UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOZIDO CORFIRE – KOREA, LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01149
`U.S. Patent No. 10,223,692
`_____________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY HOUH
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`1
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 1 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOZIDO CORFIRE – KOREA, LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01149
`U.S. Patent No. 10,223,692
`_____________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY HOUH
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`1
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 1 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`Legal Principles on Claim Construction ......................................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Analysis ................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Construction of “temporary payment card” / “temporary card” ........... 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dr. Shamos’ constructions to correct errors in the claims. ................. 17
`
`Applying Dr. Shamos’ corrective construction .................................. 21
`
`IV. Cited Portions of Dr. Shamos’ Deposition Transcript .................................. 25
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 2 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this supplemental declaration at the request of Apple,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,223,692 (“the ’692 patent”) to Min Hwan Jeon.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my supplemental opinions as to the
`
`constructions of certain claim terms recited in claims 1-13 (the “challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’692 patent. I have provided my supplemental opinions as to the
`
`constructions of these terms in response to the constructions proposed by Patent
`
`Owner and Dr. Shamos.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this Supplemental Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a.
`
`the ’692 patent, APPL-1001;
`
`b.
`
`the prosecution history of the ’692 Patent (“’692 File History”),
`
`APPL-1002;
`
`c. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0288012 to Hertel et al. (“Hertel”),
`
`APPL-1005;
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 3 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`d. Definition of “temporary,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`
`
`
`Tenth Edition (2000), APPL-1022;
`
`e. Definition of “temporary,” The American Heritage Dictionary,
`
`Second College Edition (1982), APPL-1023;
`
`f. Declaration of Dr. Michael I. Shamos in IPR2022-01149, EX2004;
`
`and
`
`g. Deposition transcript of Dr. Michael I. Shamos (June 16, 2023),
`
`APPL-1021.1
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a. the documents listed above;
`
`b. the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration;
`
`c. my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of software and telecommunications as described below; and
`
`d. any other document cited in this analysis.
`
`
`1 The portions of Dr. Shamos’ deposition transcript (APPL-1021) cited in this
`
`Supplemental Declaration are reproduced in Section IV below.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 4 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`The materials I have reviewed and studied, including those listed in this paragraph,
`
`are the type of evidence an expert in the field of software and mobile application
`
`development would consider in reaching conclusions.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`7.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of my Original Declaration and
`
`this Supplemental Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the
`
`law that are relevant to my opinions. My understanding of the law was provided to
`
`me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the claims are to be construed according to the same
`
`claim construction standard that district courts use wherein claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning from the perspective of a POSITA at the
`
`time of the invention (i.e., the Phillips standard). I understand that claim terms are
`
`generally to be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention in the context of the patent’s
`
`disclosure, unless the inventor provided an express definition for a claim term (i.e.,
`
`the inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer), or the applicant disavowed or
`
`disclaimed the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution. I understand that when the inventor acts as a lexicographer, the
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 5 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`definition must be definition for a term, and that definition must be set forth in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. I also
`
`understand that to constitute disavowal or disclaimer, the applicant must clearly
`
`and unambiguously express surrender of subject matter during prosecution. I
`
`understand that it is important not to import limitations from a disclosed
`
`embodiment—even if it is the only embodiment disclosed in the specification—
`
`into a claim if the claim does not require those limitations, absent a clear indication
`
`that the applicant intended the claims to be so limited.
`
`9.
`
`The analysis in this Supplemental Declaration is in accordance with
`
`the above-stated legal principles.
`
`III. SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
`
`A. Construction of “temporary payment card” / “temporary card”
`
`10. As shown below, limitations [1.0], [1.4], and [1.8] of claim 1 recite
`
`the terms “temporary payment card” or “temporary card.” I understand that
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have addressed the “temporary payment card” and
`
`“temporary card” terms synonymously, and I have done so as well in this
`
`Supplemental Declaration. For conciseness, I generically refer to both terms as
`
`“temporary payment card” in this Supplemental Declaration.
`
`[1.0] A method for setting a temporary payment card, comprising:
`
`
`
`
`***
`
`6
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 6 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`[1.4] based upon the user input sliding the mobile payment card, setting, as a
`
`temporary card, the mobile payment card, wherein while the mobile
`
`payment card is set as the temporary card, payments will be made by the
`
`mobile payment card;
`
`***
`
`[1.8] resetting the setting of the temporary payment card when the payable
`
`time passes such that the mobile payment card is no longer set as the
`
`temporary card and payments are made through a main card.
