throbber
DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket