Request for x Parte Reexamination
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`APPLE 1063
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00242
`
`APPLE 1063
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00242
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`APPLE 1063
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00242
`
`APPLE 1063
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00242
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Group Art Unit: To Be Assigned
`
`Examiner: To Be Assigned
`
`DECLARATIONOF DR.
`CHANDRAJIT BAJAJ UNDER
`37 C.FLR. § 1.132
`
`) ) ) ) } ) ) } J ))j} ) } )
`
`In re Ex Parte Reexamination of:
`
`US. Patent No. 8,881,048
`
`Issued: November 4, 2014
`
`Named Inventor: E.Eddie Bakhash
`
`Control Number: To Be Assigned
`
`Title) SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
`PROVIDING THREE-DIMENSIONAL
`GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Commissioner:
`
`I, Professor Chandrajit Bajaj, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`L.
`
`[have been retained on behalf of Requester of thisEx Parfe Reexamination as an
`
`expert witness in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`2.
`
`l understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (“the 048
`
`patent’), assigned to SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”or “Patent Owner), and that I have
`
`been asked to provide my opinionabout the patentability of claims 1-18 of the °048 patent.
`
`3.
`
`[have reviewed and am familiar with the °048 patent. I understandthat the °048
`
`patent has been provided for this proceeding as Ex. 1001. I will cite to the ’048 patent using the
`
`
`
`following format: Ex. 1001, at 1:1-10. This example points to the °048 patent at column 1, lines
`
`1-10.
`
`4.
`
`| have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the ’048 patent. I
`
`understand that the file history has been provided as Ex. 1002.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration sets forth my opinions, which | have formed based on myyears
`
`of education, research, and experience, as well as my study of relevant materials. In forming my
`
`opinions, I have considered the materials identified in this declaration and in the Request.
`
`6.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond to
`
`arguments raised by SpaceTime3D. I may also consider additional documents and information in
`
`forming any necessary opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to
`
`me,
`
`7.
`
`Myanalysis of the materials is ongoing and Iwill continue to review any new
`
`material as it is provided. This declaration represents only those opinions | have formed to date. I
`
`reserve the right to revise, supplement, or amend my opinions stated herein based on new
`
`information and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`8.
`
`lam being compensated for my time in connection with this proceeding at my
`
`standard hourly consulting rate. This compensation is in no way contingent uponthe nature of
`
`my findings, upon the presentation of my findings in testimony, or upon the outcome ofthis
`
`proceeding.
`
`IL.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`9,
`
`[ believe | am qualified to serve as.a technical expert in this proceeding based
`
`upon my educational and work experience.
`
`10.
`
`Lunderstand that a copy of my current curriculum vitae is provided for this
`
`proceeding as Ex. 1004. It provides details on my education, experience, publications, and other
`
`2
`
`
`
`qualifications and includesalist of all publications | have authored in the previous 35 years. It
`
`also includes a list ofall other cases in which | have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition
`
`in the previousfive years.
`
`11.
`
`Laman expert and have extensive expertise in all related aspects of computer
`
`graphics and image processing.
`
`12.
`
`IL currently am employed as a Professor of Computer Science at the University of
`
`Texas at Austin. I hold the Computational Applied Mathematics endowed Chair in Visualization.
`
`Lalso amthe Director of the Computational Visualization Center at UT Austin, which has been
`
`funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of
`
`Energy, and the Department of Defense. The center’s personnel include twelve researchers,
`
`scientists, post-graduate students, and staff.
`
`13.
`
`T have a Bachelor of Technology degree in Electrical Engineering, which |
`
`obtained from the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi (ITD) in 1980. T also have a Master of
`
`Science degree and a Doctorate in Computer Science from Cornell University in 1983 and 1984,
`
`respectively.
`
`14.
