IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Desmond et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,423,658 Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0116IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`September 24, 2019
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/375,927
`December 12, 2016
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING DIGITAL
`FILES
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP GREENSPUN
`
`Declaration
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: February 14, 2023
`
`By: ________________________________
`
`Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1047
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb
`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`Desmond et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,423,658 Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0116IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`September 24, 2019
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/375,927
`December 12, 2016
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING DIGITAL
`FILES
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP GREENSPUN
`
`Declaration
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: February 14, 2023
`
`By: ________________________________
`
`Philip Greenspun, Ph.D.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1047
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb
`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. OKAMURA AND BELITZ RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................... 3
`A. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 3
`B. The Okamura-Belitz Combination ................................................................. 11
`1.The Okamura-Belitz combination renders obvious “displaying the map
`including displaying … a [first/second] location selectable thumbnail image
`at a [first/second] location on the interactive map” ......................................... 11
`2. The Okamura-Belitz combination renders obvious “displaying an application
`view” ................................................................................................................ 19
`C. DEPENDENT CLAIMS OF THE ’658 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF OKAMURA AND BELITZ ........................................................................... 21
`1. Claims 3 and 4 ............................................................................................... 21
`2. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................... 22
`3. Claims 7 and 10 ............................................................................................. 24
`4. Claims 9 and 12 ............................................................................................. 25
`5. Claim 13 ......................................................................................................... 25
`6. Claims 14 and 15 ........................................................................................... 26
`II. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This Declaration expands on the conclusions that I have formed based on my
`
`analysis provided in my first declaration (SAMSUNG-1003, incorporated herein
`
`by reference in its entirety; “Original Declaration”). Consistent with my findings
`
`provided in my Original Declaration and based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of the prior art publications listed above, a POSITA
`
`would have found that claims 1-15 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’658 patent
`
`are rendered obvious by at least the combinations of references set forth in my
`
`Original Declaration.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`OKAMURA AND BELITZ RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`As I further clarify below in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, claims
`
`2.
`
`1-15 are rendered obvious by the combination of Okamura and Belitz.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In the Patent Owner Response (“POR”), Patent Owner interprets certain
`
`3.
`
`claim terms. I do not agree with these interpretations.
`
`4.
`
`First, with respect to claim element [1a] and specifically Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that “an application view” must be “distinct from the other claimed
`
`views,” I initially note that the ’658 patent makes clear that FIG. 35 is merely one
`
`of various “application views” that are provided as examples in the ’658 patent,
`
`3
`
`
`
`including those shown in FIGS. 32-34 and 36. SAMSUNG-1001, 9:18-22;
`
`SAMSUNG-1046, 40:8-21. What’s more, the ’658 patent explicitly refers to its
`
`people and location views as the “People Application View” and the “Location
`
`Application View.” SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 32, FIG. 34, 3:58-4:4. There is
`
`nothing in the ’658 patent that differentiates between its “Uploads Application
`
`View” in FIG. 35 and its other application views, other than its focus on “Uploads”
`
`as compared to “People” or “Location.” The ’658 patent repeatedly describes the
`
`existence of multiple application views and refers to all of the views in FIGS. 32-
`
`36 as application views. SAMSUNG-1001, 12:38-39 (“various Application
`
`Views”), 18:35-38 (“all Application Views”), 21:50-54 (“any of the Application
`
`Views”), 22:55-59 (“every Application View”), 28:5-8 (“When a user selects the
`
`‘Advanced Filters’ from almost any Application View (0801) (the button can be
`
`seen in FIGS. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36)”).
`
`5. Moreover, according to Dr. Reinman, the ’658 patent provides “examples of
`
`different application views” and that “a view like a location view is also an
`
`application view in the spec of the patent.” SAMSUNG-1046, 17:12-18; see also
`
`id., 42:9-43:15. In other words, according to the specification of the ’658 patent,
`
`as per Dr. Reinman, a particular view can “qualify as both” an application view
`
`and a location view. I agree that there is no requirement in the ’658 patent claims
`
`that an application view must be completely distinct from the other views.