`
`11. As shown below, claim 13 recites the terms “temporary payment
`
`card” and “temporary card” in limitations [13.5] (corresponds to limitation [1.4])
`
`and [13.9] (corresponds to limitation [1.8]).
`
`[13.5] based upon the user input sliding the mobile payment card, set as
`
`temporary card, the mobile payment card, wherein while the mobile
`
`payment card is set as the temporary card, payments will be made by the
`
`mobile payment card;
`
`***
`
`[13.9] reset the setting of the temporary payment card when the payable
`
`time passes.
`
`12.
`
`In the following discussion of “temporary payment card,” I refer
`
`primarily to claim 1 due to the substantial overlap between claims 1 and 13. My
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 7 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`comments about claim 1 apply equally to claim 13 unless otherwise noted.
`
`13.
`
`It remains my opinion that the term “temporary payment card”
`
`(including “temporary card”) should be construed according to its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. I note that the ’692 patent does not define the term “temporary
`
`payment card” (or “temporary card”). As such, the inventors did not attempt to
`
`impart a special definition to this term.
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “temporary
`
`payment card” in the context of the ’692 patent is a payment card that can be used
`
`for a limited time. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2000) defines
`
`“temporary” as “lasting for a limited time.” APPL-10222. Similarly, the American
`
`Heritage Dictionary (1986) defines the term “temporary” as “[l]asting, used, or
`
`enjoyed for a limited time; impermanent.” APPL-1023.
`
`15. The ’692 patent explains that “[t]he user may make a temporary
`
`payment using a mobile payment card other than the main payment card. To
`
`achieve this, the user should set a mobile payment card to be used for temporary
`
`payment as a temporary payment card.” APPL-1001, 4:25-28. Thus, the ’692
`
`patent does not attribute any special meaning to the term “temporary payment
`
`card.” Therefore, the term “temporary payment card” should be construed
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning as “a payment card that can be used for
`
`a limited time.”
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 8 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`16.
`
`I understand that Dr. Shamos has proposed to construe “temporary
`
`payment card” according to its plain and ordinary meaning, but then provides an
`
`express construction for the plain and ordinary meaning, as shown below.
`
`EX2004, 16.
`
`17. Referencing his description of “exemplary embodiments” in the
`
`“Summary of the ’692 Patent” section of his Declaration (EX2004, ¶¶ 37-46),2 Dr.
`
`Shamos explains that “a ‘temporary payment card’ is one that can be used only for
`
`a ‘payable time,’ after which the ‘main payment card’ is used unless another
`
`temporary payment card is selected.” EX2004, ¶ 50.
`
`
`2 I note that during Dr. Shamos’ deposition, Dr. Shamos explained that his
`
`construction of “temporary payment card” in EX2004, ¶50 refers to the
`
`“Summary of the ’692 Patent” section of his Declaration (EX2004, ¶¶ 37-46),
`
`which describes “exemplary embodiments” of the ’692 patent. APPL-1021,
`
`23:23-25:9.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 9 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`18. For the following reasons, I disagree that the plain and ordinary
`
`
`
`meaning of “temporary payment card” is a “payment card that can only be used for
`
`a payable time,” as Dr. Shamos contends.
`
`19. First, claim 1 does not recite that a “temporary payment card” is a
`
`“payment card that can only be used for a payable time.” Thus, Dr. Shamos is
`
`importing limitations that are not required by claim 1.
`
`20.
`
`In addition to construing “temporary payment card” to require
`
`limitations that are not recited in claim 1, Dr. Shamos alternatively argues that “[a]
`
`‘temporary payment card,’ according to the Patent, is one that is only valid for a
`
`‘payable time.’” EX2004, ¶ 38. I understand that during his deposition, Dr. Shamos
`
`acknowledged that “valid” is not part of his proposed construction, and he
`
`explained that “valid” means “usable in a transaction” while the card is selected,
`
`rather than permanently unusable such as if the card is expired. APPL-1021, 47:12-
`
`49:2, 27:20-28:9.
