`
`Before Hon. Lynne H. Browne, Norman H. Beamer, and Kevin C. Trock
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658
`Case No. IPR2022-00221
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. (Petitioner)
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1051
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb
`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`34
`
`23
`
`12
`
`3
`
`Issue 4: Okamura-Belitz renders obvious displaying first/second names (5, 13)
`
`Issue 3: Okamura-Belitzrenders obvious “responsive to...” (3-5, 7, 9, 10, 12-15)
`
`Issue2: Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “displaying an application view” (1a)
`
`thumbnail image…” (1b-1g)
`Issue1: Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “displaying…a [first/second] location selectable
`
`Background / Overview
`
`Table of Contents
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Background / Overview
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`Ex. 1001, Cover; Petition, 1.
`
`•Dependent claims 2-15
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`•
`
`•Challenged Claims
`
`June 9, 2011.
`patent application 13/157,214 filed
`earliest possible priority claim to U.S.
`“’658 Patent” or “Ex. 1001”)has an
`
`•U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658 (the
`
`Overview of the ’658 Patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 49.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 12, Ex. 1001, FIG. 41.
`
`Petition, 12; Ex. 1001, 29:25-48.
`
`Overview of the ’658 Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 51.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 14; Ex. 1001, FIG. 34 (cropped).
`
`Overview of the ’658 Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 15; Ex. 1001, FIG. 31 (cropped).
`
`Overview of the ’658 Patent
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 14.
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 47;
`
`Dr. Philip Greenspun
`
`Overview of the ’658 Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1i]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1g]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1d]
`[1c]
`
`[1b]
`
`[1a]
`
`[1pre]
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1i]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1g]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1d]
`[1c]
`
`[1b]
`
`[1a]
`
`[1pre]
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision (Inst. Dec. or Paper 10), 9.
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Limitations [1b] –[1g])
`
`[first/second] location selectable thumbnail image…”
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “displaying…a
`
`Issue 1
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1f]
`
`[1d]
`
`Limitations [1d] and [1f]: “thumbnail image”
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. [0135]; Petition, 45; Ex. 1003, 116.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 41 (annotated); Ex. 1003, 113.
`
`Okamura
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1003, 86, 121; Petition, 23, 47.
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 4a-b, Ex. 1005, FIG. 41; Ex.
`
`Ex. 1003, 89; Petition, 25.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura + Belitz
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1003, 91; Petition, 26-28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 26-28.
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 4a-b, Ex. 1005, FIG. 41; Ex. 1003, 91-92;
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`Okamura + Belitz
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 36.; Pet. Reply, 12.
`
`PO argues incorporation of Belitz eliminates geographical information:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1045, 107:10-22; Pet. Reply, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 19; Pet. Reply, 13.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`thumbnails
`
`•But Belitz provides geographical information through location of its
`PO argues incorporation of Belitz eliminates geographical information:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 18; Pet. Reply, 13.
`
`•But Belitz also provides additional benefits
`PO argues incorporation of Belitz eliminates geographical information:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply, 13.
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
`
`teachings of another.”
`to modify the disclosure of one reference with the
`of another benefit … should not nullify its uses as a basis
`“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`POR, 39; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 38; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`PO argues Okamura+Belitz carries the same disadvantages as “related art”:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1047, 20; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`•But Belitz eliminates problems mentioned in the related art
`PO argues Okamura+Belitz carries the same disadvantages as “related art”:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`application view” (Limitation [1a])
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “displaying an
`
`Issue 2
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`[1a]
`
`Limitation [1a]: “displaying an application view”
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`Pet. Reply, 2.
`
`POR, 17 (showing annotated Ex. 1001, FIG. 35).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 13.
`
`PO argues that “application view” is a distinct view:
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 4; Pet. Reply, 2-3.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`26
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`Ex. 1001, 28:5-8.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:55-59.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:50-54.
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply, 2-3.
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 32, 34; Ex. 1047, 4;
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 5; Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`Pet. Reply, 20-22.
`Ex. 1005, FIGS. 19, 41 (annotated); Ex. 1003, 105, 108;
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 32; Pet. Reply, 21.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious “Displaying an Application View”
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 34; Pet. Reply, 21-22.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious “Displaying an Application View”
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 34-35; Pet. Reply, 21-22; Petition, 39.
`
`found it to have been obvious:
`Even if “Application View” required an additional tab, POSITA would have
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious “Displaying an Application View”
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1046, 54:17-22; Pet. Reply, 22.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious “Displaying an Application View”
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10, 12-15)
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “responsive to...”
`
`Issue 3
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 19; Pet. Reply, 3-4.
`
`“responsive to a click or tap … displaying …”
`
`Claims 3-5, 7, 9 ,10, and 12-15 recite:
`
`“Responsive to…”
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 24; Pet. Reply, 1-8.
`
`POR, 23; Pet. Reply, 1-8.
`
`PO argues for narrow construction of “responsive to”:
`
`“Responsive to…”
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 3, 4.
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claims 3, 4
`
`37
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 5.
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claim 5
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 7, 10
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claims 7, 10
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 9, 12.
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claims 9, 12
`
`40
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 13.
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claim 13
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 14, 15.
`
`“Responsive to…”: Claims 14, 15
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Pet. Reply, 4-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Ex. 1047, 7; Pet. Reply, 4-5.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1046, 78:17-79:3; Pet. Reply, 5.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply, 6.
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Ex. 1047, 9;
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 13 (cropped); Ex. 1047, 9; Pet. Reply, 6.
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`
`Pet. Reply, 3-8, 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 7, 10.
`
`Example: Claims 7, 10
`
`47
`
`
`
`48
`
`FIGS. 21, 24); Petition 80-81.
`Ex. 1003, 168 (showing annotated Ex. 1005,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura Discloses “Responsive to…”
`
`48
`
`
`
`49
`
`Ex. 2024, 126:4-13; Pet. Reply, 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 42; Pet. Reply, 26-27.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura Discloses “Responsive to…”
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`50
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`first/second names (Claims 5, 13)
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious displaying
`
`Issue 4
`
`50
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Pet. Reply, 7-11, 24-28.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 5, 13.
`
`Displaying First/Second Names
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 164; Petition, 76.
`
`Ex. 1003, 163.
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 21 (annotated);
`
`Ex. 1003, 162; Petition, 74.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura
`
`Okamura’s People View Includes First Name / Second Name
`
`52
`
`
`
`53
`
`Pet. Reply, 8-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 25-26; Pet. Reply, 8-11.
`
`PO argues that the displaying of names must occur simultaneously:
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 12, Pet. Reply, 8-9.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`54
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`Ex. 1045, 57:24-58:14; Pet. Reply, 9.
`
`c
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1045, 65:17-19; Pet. Reply, 9.
`
`c
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`55
`
`
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply, 10.
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Ex. 1047, 13;
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`56
`
`
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 13 (cropped); Ex. 1047, 14; Pet. Reply, 10.
`
`’658 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’658 Patent
`
`57
`
`
`
`58
`
`Ex. 1047, 39-40; Pet. Reply, 24-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1003, 162; Petition, 74-75, Pet. Reply, 24.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Obvious to Show Both Names Simultaneously
`
`58
`
`
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1049 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1049, FIG. 8; Pet. Reply, 25 (citing to
`
`Ex. 1048 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1048, FIG. 4.2; Pet. Reply, 25 (citing to
`
`Corroborating Evidence Demonstrating Knowledge of POSITA
`
`59
`
`
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1047, 41; Pet. Reply, 26.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Obvious to Show Both Names Simultaneously
`
`60
`
`
`
`61
`
`Ex. 1045, 100:10-18; Pet. Reply, 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Ex. 1047, 40; Pet. Reply, 26.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`61
`
`
`
`62
`
`Ex. 1046, 111:3-9; Pet. Reply, 24-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Ex. 1005, [0502]; Pet. Reply, 24-25.
`
`Okamura
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`62
`
`