................................. 7
`Robertson’s “flick” gesture discloses the “gliding …
`away” limitation under the plain meaning and under
`Neonode’s construction .............................................................. 9
`Robertson’s “insert” gesture discloses the “gliding …
`away” limitation ........................................................................11
`Robertson’s “insert” gesture activates a represented
`function .....................................................................................12
`Robertson discloses the “one option” limitation .................................13
`Robertson and Maddalozzo Render Obvious the Preamble................15
`1.
`Robertson and Maddalozzo render obvious “a mobile
`handheld computer unit” ...........................................................15
`a.
`Robertson’s gesture activations apply to mobile
`handheld computer units .................................................15
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to
`implement Robertson’s gesture activations in
`mobile handheld computer units ....................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`2.
`
`Robertson teaches and Maddalozzo renders obvious
`computer program code being “read by a mobile
`handheld computer unit” ...........................................................18
`III. The Tarpenning Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims ..............19
`A.
`Tarpenning Discloses “Gliding … Away” ..........................................19
`B. A POSITA Would Have Modified Tarpenning as Claimed ...............21
`IV. The Dependent Claim Are Unpatentable ......................................................23
`V. Neonode’s Secondary Considerations Do Not Overcome Obviousness .......23
`A.
`There Is No Nexus with the Claims ....................................................24
`1.
`The N1/N2 phones do not practice every claim limitation .......24
`2.
`Neonode’s phones implement other critical technology ..........25
`There Is No Industry Praise for the Claimed Features ........................26
`B.
`C. No Evidence of Commercial Success .................................................28
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 3
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 5
`D Three Enters., LLC v. SunModo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 8
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 24
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
`979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ 4, 6
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 10
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 25
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 29
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 28-29
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 4
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 27
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 6
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 18
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 22
`Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.,
`808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 26, 29
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 17
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 8
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 23
`PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu,
`891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 16
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 26
`Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`823 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 10
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 7
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC,
`8 F.4th 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 10
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 29
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 19
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18
`Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 5
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 1, 24
`Board Decisions
`Polygroup v. Willis Electric Co.,
`IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 (Feb. 26, 2018) ......................................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neonode Smartphone,
`IPR2021-00145, Paper 71 (July 6, 2022) ........................................................... 24
`SCHOTT Gemtron v. SSW Holding Co.,
`IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 (May 26, 2015) ........................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”)
`Ex-1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`Ex-1003 Declaration of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.
`Ex-1004 CV of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.
`Ex-1005 George G. Robertson, Buttons as First Class Objects on an X
`Desktop, UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User
`Interface Software and Technology: Hilton Head, South Carolina,
`USA, pp. 35-44 (Nov. 11-13, 1991) (“Robertson”)
`Ex-1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,768,501 to Maddalozzo Jr. et al. (“Maddalozzo”)
`Ex-1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,717 to Vayda et al. (“Vayda”)
`Ex-1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,870,092 to Bedford-Roberts (“Bedford-Roberts”)
`Ex-1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,344 to Tarpenning et al. (“Tarpenning”)
`Ex-1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0035880 to Musatov
`et al. (“Musatov”)
`Ex-1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0149569 to Dutta
`et al. (“Dutta”)
`Ex-1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0013483 to Ausems
`et al. (“Ausems”)
`Ex-1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,249,277 to Varveris (“Varveris”)
`Ex-1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,344,848 to Rowe et al. (“Rowe”)
`Ex-1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,388,870 to Canova Jr. et al. (“Canova”)
`Ex-1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,081,882 to Sowden et al. (“Sowden”)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 to Agulnick et al. (“Agulnick”)
`Ex-1018 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters
`Ex-1019 Declaration of Kelley M. Hayes Greenhill
`Ex-1020 Wisconsin MARC Record for Robertson, available at
`https://wrlc-gu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/sourceRecord?vi
`d=01WRLC_GUNIV:01WRLC_GUNIV&docId=alma9911002247
`004101&recordOwner=01WRLC_NETWORK (last visited May
`26, 2021)
`
`Ex-1021
`
`Library of Congress MARC Record for Robertson, available at
`https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=16367&recPo
`inter=0&recCount=25&bibId=11489112 (last visited May 27,
`2021)
`Ex-1022 U.S. Copyright Office Record, available at
`https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=8&ti=1,8&S
`earch%5FArg=Proceedings%20of%20the%20ACM%20Symposi
`um%20on%20User%20Interface%20Software%20and%20Tech
`nology&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=S5YOB6rlEC
`B6M_LEJD300IQpy&SEQ=20210527133326&SID=3 (last
`visited May 27, 2021)
`Ex-1023 WorldCat Record for OCLC Control Number 28864712, available
`at
`https://www.worldcat.org/title/proceedings-of-the-acm-symposium-
`on-user-interface-software-and-technology/oclc/28864712 (last
`visited June 2, 2021)
`Ex-1024 WorldCat Record for OCLC Control Number 270712133, available
`at
`https://www.worldcat.org/title/proceedings-of-the-acm-symposium-
`on-user-interface-software-and-technology-hilton-head-south-caroli
`na-usa-november-11-13-1991/oclc/270712133 (last visited June 2,
`2021)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1025 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00505-ADA,
`Docket No. 40, Order Granting Stay (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020)
`Ex-1026 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA, Text Order Granting Stay (W.D. Tex.