`
`4
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Second, with respect to claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-15, Patent Owner argues
`
`that the phrase “responsive to a click or tap … displaying” requires “a cause-effect
`
`relationship between (i) a click or tap of a certain selectable element and (ii)
`
`displaying a certain view or content.” POR, 17-19. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`interprets this language to require a “direct cause-effect relationship” such that
`
`“additional clicks or taps or interviewing views” are not allowed. Id., 23-24.
`
`7.
`
`However, a POSITA would have recognized that the term “responsive to”
`
`simply requires the second event to happen “subsequent to” the first event based on
`
`a combination of user interaction and software implementation. In fact, in the ’658
`
`patent, the people view that is ultimately shown to the user typically requires not
`
`only the initial pressing of “People” (1401) (shown in red below) but further the
`
`additional selection of a desired display order via a drop-down list (1402) (shown
`
`in purple below). SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 32, 22:59-67. That is, even the ’658
`
`patent itself contemplates having intermediate user actions between the first event
`
`(i.e., “cause”) and the second event (i.e., “effect”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 32 (annotated)
`
`8.
`
`As Dr. Reinman also appears to agree, such drop-down selections and other
`
`possible intermediate actions, such as scrolling through the view to reach the
`
`desired content, does not violate the “responsive to” requirement since the overall
`
`cause-effect relationship is still maintained. SAMSUNG-1045, 30:19-32:3; 26:23-
`
`27:17; 52:3-23; 55:6-56:1; SAMSUNG-1046, 78:3-79:3.
`
`9.
`
`This is consistent with examples in the ’658 patent that include interface
`
`controls that require additional, intermediate user actions to reveal information that
`
`is described as being part of a displayed view. As shown above, FIG. 32 of the
`
`’658 patent depicts an example of a “people view” that contemplates multiple
`
`pages within the view and includes an “Items Per Page” button that controls how
`
`many of the available photos are shown to a user on each page. SAMSUNG-1001,
`
`22:43-52, FIG. 32. FIG. 6 of the ’658 patent depicts another example of a “people
`
`view” showing arrows that, upon selection, display additional thumbnails of people
`
`6
`
`
`
`included in the people view. SAMSUNG-1001, 6:20-26, FIG. 6. FIG. 13 of the
`
`’658 patent depicts another example of a “people view” that includes a scroll bar
`
`and shows +,- controls that display/hide names of people included in the people
`
`view. SAMSUNG-1001, 6:54-61, FIG. 13. A POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious that the interface in FIG. 13 is initially displayed with all of the names of
`
`specific people hidden and only revealed when the user takes the additional step of
`
`clicking on a +,- control associated with a last name of interest. In these examples
`
`of “people views,” intermediate user actions are needed to cause display of
`
`information that is described as being part of the displayed view.
`
`10. Other types of views in the ’658 patent contemplate similar additional,
`
`intermediate user actions to cause display of information described as being part of
`
`the displayed views. For example, FIG. 3 displays “a gallery view of an event or
`
`album” and FIG. 4 displays “an individual event or album view” responsive to
`
`selection of a thumbnail of an event or album displayed in FIG. 3. SAMSUNG-
`
`1001, 2:66-3:2, 6:4-13. In this example, FIG. 4 includes arrows that cause display
`
`of additional thumbnails of images that are organized in the selected event or
`
`album, but that are not displayed when the selected event or album view is initially
`
`presented. SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 4. These additional thumbnail images are part
`
`of the displayed event or album view and only displayed when the user takes the
`
`7
`
`
`
`additional, intermediate action of selecting one of the arrow controls to reveal
`
`them.
`
`11. This operation is consistent with the claim language in claims 14 and 15.
`
`Claim 14 recites, “responsive to a click or tap of the first album selectable
`
`thumbnail image, displaying a first album view, the displaying the first album view
`
`including displaying (i) the first album name associated with the first album and
`
`(ii) a scaled replica of each of the digital photographs and videos in the third set of
`
`digital photographs and videos.” Claim 15 recites similar features. The ability of
`
`a single screen to display each of the digital photographs and videos in the third set
`
`of digital photographs and videos, necessarily depends on the number of digital
`
`photographs and videos in the third set. As shown in FIG. 4 of the ’658 patent,
`
`when the number of photographs and videos is relatively large (e.g., above a
`
`threshold number), the displayed album view includes controls that enable the user
`
`to reveal “each” of the digital photographs and videos, but only after the user takes
`
`the additional, intermediate action of selecting one of the control arrows,
`
`potentially many times. For these reasons, the ’658 patent embraces the need for
`
`additional, intermediate user actions to display information that is described as
`
`being part of a displayed view.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`12. Third, with respect to claim 5, Patent Owner states that “displaying the
`
`people view including: ... a name associated with the first person ... [and] ... a name
`
`associated with the second person” requires displaying both names “at the same
`
`time.” The only specification support cited by Patent Owner for this interpretation
`
`appears to be the ’658 patent’s FIG. 32 and its accompanying description. POR,
`
`28. Although the example provided in FIG. 32 seems to show both a first name
`
`and a second name at the same time, I see nothing in the ’658 patent that would
`
`indicate to a POSITA as requiring both names to be visible together to the user at
`
`all times. As I understand it, Dr. Reinman couldn’t point to anything either.
`
`SAMSUNG-1045, 57:24-58:14. This is not surprising since there is nothing in the
`
`language of claim 5, or anywhere else in the specification of the ’658 patent, that
`
`requires all names to be displayed at the same time.
`
`13. Specifically, the claim language here simply recites displaying a “view”
`
`(e.g., “people view,” “album view,” etc.) responsive to a click or tap. The claim
`
`language does not state that everything associated with the view is displayed
`
`responsive to the click or tap – it states that the view is displayed responsive to the
`
`click or tap and that the view includes various pieces of information. To illustrate,
`
`I’ve provided below an annotated version of FIG. 32 of the ’658 patent where it
`
`shows an example of a “people view” where certain photos are visible. However,
`
`9
`
`
`
`the interface includes an “Items Per Page” button that controls how many of the
`
`available photos are shown at one time to a user.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 32 (annotated)
`
`
`
`14.
`
`In other words, although there may be other photos that are part of the
`
`“people view” of FIG. 32, such photos are not displayed simultaneously with all
`
`other photos and are not visible until the user clicks on additional buttons. In fact,
`
`the ’658 patent describes several different mechanisms for limiting the display of a
`
`view to only a portion of the information described as being included in the view.
`
`See SAMSUNG-1001, 6:20-26, FIG. 6 (showing arrows that display additional
`
`thumbnails of people included in the people view); 6:54-61, FIG. 13 (showing +,-
`
`controls that display/hide names of people included in the people view; also
`
`showing a scroll bar at the side to control the portion of the view that is displayed).
`
`15. Fourth, with respect to claim 13, Patent Owner states that “displaying the
`
`album view” requires displaying both a first album name and a second album name
`
`10
`
`
`
`“at the same time.” For reasons similar to those I provided above for claim 5,
`
`claim 13 likewise does not require simultaneous display of the first and second
`
`album names.
`
`B.
`The Okamura-Belitz Combination
`16. As I explained in my Original Declaration, Okamura in view of Belitz
`
`renders obvious claims 1-15 of the ’658 patent.
`
`1. The Okamura-Belitz combination renders obvious “displaying
`the map including displaying … a [first/second] location
`selectable thumbnail image at a [first/second] location on the
`interactive map”
`17. Regarding my proposed “first combination,” Patent Owner argues that a
`
`POSITA would not have been motivated to modify Okamura with Belitz because
`
`“none of Belitz’s thumbnails ... convey geographical information ....” POR, 36.
`
`Even if that were the case, which I strongly disagree with, a POSITA would still
`
`have been motivated to combine Okamura and Belitz to obtain “additional
`
`benefits” as I previously explained. SAMSUNG-1003, [84]-[98]. For instance, in
`
`furtherance of Okamura’s stated objective of better managing digital content, the
`
`proposed combination “enhances a user experience of ‘discern[ing] between the
`
`various objects’ by providing ‘a good view of what location is associated with
`
`what.’” SAMSUNG-1003, [87].
