Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 50
`Entered: November 17, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 17, 2022
`___________
`
`BEFORE: KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 50
`Entered: November 17, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 17, 2022
`___________
`
`BEFORE: KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQUIRE
`ERIKA ARNER, ESQUIRE
`YI YU, ESQUIRE
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`271 17th Street, NW
`Atlanta, Georgia 30363-6209
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PARHAM HENDIFAR, ESQUIRE
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`Santa Monica, California 90405
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`October 17, 2022, commencing at 1:02 p.m. EST at the San Jose, California
`USPTO Regional Office.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`(Proceedings begin)
`
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Welcome, everybody, this morning.
`
`This is the oral hearing in IPR2021-01041 between
`
`Petitioner Google LLC and Patent Owner Neonode SmartPhone
`LLC, and the challenged patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879.
`
`I'm Judge Ogden, and with me today remotely are
` Judges Szpondowski and Howard.
`
`So let's start with counsel introductions. Who is
` here for Petitioner today?
`
`MR. RODKEY: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`Kevin Rodkey, and for the court reporter that's
`R-o-d-k-e-y, for Petitioner. With me is Erika Arner, lead
`counsel for Petitioner, and Yi Yu counsel for Petitioner.
`We're also joined by Mishima Alam, in-house counsel for
`Google.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Thank you, Mr. Rodkey.
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner, who do we have appearing?
`
`MR. HENDIFAR: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`Padham Hendifar for Patent Owner Neonode, and that's
`spelled P-a-r-h-a-m, H-e-n-d-i-f-a-r.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Thank you, Mr. Hendifar.
`
`This hearing, as usual, is open to the public, and
` it's possible that there may be listeners on the public
` line.
`
`
`However, the parties have indicated that there might
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` potentially be a need to discuss matters that are under seal
` under the protective order, and we've indicated that if the
` need arises for either party to discuss information covered
` by the protective order, the party may raise the issue with
` the Panel during the hearing and may reserve up to 10
` minutes of the party's remaining time to be used during a
` closed portion of the hearing at the end of the hearing that
` will be open only to people with authorization under the
` protective order.
`
`Let's go off record for a second.
`
`(Discussion off the record)
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Since two of the judges are remote,
`and the court reporter today is also remote, it will be
`important to speak clearly into the microphone.
`
`And there is an ELMO set up here in the hearing room
`that the parties can use, but keep in mind that Judges
`Szpondowski and Howard are not able to see what comes up on
`the screen. So please indicate what slide you're referring
`to, if you use the ELMO, and when you bring up a new slide,
`let us know the slide number so that we can all follow along.
`
`According to the terms of the oral hearing order,
` each side has a total of 60 minutes to present their
` arguments. And Petitioner, having the burden of proof, will
` go first, followed by Patent Owner, and then if the parties
` reserve rebuttal time, Petitioner can make rebuttal
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` arguments, and then Patent Owner can make surrebuttal
` arguments.
`
`And I will be keeping track of time on a stopwatch.
` I'll try to give you a warning when your time draws to a
` close.
`
`So with that in mind, we'll start with Petitioner.
` Mr. Rodkey, would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
`
`MR. RODKEY: 15 minutes of rebuttal, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. So I will set the watch for 45
`minutes for your opening time, and if you need additional
`time, you can still proceed after that.
`
`MR. RODKEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: So you can begin when you're ready,
`and I'll start the watch when you start.
`
`MR. RODKEY: Good morning, Your Honors.
`
`Kevin Rodkey for Petitioner Google.
`
`This IPR proceeding is about U.S. Patent
`No. 8,095,879. And the '879 patent is directed to a user
`interface for a touchscreen device.
`
`The element of the patent that is recited in the
`claims is shown on Slide 2 in the annotated figures at the
`right. It involves the activation of a function and how to
`operate a particular feature of a device.
`
`The way the patent describes this operation is the
`user uses their thumb, or a pen, or a stylus, and touches
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`the blue area which shows what's called a representation of
`the functions.
`
`The user then moves, according to the language of
`the patent, their finger or the stylus in the direction B,
`which is orange, from the blue area, into the yellow area.
