`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