`
`Prior to my employmentat the University of Texas (UT), I was.anassistant
`
`professor, associate professor, and finally professor of Computer Sciences at Purdue University
`
`(Purdue) from 1984 to 1997, when I transferred to UT. During this time, | also was the Director
`
`of the Image Analysis and Visualization Center at Purdue University. | was a visiting associate
`
`professor of Computer Science at Cornell University from 1990-1991. Lalso have beeninvited
`
`for collaborative visits by several academic institutions and have presented numerous keynote
`
`GUIs worldwide. I have been an editorial member of the SLAM Journal on Imaging Sciences and
`
`
`
`the ACM Transactions on Graphics, and I continue my editorial role for ACM Computing
`
`Surveys and the International Journal of Computational Geometry and Applications.
`
`15.
`
`Lhave spent the better part of my career, both at Purdue and UT, researching,
`
`designing, teaching, and using computer systems to model, simulate, and visualize natural and
`
`synthetic objects combining computational imaging and geometry processing. | am
`
`knowledgeable about, and have experience in, both the hardware and software inthis field,
`
`including algorithms used for capturing, analyzing, and displaying interactive imagery.
`
`16.
`
`Inthe 1970s, I majored in Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of
`
`Technology, with a minor in Computer Sciences. There, | was intimately involved in the design
`
`and fabrication of microprocessor-controlled circuits, including the developmentof.
`
`microprocessor controller software. In the 1980s, while at Cornell University, these past
`
`experiences from my time at Indiana Institute of Technology led to research in computational
`
`geometry, processing, and optimization. In the early 1990s, | created 3D interactive and
`
`collaborative multimedia software environments that were fully navigable for multi-person
`
`computer gaming and simulation. In 1994, I co-authored a technical paper entitled “Shastra:
`
`Multimedia Collaborative Design Environment,” Vinod Anupamand Chandrajit L. Bajaj, IEEE
`
`Multimedia 1.2 (1994) 39, 39-49.
`
`17.
`
`The increasing need for increasing computer graphics display realism without
`
`sacrificing interactivity led me also to explore image processing techniques such as texture
`
`mapping with data compression, such as described in my publications “Compression-Based 3D
`
`Texture Mapping for Real-Time Rendering,” “3D RGB Image Compression for Interactive
`
`Applications,” “Volumetric Video Compression and Interactive Playback,” and “SIMD
`
`Optimization of Linear Expressions for Programmable Graphics in Hardware.” During this time,
`
`
`
`I also was intimately involved with the development of a new synthetic-natural hybrid data
`
`compression MPEG (Motion Pictures Expert Group) standard. Additionally, | applied and
`
`received a joint patenttitled “Encoding Images of 3-D Objects with Improved Rendering Time
`
`and Transmission Processes,” U.S. Patent No. 6,438,266, issued in August 2002.
`
`18.
`
`My work with encoding, transmitting, and reconstructing 3D objects led me to
`
`explore image processing and geometric modeling techniques such as surface reconstruction
`
`from CT scans, point clouds, and texture mapping with data compression, such as those
`
`describedin my publications “Multi-Component Heart Reconstruction from Volumetric
`
`Imaging” and “Automatic Reconstruction of Surfaces and Scalar Fields from 3D Scans.”
`
`19.
`
`In the mid-2000s, I began to create spatially-realistic 3D graphical environments
`
`of nature’s molecules and cells with a combination ofdifferent types of acquired and
`
`reconstructed imagery within which a user may explore, query, and learn. My publication titled
`
`“From Voxel Maps to Models,” which appeared in an Oxford University Press book called
`
`Imaging Life: Biological Systems From Atoms To Tissues, Gary C. Howard, William E. Brown
`
`& Manfred Auer eds., Oxford University Press, 2015, is an example of my research in
`
`computational imaging.
`
`20.
`
`At UT Austin, I have also been actively involved in developing hardware and
`
`software technology that allowed multiple computers with multiple programmable graphics cards
`
`(GPUs) to simultaneously and synchronously display to large multi-screen immersive displays.