`
`18. Even if the benefits obtained by incorporating Belitz’s thumbnails into
`
`Okamura were to come at the expense of some other benefit offered by Okamura, a
`
`11
`
`
`
`POSITA would have been more than capable of weighing potential pros/cons
`
`associated with each design option. For instance, a POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the benefits of viewing location-specific thumbnail images may be
`
`achieved in one instance, while the benefits of viewing location-specific cluster
`
`maps may be achieved in another. A POSITA would have found each of these
`
`options as obvious designs to pursue in view of the disclosures of Okamura and
`
`Belitz.
`
`19. Moreover, I note that Belitz’s thumbnails and Okamura’s cluster maps are
`
`functionally equivalent in the sense that both convey geographical information.
`
`Dr. Reinman does not seem to disagree. See SAMSUNG-1045, 107:10-22; 114:8-
`
`15.
`
`20. Patent Owner further seems to argue that the proposed combination of
`
`Okamura and Belitz “carries the same disadvantages as the ‘related art’ references
`
`(Fujiwara and Takakura)” mentioned in Okamura. However, in both Fujiwara and
`
`Takakura, it can be difficult to grasp the geographical correspondence between
`
`digital files because their thumbnails are not placed directly on the map. See EX-
`
`2002, FIG. 12; EX-2019, FIG. 1. In contrast, a POSITA would not have found it
`
`difficult to grasp the geographical correspondence between digital files in Belitz
`
`because, for example, a user looking at Belitz’s FIG. 4b can easily understand
`
`which location the thumbnail 410b is associated with and which location the
`
`12
`
`
`
`thumbnail 410c is associated with. See SAMSUNG-1006, FIGS. 4a-4b. Thus, the
`
`alleged problems with Fujiwara and Takakura that “may make it difficult to grasp
`
`the geographical correspondence” of their images are not present in the same
`
`manner in Belitz. POR, 39.
`
`21. Moreover, although Okamura identifies disadvantages with the designs of
`
`Fujiwara and Takakura, a POSITA would not have interpreted Okamura to
`
`preclude offering a Fujiwara-style or Takakura-style view as an alternative. In
`
`Okamura, the related art was not disparaged as useless, but as not ideal for certain
`
`photo database contents and certain user preferences. With this background, a
`
`combination with Okamura does not have to be better than Fujiwara or Okamura
`
`by itself to be useful, and a POSITA would have considered other known user
`
`interface design options, such as the design of Belitz, to have been obvious options
`
`to consider in the context of Okamura’s disclosure.
`
`22. Patent Owner also argues that the Okamura-Belitz combination conflicts
`
`with Belitz’s stated objectives of reducing clutter because the proposed
`
`combination “would clutter the view and be confusing to a user.” POR, 44-45. In
`
`support, Patent Owner provided a cropped reproduction of an illustration that I
`
`previously presented in my original declaration, as shown below:
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`POR, 44.
`
`
`
`23. However, looking at the portion of my illustration that Patent Owner did not
`
`show, it can be clearly seen that the combination can be achieved without any
`
`overlap:
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, [88]
`
`
`
`24. Patent Owner also argues that “Belitz’s thumbnails reduce the ability to
`
`provide a view of ‘what location is associated with what’” without addressing the
`
`explanation I previously provided. POR, 45-48. For example, as I previously
`
`14
`
`
`
`explained, incorporating the thumbnails of Belitz into Okamura would have
`
`resulted in the “added functionality that allows a user to preview pictures
`
`associated with a given location” and would have been done so in a manner that
`
`allows the user to more “clearly see the associations.” SAMSUNG-1003, [88]-
`
`[89]. That is, instead of having to click on individual clusters as in Okamura to
`
`ascertain which pictures are associated with which locations, Belitz provides a way
`
`for Okamura to provide such information all at once for multiple locations on the
`
`map.
`
`25. Regarding Patent Owner’s statement that “Okamura already allows a user to
`
`‘preview pictures,’” I note that the incorporation of Belitz’s thumbnails allows the
`
`user to quickly associate multiple preview pictures with multiple locations on the
`
`map without having to individually navigate through each of the clusters. Thus,
`
`the combination of Okamura and Belitz can help improve user experience and
`
`overall content awareness by providing the user with a preview of the digital files
`
`associated with multiple corresponding locations. That is, as I previously
`
`explained, the proposed combination of Okamura and Belitz provides a known and
`
`predictable alternative to displaying and managing digital content in a manner that
`
`can help improve user experience. SAMSUNG-1003, [89].