`
`There's no discussion in the '879 patent how far the
`finger moves, how fast the finger moves, the duration of the
`time, how long it takes, any smoothness of the action, it
`only says you move, and you move with a direction.
`
`Petitioner has six grounds of unpatentability, which
`are shown in the petition. They're divided into two groups.
`
`One is the Robertson ground. The Robertson ground
`has a touchscreen device where the user uses a pen, touches
`an area, such as a button, and moves with a direction, such
`as to the right, to activate a particular function, like
`dialing a phone.
`
`Because Patent Owner only argues patentability of
`Independent Claim 1, I'm going to focus only on Ground 1,
`the combination of Robertson and Maddalozzo.
`
`The second ground, which the parties call the
`Tarpenning grounds, is a small handheld device, such as one
`that you put in your hand, like an e-reader, where the user
`uses their finger, or a stylus, touches a particular button,
`like a hot key, and then moves the stylus or a finger
`elsewhere on the screen to activate an assignment function.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`Again, because Patent Owner only argues for the
`
`patentability of Claim 1, I'll focus on the ground of
`Tarpenning alone, that Tarpenning renders Claim 1 obvious.
`
`And so if the Board doesn't have any questions on
`Grounds 2, 3, 5, or 6, I will omit them from this
`presentation.
`
`On Slide 4, we have Independent Claim 1. And you
`can see from Independent Claim 1 that it's directed to a
`non-transitory computer-readable medium, it has program
`code, which is read by a mobile handheld computer unit, it
`allows a computer to present a user interface for a mobile
`handheld computer unit, the user interface comprising a
`number of things.
`
`At its core, the body of the claim recites what we
`discussed with reference to Figures 1 and 2 of the '879
`patent.
`
`There's a representation of a function, such as the
`button, like in the diagram of Figure 2 for the '879 patent.
`
`There's one option to activate that function, and
`that action is a multistep operation of, as we saw in
`Figure 2, touching the location, such as the button, the
`blue area, and the claim says "gliding away", or as the
`patent says, "moving away" with a particular direction, and
`that the representation, such as the button, is not
`relocated.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`The highlights on Figure 4 show the elements of the
`
`petition that are shown in the Robertson grounds and
`Tarpenning grounds that are disputed by the Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner disputes all of these for the Robertson
`grounds, but only the gliding away limitation for the
`Tarpenning grounds.
`
`Patent Owner also has a number of secondary
`considerations. They argue two of those. I will discuss
`those at the end, unless the Board has specific questions.
`
`So I'd like to begin with the Robertson grounds,
`beginning with an overview of Robertson on Slide 7.
`
`As we discussed before, on the left, from petition,
`pages 6 and 26, we see an annotated Figure 1 of Robertson
`which describes the operation for dialing the phone.
`
`On the right, we have an excerpt from Section 3
`which says that Robertson's buttons -- he calls them D
`buttons or X buttons or just generally buttons -- are
`selected by pen gestures.
`
`As explained by Petitioner's expert, a pen gesture
`is a movement on the screen, such as sliding the pen along
`the screen, in order to activate a function.
`
`In particular, the dial phone function is activated
`by what's called a flick right action. For the court
`reporter, f-l-i-c-k, right.
`
`As shown in the figure that was annotated by
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`Petitioner's expert in which the pen touches the
`representation, the phone button, which is blue, and then
`slides the pen to the right along the screen in order to
`activate the function. Once the software recognizes the
` function, it dials the phone.
`
`We know that this is done because Robertson also
` draws the line on the screen that is performed by the user.
` So when you touch the screen, it starts a line. As you move
` it to the right, it continues to draw it. So we know that
` there is some movement along the screen.
`
`JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: Counsel, does Robertson show
`anywhere -- you have depicted in this figure this orange
`line. So does Robertson actually depict what a flick
`actually looks like?
`
`MR. RODKEY: No, Your Honor, Robertson does not
`depict what the flick looks like.
`
`We have the testimony from Petitioner's expert, and
`we know it has to have a direction because Robertson has
`multiple flicks; it has flick right, flick left, flick down,
`flick up. So there must be a direction associated with it.
`
`We also know that there has to be a direction and a
`length of movement because Robertson has to draw the line on
`the screen as the user is performing the action.