`
`Wecalled this the UT Meta-Buffer solution. One of the publications that resulted from this is
`
`titled “Active Visualization in a Multi-display Immersive Environment.” Much of my past and
`
`current work involves issues relating to 2D and 3D image capture, and reconstruction,
`
`compression, image and geometric data processing, and quantitative analysis. Throughout my
`
`
`
`career, [have participated in the design and use of several computer systems spanning
`
`handhelds, laptops, and graphics workstations to PC/Linux clusters as well as very large memory
`
`supercomputers for capturing, modeling, and displaying virtual and scientific phenomena. My
`
`experience with computer modeling and displaying computer graphics imagery encompasses
`
`many fields, such as interactive games, molecular, biomedical and industrial diagnostics, oil and
`
`gas exploration, geology, cosmology, and military industries.
`
`21.
`
`During my timeat UT Austin, | also have designed and implemented scalable
`
`solutions for inverse problems in microscopy, spectroscopy, biomedical imaging, constructing
`
`spatially realistic and hierarchical 3D models, development of search/scoring engines for
`
`predicting energetically favorable multi-molecular and cellular complexes, and statistical
`
`analysis and interrogative visualization of neuronal form-function. Additionally, [have courtesy
`
`appointments with, and supervise, master’s and doctoral students from several UT departments,
`
`including biomedical and electrical engineering, neurobiology, and mathematics.
`
`22.
`
`[currently serve on the editorial boards for the International Journal of
`
`Computational Geometry and Applications and the ACM Computing Surveys. Much of my work
`
`involves issues relating to interactive image processing, 3D modeling, bio-informatics, computer
`
`graphics, and computational visualization. Examples of my publications, including peer-
`
`reviewed publications, are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`23,
`
`As outlined in my curriculumvitae, | have authored approximately 169 peer-
`
`reviewed journal articles, 34 peer-reviewed bookchapters, and 157 peer-reviewed conference
`
`publications.
`
`24.
`
`—_Thave written and edited four books on topics ranging from image processing,
`
`geometric modeling, and visualization techniques to algebraic geometry and its applications. 1
`
`
`
`have given 198 invited speaker keynote GUIs, Iam a Fellow of the American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), a Fellow of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), and a Fellow of
`
`the Association of Computing Machinery (also known as ACM), whichis the world’s largest
`
`education and scientific computing society. ACM Fellow is ACM’s mostprestigious member
`
`grade and recognizes the top 1% of ACM members for their outstanding accomplishments in
`
`computing and information technology and/or outstanding service to ACMand the larger
`
`computing community.
`
`25.|More information about my educational and professional background can be
`
`found in my curriculum vitae, which is in Ex. 1004 to this declaration,
`
`Ii.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`26.
`
`have been asked to provide my opinion on whether the claims of the ’048 patent
`
`are unpatentable over certainprior art references. It is my opinion that each of the claims 1-18 of
`
`the °048 patent is unpatentable because each would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in viewof the priorart.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`27.
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the 048 patent and
`
`its claims in light of the prior art, | am relying on certain legal principles that counsel in this case
`
`has explained to me. My understanding of these concepts is summarized below.
`
`A.
`
`28.
`
`Legal Standards for Prior Art
`
`| understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior art before
`
`it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`29.
`
`TL understand that a U.S. or foreign patentqualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patentif the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the asserted patent. I further
`
`7
`
`
`
`understand that aprinted publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade
`
`publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted patentif the date of publication is prior to the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`30.
`
`| understand that a U.S. or foreign patent also qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patentif the date of issuance of the patent is morethan one year before the filing date of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that-a printed publication, suchas an article published in a
`
`magazine or trade publication, constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs
`
`more than one year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`31.
`
`—Tunderstand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted patentif the
`
`application for that patent was filed in the United States before the invention of the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`understandthat documents and materials that qualify as prior art can be usedto
`
`invalidate a patent claim via anticipation or obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`LT understand that, once the claims ofa patent have been properly construed, the
`
`second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a comparison of the properly
`
`construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`34.