`Dec. 11, 2020)
`
`Ex-1027
`
`Excerpts from Robert W. Scheifler & James Gettys, X Window
`System, Version 11, Release 5 (Digital Press 3d ed. 1992)
`Ex-1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,116 to Pisutha-Arnond (“Pisutha-Arnond”)
`Ex-1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,644,628 to Schwarzer et al. (“Schwarzer”)
`Ex-1030
`Teleconference Transcript of Conference Call with Board dated
`November 8, 2021
`Ex-1031 Deposition transcript of Craig C. Rosenberg, Ph.D. (July 7, 2022)
`Ex-1032
`Second Declaration of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.
`Ex-1033
`
`Excerpt from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (CMP Books 17th ed.
`2001) (definition of “desktop”)
`
`Ex-1034
`
`Except from Barron’s Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms
`(Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. 7th ed. 2000) (definition of
`“desktop”)
`Ex-1035 HP 620LX/660LX Palmtop User Guide (Hewlett Packard 1st ed.
`May 1998)
`Ex-1036 NEC MobilePro 790 User’s Guide (NEC Computers Inc. Mar.
`2001)
`
`Ex-1037
`
`Excerpts from IBM ThinkPad 760E, 760ED, or 769EL User’s Guide
`(International Business Machines Corp. Sept. 1996)
`
`Ex-1038
`
`Introducing Microsoft Windows 95 (Microsoft Corp. 1995)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1039 Mohan Rajagopalan et al., Profile-Directed Optimization of
`Event-Based Programs, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002
`Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation
`(PLDI’02), June 17-19, 2002, pp. 106-116 (ACM 2002)
`Ex-1040 William R. Hamburgen et al., Itsy: Stretching the Bounds of Mobile
`Computing, Computer, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 28-36 (IEEE Apr. 2001)
`Ex-1041 Noboru Kamijoh et al., Energy trade-offs in the IBM Wristwatch
`computer, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on
`Wearable Computers, Oct. 8-9, 2001, pp. 133-140 (IEEE 2001)
`
`Ex-1042
`
`Excerpts from PowerBook Getting Started (Apple Computer, Inc.
`1994)
`
`Ex-1043
`File history to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/796,880
`Ex-1044 Deposition transcript of Magnus Goertz (June 2, 2022)
`Ex-1045 Deposition transcript of Thomas Eriksson (June 3, 2022)
`Ex-1046 Deposition transcript of Marcus Bäcklund in IPR2021-00145 (Nov.
`30, 2021)
`Ex-1047 Deposition transcript of Ulf Martensson in IPR2021-00145 (Dec. 3,
`2021)
`Ex-1048 Nichole Lee, Neonode N2 – black (unlocked) review: Neonode N2
`– black unlocked, CNET (Jan. 23, 2008), available at
`https://www.cnet.com/reviews/neonode-n2-black-unlocked-review/
`(last accessed July 8, 2022)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Introduction
`Neonode’s Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 29, “POR”) disputes the
`
`Petition’s (Paper 1, “Pet.”) showings only as to independent claim 1, and does not
`
`separately argue any dependent claim. Neonode fails to rebut the Petition’s
`
`obviousness showings for both the Robertson grounds and Tarpenning grounds.