`
`26. Patent Owner states that Petitioner has “failed to demonstrate that the first
`
`combination (based on Okamura’s second embodiment) would have been used
`
`15
`
`
`
`with Okamura’s FACE index screen 410.” POR, 52. As I previously explained,
`
`“the use of Okamura’s map view from FIG. 41 in conjunction with Okamura’s face
`
`view from FIG. 21 … is appropriate and obvious.” SAMSUNG-1003, [96]-[98].
`
`To the extent Okamura does not explicitly disclose this transition, a POSITA
`
`would have certainly found it to have been obvious.
`
`27. Regarding my first alternative combination (“second combination”), Patent
`
`Owner states that incorporating Belitz into Okamura in the proposed manner would
`
`not be desirable to a POSITA because “much of the information shown in FIG. 41
`
`of Okamura would be lost if it were displayed according to Belitz.” POR, 56.
`
`Patent Owner further provides the following modified drawing of Okamura to
`
`illustrate the alleged loss of geographical information:
`
`
`
`POR, 57
`
`16
`
`
`
`28. However, Patent Owner added a large and opaque border around Belitz’s
`
`thumbnail images. This exaggerates the alleged loss of geographical information;
`
`but no such borders can be seen in Belitz:
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, FIGS. 4a-4b.
`
`
`
`29. Even if such a border were to be originally present in Belitz, which it is not,
`
`Dr. Reinman appears to agree with me in recognizing the obvious notion that
`
`reducing clutter through simple design changes, which would include minimizing
`
`any obtrusive borders, would have been well-known to a POSITA. SAMSUNG-
`
`1045, 99:3-100:18.
`
`30. Moreover, as I previously explained, my second combination can improve
`
`user experience and content awareness by providing the user with a preview of the
`
`digital files associated with the corresponding location. SAMSUNG-1003, [91].
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would have further been able to weigh potential pros/cons
`
`17
`
`
`
`associated with both cluster maps and thumbnails to help achieve the desired user
`
`experience and convenience for the particular dataset, zoom level, etc.
`
`31. Regarding my second alternative combination (“third combination”), Patent
`
`Owner states that a POSITA would not have eliminated cluster maps and that
`
`additional problems may occur at different zoom levels. POR, 58-60. However, as
`
`I previously explained, a POSITA would have known to combine Okamura and
`
`Belitz using known programming techniques and, if needed, could easily make
`
`simple software modifications to implement the combination in a predictable
`
`manner. See SAMSUNG-1003, [93]-[95]. Among other things, a POSITA, if
`
`cognizant of the fact that the Okamura-Belitz combination works less effectively at
`
`certain map scales, would know how to adjust the display of Okamura-Belitz
`
`depending on the zoom level. For instance, for a zoomed-out map, the display
`
`shown in Okamura’s FIG. 41 may be preferred. And for a zoomed-in map, on the
`
`other hand, the incorporation of Belitz’s thumbnails may be preferred. In a system
`
`supported by software, the addition of a display option need not eliminate any
`
`previous capabilities (e.g., when Google Maps added satellite view, replacing the
`
`road network view for users who preferred seeing pictures, the road network view
`
`remained available as an option).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`2. The Okamura-Belitz combination renders obvious “displaying
`an application view”
`32. Patent Owner argues that claim limitation [1a] is not satisfied by Okamura
`
`based on a narrow interpretation of “an application view.” POR, 61-62. For
`
`reasons I discussed above, “an application view” should not be so narrowly
`
`construed in this instance. Further, to the extent that an application view must be
`
`distinct from a map view, Okamura discloses such an application view as detailed
`
`in my original declaration. For example, as I previously explained, Okamura
`
`discloses an application view that is different from other claimed views in claim 1.
`
`For example, the index screen 410 portion of Okamura’s interface (which includes
`
`selectable tabs 411-413 and an area for content display based on which tab is
`
`selected) is different from Okamura’s map view (e.g., the cluster map display area
`
`414 from Okamura’s FIG. 18). SAMSUNG-1003, [104]-[105], [110].
`
`33.