`
`l understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and thus
`
`renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that prior art reference,
`
`either explicitly or inherently (.e., necessarily present).
`
`Cc.
`
`35.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`TL understand that even if a patentis not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`
`
`as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinentart.
`
`36,
`
`[understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a reference point
`
`from whichthe priorart and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents
`
`one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`37.
`
`_l also understand that an obviousness determination includes the consideration of
`
`various factors such as (1) the scope and content ofthe priorart, (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and(4) the
`
`existence of secondary considerations such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`38.
`
`Tl understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a combination of
`
`multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a
`
`suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other times the nexus linking two or more prior
`
`art references is simple common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes
`
`that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be suppliedby the direction of the marketplace.
`
`39.—L understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`ofordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or herskill.
`
`40.
`
`lL also understand that practical and common-sense considerations should guide a
`
`proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have obvious uses beyondtheir primary
`
`purposes. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a
`
`problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple publications. | understand that
`
`
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`41.
`
`| understandthat a particular combination may be proven obvious merely by
`
`showingthat it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is a design need or
`
`market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite numberof identified, predictable
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
`
`and common sense.
`
`42.
`
`The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a work is available in one
`
`field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations ofit, either in
`
`the same field or a different one. [fa person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`
`variation, the patent claimis likely obvious.
`
`43.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on what
`
`was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the patentee. Accordingly,
`
`l understand that any need or problem knownin the field of endeavorat the time of invention
`
`and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
`
`claimed.
`
`44.
`
`| understand that a proposed obviousness combination does not need to be the
`
`preferred, or most desirable, combination available in order to render a claimobvious.Instead,
`
`there must be something that suggests the desirability of the proposed combination, not
`
`necessarily something that suggests that the proposed combination is the most desirable
`
`combination available.
`
`10
`
`
`
`45.—Similarly, 1 understand that for purposes of obviousness, when a motivating
`
`benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, that does not nullify the proposed obviousness
`
`combination or modification. Likewise, a proposed obviousness combination does notfail
`
`merely because it may be inferior to other systems used for the same use.
`
`46.—Lalso understand that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
`
`multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements betweenthe
`
`multiple references. Likewise, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Instead, the test
`
`is whether a claim is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`47.
`
`[understand that a claimcan be obvious inlight of a single reference, without the
`
`need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or
`
`inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of oneofskill in the art.
`
`48.
`
`| understand that secondary indicia of nonobviousness may include (1) a long-felt
`
`but unmet need inthe prior art that was satisfied by the invention ofthe patent; (2) commercial
`
`success of processes covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4)
`
`praise of the invention by others skilledin the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by
`
`others; (6) deliberate copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long-
`
`felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts.
`
`49.
`
`| also understand that there must be a relationship betweenany such secondary
`
`considerations and the invention. | further understand that contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others is a secondary consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`50..In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly combined where
`
`a personof ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and knowledgereflected in the prior
`
`11
`
`
`
`art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have beenled to make the
`
`combination of elements recited in the claims. Underthis analysis, the prior art references
`
`themselves, or any need or problem knownin the field of endeavor at the time of the invention,
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARYSKILL IN THE ART
`
`51.
`
`By virtue of my education, experience, and training, | am familiar with the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the °048 patent at the time of the alleged invention ofthe 048
`
`patent-—September 13, 2005. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in computerscience, electrical engineering, or a comparable
`
`field, and at least two years of professional experience working with computer graphics and
`
`graphical user interfaces, or the equivalent. Additional years of experience could substitute for
`
`formal education, and vice versa. This skill level applies regardless of whether the challenged
`
`claims are entitled to the 048 patent’s earliest priority date of September 13, 2005, the filing
`
`date ofthe latest application in its priority chain (September 30, 2014), or any date in between.
`
`52.