`
`More importantly, the '879 patent, when we're trying
` to construe the claim here, provides no boundaries as to
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` what the movement is, as to what the gliding is, to any
` particular direction, to any particular speed. So all we
` need is that movement, and that's what Robertson shows, and
` we know that from the description of what the flick actions
` actually are.
`
`JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: So is it your position that the
`gliding away means any type of movement?
`
`MR. RODKEY: Gliding away means at least movement in
`direction, which is what is in the '879 patent, and I'll turn
`to Slide 11 to illustrate that.
`
`We have the excerpts from the '879 patent. They
` come from the abstract, column 2 and column 4, and those
` excerpts say -- I'll focus on the abstract because they're
` substantially identical -- that the device, after the
` number 1 in parenthesis, detects a movement of an object,
` such as a finger, with its starting point within the
` representation, the blue area of the screen, of the function
` on the menu area, the blue area of the screen, with the
` direction from the menu area to the display area, so from
` the blue to the yellow.
`
`So, yes, Your Honor. When we interpret the claim as
` it is in the specification, it is a movement.
`
`Patent Owner spends a lot of time trying to rely on
`the prosecution history to narrow this claim, but as we
`said, and they never cite to, there's no support for any
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`other interpretation in the specification itself.
`
`So they try to rely on the prosecution history. And
`what we have on Slide 12 is the prosecution history where
`the amendment was added. And if you look on the left, which
`is from Exhibit 1002, pages 317 and 318, we have that
`amendment.
`
`Patent Owner would have you believe that this was an
`amendment of one or two words to change moving to gliding.
`That's simply not right.
`
`If you look at the amendment itself, they basically
`rewrote the entire claim.
`
`And the area that is being focused on now is in that
`bottom full paragraph. You can see the addition right
`before the last struck-out portion where it refers to an
`object touching the corresponding location and then gliding
`along the touch-sensitive area away from the location.
`
`This note was not about what it means to glide, it
`was not about what it means to move or to flick or any other
`type of gesture, it's about starting on a particular
`location and moving away from that location.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Counsel, I understand that Patent
`Owner has objected to this slide on the ground that it
`referred to arguments that were not made in the papers.
`
`Do you have a response to that?
`
`MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`While Petitioner did not explicitly use the word
`
`Carlson and refer to that reference by name in the petition,
`we did, at pages 7 and 8 of the Reply, make the argument that
`the applicant did not rely on the gliding language or on the
`mechanics, and that is the point that is being used for
`today.
`
`This slide also makes the point that, as in the
`Reply which says, "There is no discussion of gliding being
`significant," that was the point that I just made, and also
`that the applicant never distinguished, "gliding from other
`gestures or movement generally."
`
`Again, that was the point that was just made.
`
`And when the applicant made this amendment, they
` pointed to that same language in the specification that we
` just showed that only talks about movement and direction as
` support for gliding, so what they refer back to is movement
` and direction.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Has Petitioner referred to this part
`of the prosecution history in the papers?
`
`MR. RODKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`At the top of page 8, for the support of the
`statements that I just cited, we refer to pages 334 and 341.
`341, which encompasses 338 and 339.
`
`And I've actually made all the points I have about
` this slide, and so I don't think I've gone outside 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` papers at this point.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Okay. We'll allow Patent Owner to
`respond to that when it's their turn.
`
`MR. HENDIFAR: Thank you.
`
`MR. RODKEY: And this is important because Patent
`Owner cites the Ajinomoto case as a basis for saying that
`because they changed a word, it must have a new meaning, and
`it must be a narrower meaning that Patent Owner didn't put in
`the prosecution history.
`
`But when you read the Ajinomoto case, it actually
`supports Petitioner's position.
`
`Ajinomoto says, "When you change a word, it tends to
` suggest that there could be a difference." It doesn't say
` there must be.
`
`And, in fact, the Ajinomoto case is factually
` similar to what we have here. The patent owner there
` amended the claims, they used a word that wasn't in the
` specification, and the Federal Circuit went back to the
` specification to understand what that word meant.
`
`And they picked a word from the specification that
` described the same thing. The word was replaced in the
` claim that didn't appear in the spec. They looked back and
` said, oh, that means substituting.