`
`Neonode’s secondary considerations arguments lack a nexus to the claims and, if
`
`considered, cannot overcome Petitioner’s strong obviousness case.
`
`II. The Robertson Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims
`A. Robertson Is Analogous Art
`Neonode wrongly argues that Robertson is not analogous art based on
`
`Neonode’s misunderstanding of the ’879 patent’s field and Robertson. POR 18-31.
`
`Robertson satisfies both of the alternative tests for analogous art, which are
`
`“broadly” construed. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`Robertson is in the same field as the ’879 patent
`1.
`Neonode contends the ’879 patent’s field is “a user interface for a mobile
`
`handheld computer unit.” POR 22 (quoting Ex-1001, 1:6-7). The Petition explains
`
`that Robertson is in this same field because it describes a “user interface toolkit”
`
`with “pen-based gestural input,” which POSITAs would have understood describes
`
`mobile handheld computers (e.g., PDAs and laptop computers). Pet. 12-18;
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Ex-1005, Abstract, § 3.1. Petitioner’s expert explained that POSITAs would have
`
`understood Robertson relates to gesture-based user interfaces on many platforms
`
`and applies broadly because X Windows is merely an example platform. Ex-1003,
`
`¶¶93, 96; Ex-2018, 60:18-61:9.
`
`Neonode’s narrow interpretation that the field is “small” devices for “one
`
`hand only” use by “inexperienced users” lacks support. POR 21-25. The ’879
`
`patent’s “technical field,” contrary to Neonode’s interpretation, broadly refers to a
`
`“user interface for a mobile handheld computer unit” and includes within its field
`
`laptop computers and PDAs, two-handed use via a stylus or pointer, and any users.
`
`Ex-1001, 1:6-9, 1:24-33, 1:65-2:14, 6:13-15; Paper 19 (“D.I.”), 35 n.10. The
`
`“technical field” never refers to “small” devices, “one-handed” use, or
`
`“inexperienced users.” Ex-1001, 1:6-20. Even if some examples disclose small,
`
`one-handed devices, that does not limit the patent’s field, given the contrary
`
`examples.
`
`Robertson is in the same field. Pet. 13-14. Neonode does not dispute that
`
`Robertson relates to a user interface for computers, including touchscreen gesture
`
`activations, but instead argues a misunderstanding of “desktop” to dispute whether
`
`Robertson relates to a mobile handheld computer unit. POR 25-26. Robertson does
`
`because it describes the desktop as the user-interface screen. Pet. 13; Ex-1003,
`
`¶¶83-84; Ex-1032, ¶¶17-20, 22. “Desktop” in computer terminology refers to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`on-screen interface—“[t]he screen layout, the menu bar, and the program icons
`
`associated with the machine’s operating environment”—not a hardware desktop
`
`computer system, as Neonode asserts. Ex-1033; Ex-1034 (“desktop” is “the whole
`
`computer screen, representing your workspace”); Ex-1032, ¶21; Ex-1031,
`
`14:19-15:10. A POSITA would have understood that “desktop” in Robertson also
`
`refers to the on-screen interface, not the physical hardware, because it describes the
`
`buttons being “on” the desktop screen. Ex-1032, ¶¶17-20, 22. As Petitioner’s
`
`expert explains, many small mobile handheld devices, including PDAs and laptops,
`
`refer to the on-screen user interface as a “desktop” in the same way as Robertson.
`
`Ex-1032, ¶¶22-25. For example, the HP 620LX and NEC MobilePro 790 handheld
`
`devices, and the IBM ThinkPad and Apple PowerBook laptops, all refer to the
`
`on-screen user interface as a “desktop.” Ex-1032, ¶¶22-25.
`
`The prosecution history of related Application No. 16/796,880 confirms that
`
`Robertson is in the same field. There, the examiner explained Robertson is in the
`
`same field of endeavor when rejecting the pending claims reciting a “portable
`
`handheld … computer device” over Robertson’s gliding gesture. Ex-1043,
`
`1246-1247, 1256. Neonode did not dispute the examiner’s analogous art finding.