`
`21. Dr. Shamos bases his proposed construction on the combination of
`
`two conditions described in 1:24-2:31 of the ’692 patent: (1) if payment is made
`
`with a temporary payment card during a “payable time,” then the main payment
`
`card is reset; and (2) if no payment is made with the temporary payment card
`
`during the payable time, the main payment card is reset at the expiration of the
`
`payable time. EX2004, ¶¶38-39 (citing 1:49-57, 2:6-8), ¶43 (describing two
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 10 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`conditions); APPL-1021, 33:23-36:10 (Dr. Shamos explaining that his construction
`
`is based on those two conditions).3
`
`22. Claim 1 does not, however, recite or require the combination of
`
`conditions (1)-(2) to support Patent Owner’s construction. At most, limitation [1.8]
`
`recites part of condition (2): “resetting the setting of the temporary payment card
`
`when the payable time passes” such that “payments are made through a main
`
`card,” but condition (1) is not required by claim 1. Dr. Shamos is therefore
`
`improperly reading in limitations from the claims. I have reviewed the prosecution
`
`history and specification of the ’692 patent. There is no indication in the
`
`prosecution history or specification of the ’692 patent that the inventors or
`
`applicant intended “temporary payment card” to be construed based on conditions
`
`(1)-(2), which are not recited in the claims.
`
`23. Second, Dr. Shamos’ proposed construction excludes embodiments
`
`from the specification, in my opinion. As discussed above, Dr. Shamos’ proposed
`
`construction is based on the combination of conditions (1) and (2) relating to
`
`resetting the temporary payment card when the payable time ends because either
`
`
`3 I understand that Dr. Shamos admitted that the “Summary of the ’692 Patent”
`
`section of his Declaration (EX2004, ¶¶37-46) refers to only 1:24-2:31 of the
`
`’692 patent. APPL-1021, 26:8-18.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 11 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`(1) the temporary payment card is used in a transaction during the payable time or
`
`(2) the payable time expires. The ’692 patent, however, discloses that the user
`
`herself can reset the temporary payment card “even if the payable time remains” by
`
`sliding down the temporary payment card on the screen, as shown in Figure 13
`
`below. APPPL-1001, 5:16-19 (“When the user intentionally slides down the
`
`temporary payment card as shown in FIG. 13 even if the payable time still
`
`remains, the setting of the temporary payment card is reset.”), 2:1-3 (“The method
`
`may further include, when the moved mobile payment card is moved to an original
`
`position by the user, resetting the setting of the temporary payment card.”).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 12 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`User resets
`temporary
`payment card
`during payable
`time
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 13 (annotated)
`
`
`
`24. Dr. Shamos’ proposed construction that a temporary payment card
`
`“can only be used for a payable time” does not include this additional condition
`
`where the user resets the temporary payment card while payable time still remains.
`
`Rather, Dr. Shamos’ proposed construction is based entirely on the combination of
`
`conditions (1)-(2) described in 1:24-2:31 of the ’692 patent. EX2004, ¶¶38-39, 43.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 13 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`In my opinion, Dr. Shamos’ construction that excludes embodiments of the ’692
`
`patent should not be adopted. I understand that Dr. Shamos argued during his
`
`deposition that the Figure 13 embodiment, which is not addressed in his
`
`declaration, is encompassed by his proposed construction because “the user ended
`
`the payable time.” APPL-1021, 38:13-23, 37:9-43:1 (deposition testimony on
`
`Figure 13 embodiment). The ’692 patent does not explain that the user can “end[]
`
`the payable time.” The ’692 patent merely provides that the “payable time may be
`
`set/changed by the user,” including “extend[ing]” the payable time. APPL-1001,
`
`4:66-5:28, Fig. 12. Further, Dr. Shamos’ contention that the user “ended the
`
`payable time” is contrary to the ’692 patent’s express disclosure that the user can
`
`reset the temporary card “even if the payable time still remains.” APPL-1001,
`
`5:16-19.
`
`The remaining payable time is informed for the user as shown in FIG. 12.
`
`The payable time may be set/changed by the user through the above-
`
`described mobile payment card management screen or mobile wallet
`
`application.
`
`When the payable time passes, the slid up “ABC PREMIER” card is slid
`
`down and moves to the original position shown in FIG. 10. To let the user
`
`know that the setting of the temporary payment card is reset, the sliding-
`
`down process may be performed more slowly than the sliding-up process.