`
`I consider myself to have at least such a level of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ‘048 patent, as I have overthirty years of professional
`
`experience in the field of computer graphics and image processing. Thus, | am able to opine on
`
`how the person of ordinary skill would have understood the disclosure of the claims of the 048
`
`patent, disclosuresof the prior art, motivation to combinetheprior art, and what combinations
`
`would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill.
`
`12
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE °048 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`53.
`
`The *048 Patent’s Alleged Invention
`
`The ’048 patent discloses a three-dimensional (“3D”) interactive computing
`
`interface for displaying webpagesin a traditional 2D view or captured images textured on objects
`
`representing the displayed webpages in a simulated-3D virtual space on a computerscreen.
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:28-36, 7:59-8:30, FIG. 10. The ’048 patent further discloses that the user can
`
`toggle between displaying webpages in the 2D view andthe corresponding image objects in the
`
`simulated-3D virtual space to enhance the user’s ability to organize and interact with webpages
`
`presented between the 2D viewand the 3D virtual space. /d., at 21:36-58.
`
`54.
`
`[have been informed that the ’048 patent’s earliest possible effective filing date is
`
`September 13, 2005. Ex. 1001, at Cover Page, (60).
`
`B.
`
`55.
`
`The ’048 Patent Prosecution History
`
`| understand that Patent Ownerfiled the application that became the °048 patent
`
`on March 31, 2010. /d., at Cover Page, (22). The application claims priority to a provisional
`
`application dated September 13, 2005. /d., at Cover Page, (60). | have been informed that the
`
`allowedclaims 1-18 were based onadded claims that replaced the previous claims during
`
`prosecution and the Examiner’s Amendmentprior to allowance. Ex. 1002, at 133-146.
`
`VIL. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`56.
`
`[have been informed thatclaims of an unexpired patent undergoing ex parte
`
`reexamination are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`
`| have been informed that District courts use a standard of construction where claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`13
`
`
`
`57.
`
`[have been informed that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
`
`must reasonably reflect the language of the claims and the corresponding disclosure of the
`
`specification. | have applied this standard in my analysis below.
`
`A.
`
`“Three-dimensional (3D) space” / “three-dimensional space” /“3D space”
`(claims 1, 8, and14)
`
`58.
`
` Lunderstand the °048 patent was litigated in (1) Space7ime 3D, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Lid., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-IRG (E.D. Tex.) (the “Samsung Litigation”), (2)
`
`SpaceTime3D, Ine. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049-RWS(E.D. Tex.) (the “LG
`
`Litigation”), and (3) Spacelime3D, Inc. v.Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (W.D.Tex.) (the
`
`“Apple Litigation”). I was informed that the district court in the previous Samsung Litigation
`
`construed the term “three-dimensional space” to mean “a virtual space defined by a three-
`
`dimensional coordinate system.” Ex. 1017, at 19. | was informed that Patent Owner agreed to
`
`this construction in both the LG Litigation and the Apple Litigation. Ex. 1019, at 5, Ex. 1021, at
`
`1. Therefore, | will apply this constructionto my analysis herein.
`
`B.
`
`“Two-dimensional (2D) space” / “two-dimensional space” / “2D space”
`(claims 1, 8, and14)
`
`59.
`
`Thedistrict court in the Samsung Litigation construed this term “2D space”to
`
`mean “a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system.” Ex. 1017, at
`
`19. | was informed that Patent Owneragreed to this construction in the LG Litigation and the
`
`Apple Litigation. See Ex. 1019, at 19, Ex. 1021, at 1. Therefore, I will apply this construction to
`
`my analysis herein.
`
`Cc.
`
`“Texturing” (claims 1 and 8)
`
`60.—I wastold that the district court in the Samsung Litigation construed this term
`
`“texturing” to mean “drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object.” Ex. 1017, at 23. I was
`
`14
`
`
`
`told that the district courts in the LG Litigation and Apple Litigation respectively construed this
`
`term the same. Ex. 1019, at 34; Ex. 1022, at 1. lapply this construction in my analysis herein.