`
`Here, we have a change to gliding. We need to go
` back to the spec. We need to follow Ajinomoto. It means
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` movement and direction. There's no other support in the
` specification.
`
`JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: But counsel, can't we look at
`the dictionary to find out what gliding means?
`
`MR. RODKEY: Under Phillips, we always start with
`the specification. It is the most important form of figuring
`out the claim language.
`
`And so, no, we don't need to go to a dictionary.
`And, in fact, if you go to a dictionary, what you're going to
`find is that the claim is invalid, and the reason it's
`invalid is because Patent Owner has said that movement is a
`genus, and Patent Owner's expert said movement is a genus,
`but gliding is a species.
`
`In the Novozymes case, when the Federal Circuit
`says, "When you only define a genus in the specification, and
`then you claim a species, your claim is invalid for lack of
`written description."
`
`This is not a ground of unpatentability, it's a
` claim construction issue. And what we have in the Ruckus
` Wireless case from 2016 says, "You shouldn't construe a
` claim that's going to render the claim invalid for lack of
` written description when you have a construction based on
` the Phillips standard looking to the specification, looking
` at the file history that is consistent with both of those,"
` and the only consistent interpretation right now 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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` movement, because that's what's in your spec, and there's
` nothing in the file history to narrow the claim.
`
`In fact, in the file history, Patent Owner equated
` other movements that they're now trying to distinguish with
` gliding. And you can see that on Slide 13.
`
`In particular, on the right, Patent Owner was
` arguing about the Hoshino reference. And what Patent Owner
` said -- it's Exhibit 1002, page 497 -- is that the claimed
`invention responds to a (hard) touch followed by a glide
`differently from Hoshino.
`
`In other words, Hoshino's drag gesture in that case
`was a glide. That makes sense. We saw it in the
`specification. It has a movement. It has a direction.
`
`And Patent Owner was even clearer. They put a table
`below that that distinguished the claim, which was talking
`about gliding away at that point, from Hoshino, which was a
`drag gesture, and said, "The claimed invention has touching,
`followed by gliding, and that activates the function."
`
`Hoshino was distinguished. It has touching, which
`activates the function, and then gliding, but that gesture,
`that glide gesture, was the drag that they're now trying to
`distinguish. We have nothing in the file history that would
`distinguish a glide from a flick either because it also has
`a movement and a direction.
`
`Patent Owner was even clearer. This is about
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`function activation. You can see that in the bottom left.
`The function activation for Hoshino was a hard touch. They
`did not distinguish a drag.
`
`And, in fact, the examiner throughout the
`prosecution of this patent equated, as you can see on the
` bottom right -- this is one excerpt from page 450, we cite a
` number of other ones in your reply brief -- the examiner
` searched glide, flick, swipe, equating all three of these.
` Patent Owner never disagreed or said that that was wrong.
`
`JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: But counsel, doesn't the
`Objective row of that column distinguish between the two?
`The claimed invention, it says, "Novel touch and glide user
`operation -- user interface operation," and then Hoshino,
`"Discriminate between two conventional operations, touch and
`drag and drop."
`
`So doesn't that distinguish?
`
`MR. RODKEY: No, it doesn't, Your Honor. And the
`reason it doesn't is because, what the Hoshino reference did
`was, when you touched a particular location, one of two
`things could happen; if you touched it, it could activate the
`function if you picked the pen up directly, the other one is
`you could move it around on the screen, which is a drag
`gesture, pulling it with it.
`
`And Hoshino had to figure out a way to distinguish
`between those two things because they involved touching 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`same point. And the way Hoshino did it, and that's what that
`objective is, is you either touched it lightly or you pressed
`really hard because there was a pressure sensor. And if you
`pressed hard, it said, okay, you want to drag, and then it
`knew to start the drag gesture. So it doesn't distinguish
`between the drag, the movement, which is what the Petitioner
`is now trying to do now.
`
`If you look at the gesture, how fast the pen moves,
` how far the pen moves, the glide and the drag are the same,
` and that's what the Patent Owner said at page 497. They
` equated the gesture drag and glide.
`
`Patent Owner makes a lot about Exhibit 1002, this is
` actually page 498, these two underlying sentences, but
` again, they don't distinguish between the drag and the
` glide.