`
`Furthermore, an announcement to inform the reset of the setting of the
`
`temporary payment card may be outputted through visual information or
`
`voice/sound information, and may be outputted through a vibration.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 14 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`When the payment is made within the payable time, the setting of the
`
`temporary payment card is reset. This is to prevent double payment.
`
`When the user intentionally slides down the temporary payment card as
`
`shown in FIG. 13 even if the payable time still remains, the setting of the
`
`temporary payment card is reset.
`
`The payable time may be extended. For example, when the mobile device
`
`is shaken horizontally by the user more than three times before the payable
`
`time passes, the payable time may be set to be extended. The gesture of
`
`shaking the mobile device is merely an example and may be substituted with
`
`a gesture of a different pattern.
`
`To extend the payable time or induce rapid payment, the mobile device
`
`may be set to output an alarm when 3 seconds remain as a payable time.
`
`APPL-1001, 4:66-5:28.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 15 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 12
`
`
`
`25. Third, Dr. Shamos’ construction renders superfluous portions of
`
`limitation [1.8]. Dr. Shamos argues that the term “temporary payment card” itself
`
`should be construed so that it “can only be used for a payable time” because of
`
`conditions (1)-(2) described in 1:24-2:31 of the ’692 patent. That construction
`
`disregards the portion of limitation [1.8] reciting that the temporary payment card
`
`is reset “when the payable time passes.” This is the only condition recited in claim
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 16 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`1. If the term “temporary payment card” is itself construed so that it “can only be
`
`used for a payable time,” then that construction renders superfluous the portion of
`
`limitation [1.8] that specifically recites a condition on resetting the temporary
`
`payment card (“…when the payable time passes…”).
`
`26. Accordingly, the term “temporary payment card” should be construed
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning as “a payment card that can be used for
`
`a limited time.”
`
`B. Dr. Shamos’ constructions to correct errors in the claims.
`
`27.
`
`In my original Declaration (APPL-1003), I noted that there was a
`
`discrepancy in how limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2] used the terms “first portion”
`
`and “second portion” in relation to how limitations [1.1] and [13.2] used the terms
`
`“first portion” and “second portion.” APPL-1003, ¶¶ 44-47. For example, my
`
`original Declaration contained the following annotation of Figures 10 and 11 of the
`
`’692 patent, showing a list of payment cards at a first portion of the touch screen
`
`interface (towards bottom of the screen) (limitations [1.1] and [13.2]).
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 17 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`card
`slid up to
`second
`portion of
`touch
`screen
`interface
`
`list of
`cards at
`first
`portion of
`touch
`screen
`interface
`
`APPL-1001 (’692 Patent), Figs. 10 and 11 (annotated)
`
`28. Dr. Shamos acknowledges that there is an “obvious error” in
`
`limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2]. Specifically, the “first portion” and “second
`
`portion” in limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2] should be reversed. To correct, this
`
`error, Dr. Shamos proposes the following construction for limitations [1.6.2] and
`
`[13.7.2]. I have added strikethrough and underline text to show how Dr. Shamos’
`
`proposed construction alters the original language of limitations [1.6.2] and
`
`[13.7.2]:
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 18 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`[1.6.2]/[13.7.2] moving the mobile payment card a first distance from the
`
`
`
`first second portion of the screen towards a second first portion of the touch
`
`screen.
`
`EX2004, ¶68.
`
`29.
`
`I agree with Dr. Shamos’ proposed construction of limitations [1.6.2]
`
`and [13.7.2] to correct the obvious errors in these limitations.
`
`30. My original Declaration contained annotations of Figures 15 and 16
`
`that were based on the errors in original limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2]. APPL-
`
`1003, ¶46. Below, I have modified my annotations of Figures 15 and 16 by
`
`switching the “first portion” (near bottom of screen) and “second portion” (near
`
`top of screen) to correspond to Dr. Shamos’ corrective construction of limitations
`
`[1.6.2] and [13.7.2].
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 19 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`second
`portion of
`the screen
`
`card
`moved
`down
`from
`second
`portion
`of the
`screen
`
`first portion
`of the touch
`screen
`
`APPL-1001, Figs. 15-16 (annotated)
`
`payable
`time
`
`
`
`
`
`31. As shown in annotated Figure 15 and 16 above, as the payable time
`
`passes, the payment card is moved a first distance from the second portion of the
`
`screen (near the top of the screen) towards the first portion of the screen (near the
`
`bottom of the screen), as recited in limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2].
