Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`Google LLC
`v.
`Neonode Smartphone LLC
`
`IPR2021-01041
`October 17, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 1 of 44
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1051
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`
`
`Google LLC
`v.
`Neonode Smartphone LLC
`
`IPR2021-01041
`October 17, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 1 of 44
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1051
`GOOGLE v. NEONODE
`IPR2021-01041
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`“User Interface for Mobile
`Handheld Computer Unit”
`
`Pet. 63 (annotating Ex-1001, Figs. 1, 2)
`Ex-1001, Figs. 1-2; Pet. 3
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`Grounds of unpatentability
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Obviousness Basis
`
`Robertson Grounds
`Robertson and Maddalozzo
`1
`1-5, 13, 15-17
`Robertson, Maddalozzo, and Vayda
`2
`6-7, 9
`Robertson, Maddalozzo, and Bedford-Roberts
`3
`12
`TarpenningGrounds
`Tarpenning
`4
`1, 4-6, 13, 15-17
`Tarpenningand Vayda
`5
`2-3, 7, 9
`Tarpenningand Bedford-Roberts
`6
`12
`Neonodeargues patentability only for claim 1
`No patentability arguments for dependent claims
`
`Obviousness Basis
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 23; see generallyPOR
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, 6:45-59
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`Legal framework
`
`Meaning of
`Claim Terms
`
`Compare
`Prior Art to
`Claims
`
`Claim Language
`
`Patent Specification
`
`Scope of Prior Art
`
`Compare Prior Art to
`Claims
`
`Claims Are Obvious
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson Grounds
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`Prior art: Robertson
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §3
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §3.1
`
`Pet. 6, 26 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 5-8
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`Prior art: Maddalozzo
`
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 1:12-14
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 1:28-31
`
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 4:32-40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 11 (annotating MaddalozzoFig. 6)
`
`Pet. 10-11
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`Issues raised by Neonode (Robertson grounds)
`
`Issue
`
`Whether Robertson is analogous
`art to the ’879 patent?
`Whether Robertson’s “flick” and
`“insert” gestures are “gliding” as
`claimed in the ’879 patent?
`Whether Robertson discloses
`“only one option for activating
`the function”?
`Whether Robertson’s phone
`represents the phone editor
`function?
`Whether the combination
`renders the claim obvious?
`
`Resolution
`
`Yes. Robertson is in the field of user interfaces for
`mobile handheld computer units and solves the
`same problem of simple user interfaces.
`Yes. Robertson discloses the claimed gliding
`because it is the same as the gesture described in
`the ’879 patent.
`Yes. Only the “flick right” gesture is disclosed for
`activating the “dialphone” function. Only the
`“insert” gesture is disclosed for activating the
`phone-button editor function.
`Yes. Robertson’s buttons represent the functions
`activated when gesturing on the button.
`Yes. A POSITA understood Robertson relates to
`mobile handheld devices with touch screens that
`read computer code for the user interface, and
`would have implemented Robertson’s teachings on
`those devices.