`
`Patent Owner focuses on the underlying sentences
` that say, "Hoshino does not teach gliding a finger away from
` an icon, instead, Hoshino teaches a drag and drop operation
` for moving an icon."
`
`That moving an icon is what's important, because
` this actually sets up the remainder of that paragraph, which
` is that Hoshino took something with it when you did that
` gliding, that dragging gesture. That's what was being
` distinguished, not the type of movement itself.
`
`And Robertson teaches the same thing. On Slide 16,
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` you can see the two gestures that are identified in the
` petition specifically for activating two different
` functions.
`
`We have on the left the flick right action to dial
` the phone, which is touching and moving to the right. And
` we know there's movement, again, because Robertson has to
` draw that track on the screen.
`
`On the right we have the insert or caret gesture
` which opens an editor for that phone button, which is the
` upside down V that you see on the right.
`
`Again, we have movement, and we have direction. And
` as drawn on the screen, once the gesture is recognized, it
` goes away and the function is activated. So it's a touch
` and glide. Exactly as claimed, exactly as described in the
` '879 patent.
`
`If there are no more questions on the gliding
` element or the touch and glide, I'll move to the analogous
` art argument.
`
`JUDGE SZPONDOWSKI: I actually have one more
`question about this Slide 16, because at the top it talks
`about the plain meaning.
`
`So is it your position that the plain meaning of
`gliding is just movement in a direction?
`
`MR. RODKEY: In the context of the '879 patent, yes,
`it is, Your Honor, because that's what's described in 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`specification, and that's where we have to look.
`
`That's what Ajinomoto teaches us, that's what
`Phillips tells us, and that's how claim construction is
`conducted.
`
`You can't look outside of the specification in order
`to contradict the specification, which is what the Patent
`Owner is trying to do. They're trying to pull in a lot of
`extrinsic evidence, some of which didn't come until two
`decades after the patent was filed, to try and change the
`meaning.
`
`But you don't look to extrinsic evidence, you look
`to the intrinsic evidence, and the intrinsic record talks
`about movement and it talks about direction and it talks
`about nothing else. And there's no dispute that Robertson
`has movement and direction.
`
`And, in fact, in the prosecution history of a child
`application, which is Exhibit 1043 at page 1312, Patent Owner
`actually said Robertson's flick right involves a miniscule
`amount of glide. They said this flick is a glide.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: Can we stay on Slide 16 for a second?
`I just wanted to ask you about the fact that there are two
`different functions that you can activate by doing a gesture
`on this same phone button.
`
`And the claim limitation 1B says that the
` representation, which I assume in this case would be 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
` phone button here on this slide, consists of only one option
` for activating the function.
`
`So do I understand your position correctly that
` you're saying that there can be multiple functions
` associated with this representation, and what the claim
` requires is that each function can only be activated in one
` way?
`
`MR. RODKEY: That's correct, Your Honor. And in the
`language that you just read -- one minute -- in the language
`that you just read, there's only one option for activating
`the function. It doesn't say there's only one function for
`the representation. And I know you asked me on Slide 16, but
`I think it's actually easier to go to Slide 20 where we see
`the list of functions that occur for the phone button.
`
`And you can see on the right, for the dial phone
`function, there's only a flick right action.
`
`On Slide 22 it shows it for the insert gesture which
`is the XB add a function for the phone button. There's only
`that insert gesture to do that.
`
`To your point about whether there can be only one
`function for the representation, that's not in the plain
`language of the claim. In fact, that's in Claim 17. That
`the representation is provided does not provide touch
`functionality for a different function. That would be only
`one function for the representation. Claim differentiation
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`tells us that Claim 1 must be broader, must accommodate
`multiple functions.
`
`In the prosecution history, it also permits multiple
`functions. When Patent Owner was trying to distinguish the
`Hirshberg reference, at Exhibit 1002, page 542, they're
`distinguishing Hirshberg because they say their claim has
`only one option for activating a function, not only one
`function for the representation.
`
`And in fact, during his cross examination, patent
`owner's expert said that you can have -- Hirshberg was
`distinguished, not because the claim required one function,
`but because Hirshberg had multiple options for activating a
` single function.
`
`And that's at Exhibit 1031, page 42, line 14 to 43,
` line 1.