`
`Ex-1043, 1315, 1312-1313; Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d
`
`1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applicant’s failure to challenge examiner’s finding
`
`weighed against later assertions by patentee).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robertson is analogous prior art.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`2.
`
`Robertson is reasonably pertinent to the ’879 patent’s
`problem
`Robertson also satisfies the second, alternative test.
`
`Neonode alleges multiple “problem[s]” for the ’879 patent. POR 28-29.
`
`Robertson need only be “reasonably pertinent to one1 … [of those] problems” to be
`
`analogous art, “even if there are significant differences” between the references.
`
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020);
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Robertson is reasonably pertinent at least to Neonode’s alleged “problem[s]”
`
`of (1) creating a “simple” user interface and (2) a user interface that can handle
`
`large and different amounts of information. POR 28.
`
`First, Robertson describes a “user interface toolkit” having gesture-activated
`
`buttons that “are selected by simple … pen gestures” and “invoked by a simple
`
`interaction” using a “style of interaction [that] is familiar to everyone.” Ex-1005,
`
`§§ 1-1.1, 3-3.1; Pet. 5, 12-14. This is reasonably pertinent to creating a “simple”
`
`user interface.
`
`
`1 All emphases added, unless indicated otherwise.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`Second, Robertson’s “pen-based gestural input[s]” meet end-user needs by
`
`creating “simple” and “familiar” interactions for many different kinds of
`
`applications, such as phone, printer, and document applications. Ex-1005, §§ 1-1.1,
`
`3-3.1; Pet. 5-6, 32. Creating simple, familiar activation gestures for different
`
`applications is reasonably pertinent to handling large amounts of information by
`
`making it easy and intuitive to access. Pet. 5-6, 12-14.
`
`Neonode’s argument that Robertson’s buttons can have multiple functions
`
`does not change the outcome. POR 29. As explained in Section II.C, claim 1
`
`covers multiple-function or multi-action buttons and is not limited to a
`
`“single-action button,” which is recited in dependent claim 17. Further, Neonode’s
`
`unduly narrow interpretation regarding one-handed use, “small” devices, and
`
`“inexperienced” users (POR 22-25) is contradicted by the ’879 patent (supra
`
`§ II.A.1).
`
`Neonode’s cited cases are distinguishable. In In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
`
`659-60 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the patent concerned a problem of “dead volume” in tanks
`
`for storing refined petroleum, which was different from plugging underground
`
`geological formation anomalies. Here, the ’879 patent and Robertson are both
`
`concerned with using gestures to create simple user interfaces. POR 28-29; Pet. 5,
`
`12-14: Ex-1005, §§ 1-1.1, 3-3.1. In Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`
`993 F.2d 858, 864-65 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the prior art industrial controller “could not
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`be used” with the patent’s personal computers. In contrast here, Robertson’s user
`
`interface is pertinent to creating “simple,” “familiar” gestural inputs for mobile
`
`handheld computer units, such as laptops and PDAs, like the ’879 patent. Ex-1005,
`
`§ 1-1.1; Pet. 16. And, unlike Polygroup v. Willis Electric Co., IPR2016-01610,
`
`Paper 187, 38 (Feb. 26, 2018), Petitioner here provided ample explanation
`
`regarding Robertson’s pertinence, including that Robertson provides a “simple,
`
`configurable multi-function user interface” and can handle large amounts of
`
`information. Pet. 5-8, 16, 25-28, 30-32.
`
`Neonode incorrectly characterizes SCHOTT Gemtron v. SSW Holding Co.,
`
`IPR2014-00367, Paper 62, 17 (May 26, 2015) (emphasis in original), as requiring
`
`the prior art to be pertinent to the “entire problem” of the challenged patent. But
`
`the prior art need only be reasonably pertinent to a “particular problem” to be
`
`analogous art. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit explained this means reasonably pertinent to “one … of the
`
`problems” of the challenged patent even if there are “significant differences”
`
`overall. Donner, 979 F.3d at 1361.