`Reply 23; see generallyPOR
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`“Gliding” should be interpreted as described in specification,
`not Neonode’s arbitrary litigation position
`
`Google’s Position
`
`Neonode’s Position
`
`Term
`
`“gliding”
`No construction necessary No construction provided;
`arbitrary type of movement
`that is not a flick or a drag
`Specification only describes “moving” an object to
`activate a function, and does not disclose “gliding”
`Prosecution history does not distinguish “gliding” from
`other gestures
`Neonode’sconstruction would render claims invalid
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 7-9
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`“Gliding”: Specification
`
`Ex-1001, Abstract
`
`Ex-1001, 2:10-14
`
`Ex-1001, 4:7-11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 3 (annotating Ex-1001, Fig. 2)
`Pet. 2-3; Reply 7-8
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`“Gliding” added in prosecution to clarify movement
`away from touched location, not mechanics of “gliding”
`
`Ex-1002, 338
`
`* * *
`Ex-1002, 317-318
`Ex-1002, 338-339
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 7-8
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode distinguished Hoshino on the type of activation,
`not mechanics of “gliding”
`
`Ex-1002, 496-497
`
`Ex-1002, 497
`
`Ex-1002, 450 (excerpted)
`Ex-1002, 496-497; Reply 8, 20-21
`
`13
`
`Ex-1002, 497
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode quotes the prosecution history out of context
`
`Ex-1002, 496-497
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 8, 20-21
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode’s construction lacks written description
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`A claim reciting a particular species, when only the genus
`is disclosed, renders the claim invalid
`– Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims are invalid
`where specification discloses only a broad genus, but claim
`recites a particular species)
`Claim construction requires interpreting claim as
`disclosed in the specification
`– Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC,
`824 F.3d 999, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (declining to construe
`claim in way that “would likely render the claims invalid for
`lack of written description”)
`
`Reply 7-9
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson discloses the plain meaning and Neonode’s
`construction
`
`Pet. 26 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`Pet. 27 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 25-29; Reply 9-11
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson is analogous art because it is in the
`same field as the ’879 patent
`
`Pet. 12
`
`Pet. 13
`
`Pet. 14
`
`Pet. 17
`
`Pet. 13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 12-18; Reply 1-4 17
`
`Page 17 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode’s analogous art argument is based on a
`misunderstanding of “desktop”
`
`Ex-1033, 4
`
`* * *
`
`Ex-1034, 13, 25
`
`Ex-1034, 5-6
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), 14; see also, e.g., §§1, 1.1, 2.1
`Reply 1-4; POR 1-2, 25-26, see alsoPOR 27-31, 56-58; Ex-1036, 51-5318
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 18 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson is analogous art because it is reasonably
`pertinent to the same problems as the ’879 patent
`
`Robertson is directed to creating a simple user interface
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §1
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §1.1
`
`Robertson is directed to creating a user interface that can
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §3
`handle large and different amounts of information
`
`Reply 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 4-6; Pet. 5-6, 12-18 19
`
`Page 19 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson discloses only one option to activate the
`“dialphone” function
`
`Pet. 6, 26 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 24 (annotating Robertson Fig. 3)
`Pet. 25-29
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 44
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is not limited to only a single function for
`the representation/touched location
`
`Claim differentiation rebuts Neonode’sposition
`The prosecution history permits multiple functions
`
`Ex-1001, 8:31-36
`
`Ex-1002, 542
`Reply 13-14, 14.n4; POR 52–53; see alsoEx-1043, 1243-1244
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson discloses only one option to activate the
`phone-“editor” function
`
`Pet. 27 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 24 (annotating Robertson Fig. 3)
`Pet. 25-29
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 44
`
`
`
`Robertson’s “gliding away” activates the represented
`functions
`
`Pet. 6, 26 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`Pet. 27 (annotating Robertson Fig. 1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 19-22, 25-29, Reply 12
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 44
`
`
`
`Implementing Robertson’s gesture-based activation on
`Maddalozzo’s handheld devices would have been obvious
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §3
`
`Ex-1005 (Robertson), §3.1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 1:12-14