`
`And in fact, their expert didn't even know if it
` could have multiple functions, he didn't consider it. But
` the plain language of the claim says one option to activate
` the function, it doesn't say one function. That's a
` different claim and a dependent claim.
`
`JUDGE OGDEN: But the claim does say that the claim refers to a
`representation of a function. Does that mean one function?
`
`MR. RODKEY: It means at least one. Standard claim
`construction is that A means one or more. And I can give you
`a case cite for that. It didn't come up in the briefing, but
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`that's standard claim construction principles. A is one or
`more. It's like a comprising.
`
`If there are no more questions on the gliding away
` or on the single function, I'll move to analogous art.
`
`The petition showed that Robertson is analogous art.
` Patent Owner has said that the field of the invention is a
` user interface for a mobile handheld computer device. And
` on Slide 17 we have a number of quotes in the petition where
`it showed that Robertson is direct today a user interface.
`That's not top left from petition page 12. That Robertson
`discusses a "user interface toolkit."
`
`There's no dispute about whether Robertson is a user
`interface. Patent Owner's only dispute is about whether it
`is to a mobile device. And Petitioner's expert explained
`that it is, as is discussed in the petition at pages 13, 14,
`17, and intermittently between pages 12 and 19 and other
`places.
`
`Supported by its expert, the petition says that a
`POSITA would understand that Robertson's teachings can apply
`to many times of gesture-based devices, using handheld
`computing devices, like laptops and PDAs which are
`specifically identified as mobile devices in column 1 of the
`'879 patent.
`
`That's supported by Petitioner's expert,
`Exhibit 1003 at paragraph 83 where Petitioner's expert
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`identifies a number of devices and patents that he says
`showed it was conventional for touch-based interfaces like
`those disclosed in Robertson, like gesture-based interfaces
`to activate various functions on these devices. It was
`conventional in 2002, the devices he lists are those like
`Palm Pilots which date back to the 1990s. Robertson itself
`says touchscreens date back to the 1970s.
`
`And so Petitioner's expert showed that it's also
`directed to a mobile handheld computing device, and so that
`is shown in the petition that Robertson is in the same
`field, that really ends the (indiscernible).
`
`Patent Owner's argument is based on a
`misunderstanding of the term desktop in Robertson. This is
`their only basis for saying Robertson is not analogous art.
`But as you can see on Slide 18, it's simply wrong.
`
`On the left, you can see two definitions of desktop
`in the computing field. The top one says, "A desktop is the
`computer's working environment. It's the screen layout, the
`menu bar, the program icons associated with the machine's
`operating environment."
`
`That's the screen. That's what's shown in Robertson
`Figure 1 on the bottom right of Slide 18.
`
`In fact, it gives two examples of a desktop. One is
`Apple's Macintosh from 1984, 20 years before the patent was
`filed, 10 years before Robertson.
`
`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
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`Here's another one: Windows PCs. Like Windows 95,
`
`Windows 3.1, which also date from the 1990s, contemporaneous
`with Robertson.
`
`If that wasn't enough, second dictionary definition
`from Exhibit 1034, which is the bottom left side of
`Slide 18, says, "A desktop is the whole computer screen
`representing your workspace."
`
`The screen. It's not a piece of hardware.
`
`To make it clear, it even shows an example of the
`Windows 95 desktop, and all you can see is the screen. You
`can see the buttons, like the start button and the program
`button, you can see the various applications that are there
`that can be activated by touching them.
`
`And that's confirmed with other mobile devices cited
`by Petitioner's expert in his reply declaration, such as on
`the top right, it shows an HP handheld computing device, it
`has a touchscreen with a stylus. It's Exhibit 1035. Also,
`there's an NEC device at Exhibit 1036.
`
`In the top right you can see the desktop of this HP
`device. Again, the desktop is the screen. It's not a piece
`of hardware. Patent Owner hasn't cited anything that shows
`that desktop means hardware.
`
`In fact, it shouldn't. We're in the user interface
`world, so what does a desktop mean to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in the field of a user interface? It's 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
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`screen. And Petitioner's expert, throughout his reply
`declaration, from paragraphs 18 all the way up through 25,
`says and gives a number of examples why Robertson, when it
`talk
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