`
`Robertson is reasonably pertinent to at least two of Neonode’s alleged
`
`problems and is analogous art.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`B. Robertson Discloses the “Gliding … Away” Limitation
`Neonode’s “gliding … away” argument relies on an unsupported
`
`construction of “gliding” that, if accepted, renders the claims invalid for lack of
`
`written description. Robertson discloses the same movement gesture as the ’879
`
`patent and discloses the claimed “gliding … away” limitation. Pet. 25-29.
`
`1.
`
`The ’879 patent lacks written description for Neonode’s
`construction
`Neonode argues that “gliding” is a single, specific type (species) of broad
`
`“movement” category (genus). POR 32-35. Accepting Neonode’s argument
`
`renders all claims invalid for lack of written description and cannot be correct.
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1004 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (declining construction that “would likely render the claims invalid for
`
`lack of written description”).
`
`The ’879 patent describes only generic “movement” or “moving” for
`
`activating a function. Ex-1001, 2:10-14, 4:7-11. It never describes “gliding” or any
`
`other specific type of movement, let alone distinguishes “glide” and “flick”
`
`movements. “Gliding” was added by amendment years after the original filing.
`
`Ex-1002, 317. The applicant’s only alleged support for the amendment informs the
`
`meaning, and the applicant relied only on disclosures of “movement” generally,
`
`not “gliding.” Ex-1002, 338. Moreover, there is no discussion of “gliding” being
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`significant. Ex-1002, 334-341. Any interpretation other than “movement” renders
`
`the claim invalid. Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d
`
`1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims invalid where specification disclosed only
`
`broad genus, but claim recited particular species); D Three Enters., LLC v.
`
`SunModo Corp., 890 F.3d 1042, 1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (POSITA’s knowledge
`
`of alterations cannot suffice for written description).
`
`Neonode’s expert also could not delineate the boundary between these two
`
`movements and explained that whether a gesture is a “flick” or “glide” depends on
`
`how the system is configured, further confirming Neonode’s construction is wrong
`
`and arbitrary. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12. Moreover, Neonode’s expert
`
`admitted that where the ’879 patent discusses movement speed, it does so unrelated
`
`to claim 1’s claimed function activation. Ex-1031, 34:24-35:17; Ex-1001, 2:61-67,
`
`5:33-35.
`
`The prosecution history also does not support Neonode’s construction. The
`
`applicant never distinguished “gliding” from other gestures or movement
`
`generally, and in fact equated other gestures with a “glide.” Ex-1002, 496-497
`
`(equating “drag” and “glide”). The examiner also continued to search “flick” as
`
`relevant after the amendment. Ex-1002, 381, 482, 585.
`
`Neonode’s citation to its after-arising N2 advertisement (POR 33-34) is not
`
`relevant because it was used to distinguish “the representation of the function is not
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding” limitation, not between “gliding” and
`
`another movement type (Ex-1002, 258, 611-612).
`
`To avoid invalidation, “gliding” includes “moving,” the only disclosure in
`
`the ’879 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Robertson’s “flick” gesture discloses the “gliding … away”
`limitation under the plain meaning and under Neonode’s
`construction
`If Neonode’s construction is rejected, Neonode does not challenge the
`
`Petition’s showing that Robertson teaches the “gliding … away” limitation. POR
`
`35-44; Pet. 25-29.
`
`Neonode’s expert admitted that both flick and glide gestures start at a
`
`touched location and move away from the touched location while continuing to
`
`touch the screen, as taught by the ’879 patent and explained in the Petition.
`
`Ex-1031, 21:4-22:6, 36:2-12; Pet. 25-29.
`
`Neonode’s argument is based solely on its improper construction of
`
`“gliding,” which should be rejected. Supra § II.B.1. Neonode argues arbitrary
`
`differences in speed and duration of movement (e.g., “glide” is a “smooth,”
`
`“effortless” motion, while “flick” is a “sudden,” “sharp,” “jerky” motion) (POR
`
`35-36), but Neonode’s expert admitted that the distinction is arbitrary and he could
`
`not identify the boundary between these motions because “flick” or “glide”
`
`classification depends on the system configuration, and the argument lacks support
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`in the ’879 patent. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12. Neonode’s citations to
`
`general-purpose dictionaries are unavailing because they are either after-arising2 or
`
`improperly contradict the intrinsic record, which describes only “movement”
`
`without regard to speed or distance. Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring
`
`Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Profectus Tech. LLC v.