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 1:28-31
`
`Ex-1006 (Maddalozzo), 4:32-40
`Pet. 13-19
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 44
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert explained why combination would have
`been obvious to a POSITA
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 87
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 84
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 91
`Pet. 13-19
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 44
`
`
`
`The Petition provides ample motivation to combine
`Robertson and Maddalozzo
`
`Pet. 15
`
`Pet. 16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. 17
`
`Pet. 17-18
`Pet. 13-19
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 44
`
`
`
`Software program code stored on and read by a mobile
`handheld computer unit was disclosed and obvious
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶¶ 81-82
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 85
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 92
`Pet. 13-14, 16-17; Reply 18-19; Ex-1003, ¶¶ 80-82, 85-86, 91-97, 115; Ex-1027, 33-34, 51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 44
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert explained that Robertson’s “client” and
`“server” run on the same device
`
`Ex-1003 (Dr. Wobbrock Decl.), ¶ 115
`Reply 18-19; Ex-1003, ¶ 115; Ex-1027, 33-34, 51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Page 28 of 44
`
`
`
`Tarpenning Grounds
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Page 29 of 44
`
`
`
`Prior art: Tarpenning
`
`Pet. 67 (annotating TarpenningFig. 7)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1009 (Tarpenning), 7:39-48
`
`Pet. 65-67
`
`30
`
`Page 30 of 44
`
`
`
`Issues raised by Neonode (Tarpenning grounds)
`
`Issue
`
`Whether Tarpenning’sdrag is the
`claimed “gliding”
`Whether it would have been obvious to
`use Tarpenning’sdisclosed touch-and-
`glide function activation gesture to
`activate the menu-display function
`
`Resolution
`
`Yes. Neonode’sprosecution history shows
`that even Neonodeequated drag with
`gliding, calling the prior art’s “drag” gesture
`a “glide”
`Yes. The combination applies the same
`previously known gesture, used in the
`conventional way, which is obvious as a
`matter of law
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 23; see generallyPOR
`
`31
`
`Page 31 of 44
`
`
`
`Tarpenning discloses “gliding away” to activate an assignment
`function
`
`Ex-1009 (Tarpenning), 6:35-40
`
`Ex-1009 (Tarpenning), 7:44-48
`
`Pet. 78-80; Reply 19-20
`
`32
`
`Pet. 80 (annotating Tarpenning, Fig. 7)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 32 of 44
`
`
`
`Applicant equated “drag” with “glide” during prosecution
`
`Ex-1002, 497
`
`Ex-1002, 496-497
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 20-21
`
`33
`
`Page 33 of 44
`
`
`
`The Petition establishes a motivation to activate Tarpenning’s
`menu icon using the disclosed touch-and-glide action
`
`Pet. 82
`
`Pet. 82
`
`Pet. 81 (annotating TarpenningFig. 6)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Pet. 82-83
`Pet. 80-83; Reply 21-23
`
`34
`
`Page 34 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode does not rebut Petitioner’s motivation to
`modify Tarpenning
`
`Petitioner’s argument
`
`Neonode’sargument
`
`Pet. 82
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR 73
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`35
`
`Page 35 of 44
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Page 36 of 44
`
`
`
`Neonode’s secondary considerations fail to overcome
`Petitioner’s obviousness showing
`
`No presumption of nexus
`Neonodealleges two bases:
`–Commercial success
`–Industry praise
`Does notallege:
`–Unexpected results
`–Copying
`–Skepticism
`–Unresolved need
`–Failure of others
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply 24; Sur-reply 26; POR 3-17
`
`37
`
`Page 37 of 44
`
`
`
`No commercial success
`
`Neonodephones were not commercially successful
`–Only about 9,600 sales
`–No evidence of market share
`Samsung license is not commercial success
`–License to multiple applications
`–No patent existed when Samsung license was signed
`–No evidence of any royalty payments by Samsung
`–License abandonedDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-2013, 1
`
`Reply 28-29
`
`38
`
`Page 38 of 44
`
`
`
`No industry praise for claimed features
`
`No evidence of praise directed to the “gliding … away”
`gesture to activate the menu icon
`Alleged praise was focused on unclaimed features, e.g.,
`zForcetouchscreen, one handed use
`
`Ex-2013, 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-2035, 3
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`39
`
`Page 39 of 44
`
`
`
`Appendix
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Page 40 of 44
`
`
`
`’879 patent claims: Independent claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, 6:45-59
`
`41
`
`Page 41 of 44
`
`
`
`’879 patent claims: Dependent claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, 6:60-7:17
`
`42
`
`Page 42 of 44
`
`
`
`’879 patent claims: Dependent claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, 7:18-8:6
`
`43
`
`Page 43 of 44
`
`
`
`’879 patent claims: Dependent claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-1001, 8:7-33
`
`44
`
`Page 44 of 44
`
`
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
