DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Before Hon. Lynne H. Browne, Norman H. Beamer, and Kevin C. Trock
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Case No. IPR2022-00222
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. (Petitioner)
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1044
`SAMSUNG v. MEMORYWEB
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`Before Hon. Lynne H. Browne, Norman H. Beamer, and Kevin C. Trock
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Case No. IPR2022-00222
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. (Petitioner)
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1044
`SAMSUNG v. MEMORYWEB
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`42
`
`28
`
`12
`
`3
`
`Issue4: Dependent claims18-19 are rendered obvious
`
`Issue3: POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Belitz ([1c], [1d])
`
`Issue 2: Okamura-Belitz renders obvious “first/second name” ([1g], [1i], [1k])
`
`Issue 1: Okamura-Belitzrenders obvious “responsive to...” ([1g], [1i])
`
`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 2-19
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`•
`
`•Challenged Claims
`
`June 9, 2011.
`patent application 13/157,214 filed
`earliest possible priority claim to U.S.
`“’228 Patent” or “Ex. 1001”)has an
`
`•U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 (the
`
`Overview of the ’228 Patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 49.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 3; Ex. 1001, FIG. 41.
`
`Petition, 2; Ex. 1001, 29:41-64.
`
`Overview of the ’228 Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 51.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 4; Ex. 1001, FIG. 34 (cropped).
`
`Overview of the ’228 Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 5; Ex. 1001, FIG. 31 (cropped).
`
`Overview of the ’228 Patent
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 2.
`Ex. 1003 (Greenspun Dec.), 47;
`
`Dr. Philip Greenspun
`
`Overview of the ’228 Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1k]
`
`[1j]
`
`[1i]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1g]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1c]
`[1b]
`
`[1a]
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1; POR, 20, 25, 28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1k]
`
`[1j]
`
`[1i]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1g]
`
`[1f]
`
`[1e]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1c]
`[1b]
`
`[1a]
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision (Inst. Dec. or Paper 12), 8.
`
`Instituted Ground
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious limitations [1g] and
`
`[1i] (“responsive to...”)
`
`Issue 1
`
`12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Pet. Reply, 2-12.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`[1i]
`
`[1g]
`
`Limitations [1g] and [1i]: “Responsive to”
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. Reply, 11.
`Ex. 1003, 133-134; Petition, 46;
`
`Ex. 1003, 134.
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 21 (annotated);
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura
`
`Okamura Discloses People View
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 143; Petition, 52; Pet. Reply, 11.
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 20 (annotated); Ex. 1003, 143.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura
`
`Okamura Discloses First Name / First Person
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Pet. Reply, 2-4, 10-13.
`
`POR, 22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO dismisses Petitioner’s obviousness theories:
`
`POR, 21.
`
`POR, 11.
`
`PO argues mouse hovering is not allowed:
`
`PO argues for narrow construction of “responsive to”:
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Pet. Reply, 2-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Ex. 1041, 5-6, Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1040, 30:19-32:3; Pet. Reply, 4.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Pet. Reply, 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Ex. 1041, 12, Pet. Reply, 7.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 13 (cropped); Pet. Reply, 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:58-65; Pet. Reply, 8.
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated); Pet. Reply, 9.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 18.
`
`’228 Patent
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Pet. Reply, 2-10.
`
`•The ’228 patent contemplates additional user interactions to reveal view details
`
`•Simultaneous display of all view details is not claimed
`
`•Okamura’s people view is displayed responsive to user input
`
`F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Pet. Reply, 8.
`Reinshaw P.L.C. v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158
`
`invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
`“The construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`Ex. 1041, 16; Pet. Reply, 11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Petition, 52-53; Pet. Reply, 11; Ex. 1003, 143.
`
`Petition As Filed
`
`Obvious to Add Names Next to Pictures
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1043 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1043, FIG. 8; Pet. Reply, 11 (citing to
`
`Ex. 1042 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1042, FIG. 4.2; Pet. Reply, 11 (citing to
`
`Corroborating Evidence Demonstrating Knowledge of POSITA
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`Ex. 2022, 132:6-12; Pet. Reply, 11, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1041, 15; Pet. Reply, 11.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1005, [0502]; Petition 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 109; Petition, 30.