`
`32. By adopting Dr. Shamos’ corrective construction of limitations [1.6.2]
`
`and [13.7.2], I agree for purposes of simplicity that the following “screen” terms
`
`may be used synonymously (despite differences in the terms):
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 20 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`EX2004, pp. 16-17
`
`
`
`C. Applying Dr. Shamos’ corrective construction
`
`33. As noted in Section III.B above, Dr. Shamos has proposed to construe
`
`limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2] by reversing the “first portion” and “second
`
`portion,” as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 21 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
` [1.6.2]/[13.7.2] moving the mobile payment card a first distance from the
`
`
`
`first second portion of the screen towards a second first portion of the touch
`
`screen.
`
`EX2004, ¶68 (my alterations).
`
`34.
`
`In my original Declaration, using the original language of limitations
`
`[1.6.2] and [13.7.2], I explained that with reference to the first annotated version of
`
`Hertel’s Figure 17 below:
`
`Hertel describes selecting a temporary card to use as the active card for
`
`payment by dragging and dropping that card from its location in the e-wallet
`
`into a payment receptacle. As shown below in annotated Figure 17, the
`
`payment receptacle is displayed toward the right side of the electronic wallet
`
`([a] first portion of the screen), while the inactive cards are displayed
`
`toward the left side of the electronic wallet (a second portion of the touch
`
`screen):
`
`APPL-1003, ¶135.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 22 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`a second portion of the
`touch screen
`
`a first portion of the screen
`
`electronic
`wallet 7
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 17 (annotated); APPL-1003, ¶135
`
`35. Applying Dr. Shamos’ corrective construction (“moving the mobile
`
`payment card a first distance from the first second portion of the screen towards a
`
`second first portion of the touch screen”) (see Section III.B above), Hertel
`
`discloses selecting a temporary card to use as the active card for payment by
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 23 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`dragging and dropping it from its location in the e-wallet into a payment
`
`receptacle. As shown below in Figure 17, Hertel’s payment receptacle is toward
`
`the right side of the e-wallet ([a] second portion of the screen), while the inactive
`
`cards are toward the left (a first portion of the touch screen).
`
`a first portion of the
`touch screen
`
`a second portion of the
`screen
`
`electronic
`wallet
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 17 (annotated)
`
`36. Thus, my analysis of Hertel with respect to limitations [1.6.2] and
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 24 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`[13.7.2] is the same, except that I reversed the “first portion” and “second portion”
`
`in my second annotation of Hertel’s Figure 17 above to reflect Dr. Shamos’
`
`corrective claim construction of limitations [1.6.2] and [13.7.2].
`
`IV. CITED PORTIONS OF DR. SHAMOS’ DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
`
`37. As indicated above, I cited to various portions of Dr. Shamos’
`
`deposition transcript (APPL-1021). The portions of Dr. Shamos’ deposition
`
`transcript that I cited to are reproduced below.
`
`APPL-1021, 47:12-25 (cited in ¶20 above).
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 25 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 48:1-25 (cited in ¶20 above).
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 26 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`APPL-1021, 49:1-2 (cited in ¶20 above).
`
`APPL-1021, 27:20-25 (cited in ¶20 above).
`
`APPL-1021, 28:1-9 (cited in ¶20 above).
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 27 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`APPL-1021, 33:23-25 (cited in ¶21 above).
`
`APPL-1021, 34:1-25 (cited in ¶21 above).
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 28 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 35:1-25 (cited in ¶21 above).
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 29 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 36:1-10 (cited in ¶21 above).
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 30 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 37:9-25 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 31 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 38:1-25 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 32 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 39:1-25 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`33
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 33 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 40:1-25 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 34 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 41:1-25 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 35 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 42:1-43:1 (cited in ¶24 above).
`
`
`
`
`36
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 36 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`APPL-1021, 23:23-25 (cited in footnote 2 above).
`
`
`
`
`37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 37 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 24:1-25 (cited in footnote 2 above).
`
`
`
`
`38
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 38 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`Houh Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,223,692
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021, 25:1-9 (cited in footnote 2 above).
`
`APPL-1021, 26:8-18 (cited in footnote 3 above).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 39 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-01149 / Page 40 of 40
`Apple Inc. v. Mozido Corfire-Korea, Ltd.
`
`
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