`
`In addition, a POSITA would have recognized that the index screen 410 and
`
`the cluster map display area 414 are different, among other things since the index
`
`screen 410 includes the plurality of selectable elements (e.g., an ‘EVENT’ tab 411,
`
`a ‘FACE’ tab 412, and a ‘PLACE’ tab 413). SAMSUNG-1003, [104];
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, [0235]-[0236], FIGS. 18-21.
`
`34. Further, the implementation of showing various “views” in Okamura is very
`
`similar and essentially parallel to what is shown in the ’658 patent, specifically
`
`using multiple tabs to switch between different content that is shown in the content
`
`19
`
`
`
`portion of the display. See SAMSUNG-1001, 32-34 and 36. In other words, the
`
`“application view” in each of Okamura and the ’658 patent is the overall
`
`framework that includes selectable tabs to allow the user to switch among different
`
`views (e.g., location/people/album) being shown in the content portion of the
`
`display upon selection of a corresponding tab. The fact that the ’658 patent may
`
`display an additional tab (i.e., corresponding to the “Uploads” view) does not
`
`distinguish it from Okamura.
`
`35. Moreover, even if it did, a POSITA would have found it obvious to add
`
`additional tabs to the index screen of Okamura. For instance, as explained in my
`
`Original Declaration, a POSITA would have found it obvious to add, to Okamura’s
`
`index screen shown in FIG. 18, a fourth tab corresponding to the map view
`
`presented by Okamura in FIG. 41. SAMSUNG-1003, [108]. As I explained, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to display, in FIG. 18, a separate tab for
`
`Okamura’s map view screen 780 shown in FIG. 41 in addition to the three
`
`selectable elements 411, 412, and 413 for the benefit of improving user experience
`
`and allowing a user to switch between different options of displaying files based on
`
`location. Id. In this example with the additional tab, Okamura’s cluster map
`
`display tab would then operate similarly to the “Uploads” tab of the ’658 patent
`
`and serve as an “application view” even under Patent Owner’s narrow view. As
`
`Dr. Reinman apparently agrees, a POSITA would have recognized that there is a
`
`20
`
`
`
`great amount of flexibility in how these types of minor implementation details can
`
`be implemented in a user interface. See, e.g., SAMSUNG-1046, 53:18-54:22.
`
`C. Dependent Claims of the ’658 Patent Are Obvious in View
`of Okamura and Belitz
`1. Claims 3 and 4
`36. Patent Owner argues that claims 3-4 are allegedly not met by the Okamura-
`
`Belitz combination because “Okamura’s alleged map image is already displayed ...
`
`before any click or tap in the first location view.” POR, 63-64. However, as I
`
`previously explained, the corresponding map image of Okamura is displayed in
`
`response to the user’s selection. SAMSUNG-1003, [155]. Indeed, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the identified map image of Okamura “would change
`
`to those associated with” the location selection via the thumbnail. SAMSUNG-
`
`1003, [150]-[155]. Additionally, Okamura describes that FIG. 50 is associated
`
`with both a “cluster wide-area map” as well as a “magnified map of the cluster
`
`map.” SAMSUNG-1005, [0441]-[0442]. Thus, a POSITA would have recognized
`
`and/or found it obvious that the “magnified” map shown in display area 891
`
`changes upon selection of the image to show a magnified portion of the cluster
`
`map corresponding to the selection.
`
`37.
`
`I further note that the claims relate to displaying a map image with an
`
`indication of the geographic coordinates. Thus, even if the underlying map in
`
`Okamura does not change, at least the corresponding coordinates certainly do,
`
`21
`
`
`
`thereby displaying, responsive to the selection, a map image with coordinates of
`
`the selected photo. SAMSUNG-1003, [155].
`
`2. Claim 5
`38. According to Patent Owner, a “name associated with the first person” and a
`
`“name associated with the second person” must be displayed simultaneously. As I
`
`explained above at paragraphs 9-11, such simultaneous display is not required by
`
`the claims. Based on this proper understanding of the ’658 patent’s claim
`
`language, the Okamura-Belitz combination renders obvious displaying the “first
`
`name” and the “second name” in the claimed manner. SAMSUNG-1003, [156]-
`
`[164]; SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 21.
`
`39. Moreover, it “would have been obvious” in the Okamura-Belitz combination
`
`to “display the name adjacent to the first person selectable thumbnail image”
`
`without additional mouse hovering because a POSITA would have recognized that
`
`doing so can help “allow[] the user to avoid confusion on which face index belongs
`
`to whom.” SAMSUNG-1003, [162]. Along these lines, Dr. Reinman agreed that
`
`Okamura expressly contemplates a scenario, for instance when implemented as a
`
`mobile phone, where a mouse would not even be present. SAMSUNG-1046,
`
`110:20-111:19; SAMSUNG-1005, [502]. A system without a mouse could not
`
`perform such mouse hovering, and the express mention of this phone-based
`
`22
`
`
`
`implementation in Okamura further confirms my view that a POSITA would have
`
`found the mouse hovering feature to be optional.
`
`40.
`
`Indeed, whether to show all the names all of the time or only just part of the
`
`time is simply a matter of “design choice and may be a function of user
`
`preference.” EX-2022, 132:6-12. This exceedingly obvious feature can be found
`
`throughout the prior art. See, e.g., SAMSUNG-1048, 75, Fig. 4.2 (displaying
`
`names adjacent to thumbnails was well-known); SAMSUNG-1049, FIG. 8
`
`(showing similar disclosure). Dr. Reinman similarly acknowledged that making
`
`minor adjustments to help reduce clutter could be a matter of design choice. See
`
`SAMSUNG-1045, 99:3-100:18 (“[F]or any design, there are certain choices that
`
`the designers get to make....”); SAMSUNG-1046, 101:4-20 (“If you wanted to ask
`
`me was it possible to scale a font in scenarios, sure. People had considered scaling
`
`fonts. Was it possible to change the size of the things? Sure. People have changed
`
`the size of things.”). Thus, Patent Owner’s statement that “there is simply no
`
`room” in Okamura to display multiple names goes against common sense1 and
`
`does not account for the skills and creativity of a POSITA. POR, 67-68. Dr.
`
`Reinman also specifically acknowledged that displaying multiple names in
`
`
`1 At a minimum, the size and resolution of the display would have to be
`
`considered.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Okamura would not necessarily lead to unavoidable cluttering, which I agree with.
`
`SAMSUNG-1046, 98:22-99:1.
`
`41. And related to my discussions above about a POSITA’s ability to consider
`
`pros/cons of design variations, an alternative design of Okamura that may slightly
`
`increase its congestion level does not automatically undermine a reason to use it
`
`because a POSITA would have nevertheless been able to weigh potential benefits
`
`associated with levels of congestion, for instance recognizing that doing so could
`
`allow the user to further “avoid confusion.” SAMSUNG-1003, [162].
`
`3. Claims 7 and 10
`42. Patent Owner states that “there are multiple intervening steps” between the
`
`identified people and person views. POR, 69. However, as I noted above with
`
`regard to proper understanding of the language in claims 7 and 10, intervening user
`
`actions do not destroy the “responsive to” relationship. I further note that
`
`Okamura leaves many of the specific implementation details to a POSITA, for
`
`instance choosing not to show all the different ways in which a user can navigate
`
`from screen to screen. Thus, while it certainly may be “possible that there are
`
`other navigation pathways or that some additional clicks would be necessary in the
`
`Okamura system to get from 21 to 24,” it is also possible for the user to do so with
`
`a single mouse click depending on user preference. EX2024, 126:4-13, 127:1-8;
`
`see also SAMSUNG-1046, 53:18-54:22
`
`24
`
`
`
`4. Claims 9 and 12
`43. Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that “button 455” of Okamura is not
`
`clicked or tapped, I previously explained during deposition that this “button”
`
`would indeed be considered to be clicked/tapped by a POSITA. EX-2024, 146:12-
`
`150:6. As for the showing of “a representation of all locations,” I previously
`
`explained how a POSITA would have viewed a display of all locations as a matter
`
`of obvious design choice, particularly in view of the teachings of Yee.
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, [184]-[186]. As I also explained, “Yee already contains the
`
`ability to show all the photos -- or all the locations of all the photos in the database
`
`over all time, or shrink it down to ju
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