`
`Okamura
`
`Ex. 1003, 108; Petition, 29.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`Ex. 1040, 100:10-18; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1040, 96:9-21; Pet. Reply, 11-12.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`28
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1k] (“a first name [and] a second name”)
`
`Okamura-Belitz renders obvious limitations [1g], [1i],
`
`Issue 2
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`Pet. Reply, 2-10,13-15.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[1k]
`
`[1j]
`
`[1i]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1g]
`
`Limitations [1g], [1i], [1k]: “first name” and “second name”
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 145; Petition, 54-55.
`
`Ex. 1003, 144-145.
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 21 (annotated);
`
`Ex. 1003, 143; Petition, 52.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura
`
`Okamura’s People View Includes First Name / Second Name
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`Pet. Reply, 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 26-27.
`
`PO argues for simultaneous display that excludes mouse hovering:
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`Ex. 1041, 11; Pet. Reply, 6; see also Inst. Dec., 28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 19 (POR), 25.
`
`Paper 8 (POPR), 49.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`POR
`
`POPR
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1041, 9-10, Pet. Reply, 5-6.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`33
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Ex. 1040, 57:24-58:14; Pet. Reply, 5-6.
`
`c
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1040, 65:12-19:14; Pet. Reply, 5.
`
`c
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Are Inconsistent with the ’228 Patent
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`Pet. Reply, 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 24.
`
`POR, 27.
`
`alleged preference:
`PO dismisses Petitioner’s obviousness theories based on Okamura’s
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`Ex. 1041, 18; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 143; Petition, 52-53, Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Obvious to Show Both Names Simultaneously
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1043 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1043, FIG. 8; Pet. Reply, 11 (citing to
`
`Ex. 1042 as a corroborating reference).
`Ex. 1042, FIG. 4.2; Pet. Reply, 11 (citing to
`
`Corroborating Evidence Demonstrating Knowledge of POSITA
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`Ex. 1041, 19; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006); Pet. Reply, 13.
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
`
`advantages and disadvantages….”
`“A given course of action often has simultaneous
`
`Obvious to Show Both Names Simultaneously
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`Ex. 2022, 132:6-12; Pet. Reply, 11, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1041, 15; Pet. Reply, 11.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`Ex. 1005, [0502]; Petition 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 109; Petition, 30.
`
`Okamura
`
`Ex. 1003, 108; Petition, 29.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`40
`
`
`
`41
`
`Ex. 1040, 100:10-18; Pet. Reply, 14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1040, 96:9-21; Pet. Reply, 11-12.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Use of Mouse Is a Design Choice: No Contrary Evidence
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Okamura and Belitz (Limitations [1c] and [1d])
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Issue 3
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`[1d]
`
`[1c]
`
`Limitations [1c] and [1d]: “Thumbnail Image”
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. [0135]; Petition, 13; Ex. 1003, 88.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 41 (annotated); Ex. 1003, 111.
`
`Okamura
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1003, 88, 116; Petition, 13, 34.
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 4a-b, Ex. 1005, FIG. 41; Ex.
`
`Ex. 1003, 91; Petition, 16.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura + Belitz
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1003, 93; Petition, 17-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 17-20.
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 4a-b, Ex. 1005, FIG. 41; Ex. 1003, 93-94;
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Images on Interactive Map
`Okamura-Belitz Renders Obvious Location Selectable Thumbnail
`
`Okamura + Belitz
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 34.
`
`PO argues incorporation of Belitz eliminates geographical information:
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`47
`
`
`
`48
`
`Ex. 1040, 107:10-22; Pet. Reply, 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1041, 23; Pet. Reply, 16.
`
`Dr. Reinman
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`thumbnails
`
`•But Belitz also 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
`
`48
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Ex. 1041, 22; Pet. Reply, 16.
`
`•And 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
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Pet. Reply, 16.
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349
`
`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
`
`50
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`POR, 36.
`
`POR, 35-36.
`
`PO argues Okamura+Belitz carries the same disadvantages as “related art”
`
`POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Modify Okamura in View of Belitz
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`Ex. 1041, 24; Pet. Reply, 17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`•But Belitz eliminates the problems allegedly present 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
`
`52
`
`
`
`53
`53
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dependent claims 18-19 are rendered obvious
`
`Issue 4
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims 18, 19.
`
`Dependent Claims 18 and 19
`
`54
`
`
`
`55
`
`Ex. 1003, 187; Petition, 78.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1003, 187-189; Petition, 78-80.
`Ex. 1005, FIGS. 21, 24 (annotated); Ex.
`
`Dr. Greenspun
`
`Okamura Discloses a “Representation of Each Digital File”
`
`Okamura
`
`55
`
`
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