`
`Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (extrinsic evidence may
`
`not be used to contradict intrinsic record); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v.
`
`Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (extrinsic evidence is
`
`improper when “the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence”).
`
`Even under Neonode’s improper construction, Robertson teaches the
`
`“gliding … away” limitation because Robertson discloses that the “flick” gesture
`
`starts by touching inside a button and moving away from the touched location, as
`
`described in the ’879 patent. Pet. 25-28; Ex-1003, ¶¶105-110. Robertson does not
`
`place any boundary on the speed or duration of its gestures, and Neonode identifies
`
`
`2 Neonode’s citations to development guides dated two decades after the
`
`2002 priority date are improper and irrelevant because they do not describe the
`
`terms in 2002. POR 39-40 (citing Ex-2022 (dated 2022); Ex-2025 (same); Ex-2027
`
`(same); Ex-2029 (same); Ex-2023 (dated 2020); Ex-2026 (same); Ex-2028 (dated
`
`2021)).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`none to distinguish it from the ’879 patent. Moreover, Neonode’s expert’s
`
`admission that the distinction between “flick” and “glide” is arbitrary because a
`
`“flick” or “glide” classification depends how the system is configured refutes
`
`Neonode’s position. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12.
`
`Neonode’s assertion that Robertson’s flick gesture is “not intended to …
`
`move[] outside of the [b]utton” (POR 43-44 (citation omitted)) is contradicted by
`
`Robertson’s disclosure that the gesture can move outside the button and should be
`
`disregarded. Ex-1005, § 4.2; Pet. 25-28; Ex-1003, ¶¶105-110. Neonode’s attempt
`
`to distinguish “flick” from a “drag-and-drop” gesture is also irrelevant. POR 44.
`
`Robertson describes activating the “dialphone” function using a “flick,” meeting
`
`the touch-then-glide limitation. Pet. 25-29. Whether a drag-and-drop may also be
`
`defined for other buttons is irrelevant.
`
`Robertson therefore teaches the claimed “gliding … away.”
`
`3.
`
`Robertson’s “insert” gesture discloses the “gliding … away”
`limitation
`Neonode’s arguments that Robertson’s “insert” gesture does not disclose the
`
`“gliding … away” limitation are largely the same as for “flick” (POR 47-50) and
`
`fail for the same reasons as explained in Section II.B.2. Neonode’s argument
`
`regarding the size is also irrelevant because neither Robertson nor the ’879 patent
`
`is size-constrained.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`4.
`
`Robertson’s “insert” gesture activates a represented
`function
`Neonode incorrectly argues that Robertson’s button does not “represent” the
`
`button editor function activated by the touch-and-glide insert gesture. POR 45-47.
`
`Neonode does not explain why Robertson’s phone button cannot represent more
`
`than one function. Claim differentiation specifically permits multi-function buttons
`
`because claim 17 limits the claim to the button representing only one function.
`
`Compare Ex-1001, claim 1, with Ex-1001, claim 17.
`
`The phone button represents the phone button editor function because the
`
`insert gesture on the phone button activates only the phone button editor and is
`
`specific to that button. Pet. 23-24.
`
`Neonode’s argument appears to be that the button must visibly show or
`
`identify the function, but that is contradicted by the ’879 patent. POR 45-46. In the
`
`patent, function 21 is an “application dependent function” that varies for each
`
`application, but always shows the same “+” icon without visibly identifying the
`
`different application-dependent functions. Ex-1001, 4:4-6, FIG. 1. Neonode’s
`
`citations to the patent do not rebut this and, in fact, rely on this same disclosure
`
`that the activated function is “represented” without being identified. POR 45
`
`(citing Ex-1001, 4:4-6). Robertson’s phone button represents the activated phone
`
`button editor function, consistent with the ’879 patent’s disclosure. Pet. 19-22.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`
`C. Robertson discloses the “one option” limitation
`Neonode does not dispute that Robertson discloses only one option for
`
`activating Robertson’s “dialphone” function and one option for activating
`
`Robertson’s phone-button editor function under the plain claim language.3
`
`Neonode instead wrongly argues that “wherein the representation consists of
`
`o