`
`D.
`
`61.
`
`“Webpage(s)” (claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “webpage(s)” is “document(s) on the world
`
`wide web.” See Ex. 1001, at 22:61-66, 28:3-18. 1 was told that the district court in theLG
`
`Litigation construed this term the same. Ex. 1019, at 51. L apply this construction in my analysis
`
`herein.
`
`VUL THE PRIOR ART
`
`62.
`
`l understand that the 048 patent was filed on March 31, 2010, as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/751,879 (“the °879 application”). Ex. 1001, at Cover Page, (21), (22). The
`
`*879 application claims priority to a provisional application dated September 13, 2005. /d., at
`
`Cover Page, (60). Thus, the earliest possible priority date for all claims ofthe ’048 patentis
`
`September 13, 2005.
`
`63.
`
`[have reviewed the following priorart. It is my opinion that a POSITA would
`
`have found the claims obvious before the claimed priority date.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. 2002-132828 to Naoki Koga and
`
`Certified Translation (“Koga”).
`
`Ex, 1006
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0215664 Al to Eric
`
`Hennings et al. (“Hennings”).
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex, 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,921,372 B2 to Aaron J. Sauve etal. (“Sauve”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,701 B2 to Jerry S.Amato etal. (“Amato”).
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`HTTP: The Definitive Guide, Ist Edition.
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0027570 Alto
`
`Tetsuyuki Muto et al. (“Muto”).
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0105551 Al to Yakov
`
`Kamenet al. (“Kamen”).
`
`15
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Overview of Koga
`
`64._L understand that Koga is a published Japanese patent application titled
`
`“Bookmark management system, computer-readable recording mediumin which this system is
`
`recorded, and bookmark management device,” which was published on May 10, 2002. Ex. 1005,
`
`at Cover Page, (43), (54). understand from counsel that Kogais priorart to the ’048 patent
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C, § 102(a), (b), and (e) and § 103, because it was publicly available and
`
`accessible to a POSITA more than one year before September 13, 2005, the earliest priority date
`
`of the ’048 patent.
`
`65.
`
`In my opinion, Koga discloses displaying thumbnail images as bookmarks of
`
`webpages ina three-dimensional (3D) space. /d., at Abstract, 9] [0005], [0011], [0018], [00241],
`
`[0028], FIG. 5.
`
`N14OMPLAY
`
`52
`THUMENAK,
`MAGE
`
`/d., at FIG. 5.
`
`16
`
`
`
`66.
`
`Kogaalso discloses displaying webpages in 2D views, e.g., allowing a user to
`
`browse a webpage on a web browser window, in response to a browsing request fromthe user
`
`selecting a corresponding thumbnail display image. /d., at Ҥ [0011], [0029], FIG. 6 (annotated).
`
`WER SITE
`
`USER
`
`BOOKMARK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 20
`
`: User Double-Click
`‘ Interaction
`
`2D Web Browser.
`'
`, Window Displaying
`| Selected Webpage
`
`}
`
`ORCECT MANAGEMENT
`OATABASE
`
`J
`
`
`
`ae
`
`IMAGE POINTER
`
`
`
`MEANS ST
`
`THUMBNATL:
`IOS So
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG.
`
`Id., at FIG. 6 (annotated with dashed text boxes and arrows).
`
`67.
`
`Koga further discloses a display view switching process as shown in FIG. 10 that
`
`switches betweendifferent display views, including “3D viewdisplay of FIG. 5,” and the
`
`window in 2D space in FIG. 12. Jd, at #% [0011], [0035], [0037], FIGs. 10 (annotated) and 12.
`
`For example, “the bookmark management system20 has a browsing function that connects to a
`
`17
`
`
`
`website having a web page corresponding to the thumbnail display image 52 when the user
`
`clicks on the thumbnail display image 52 in the window51, for example, in response to a
`
`browsing request from the user, and thereby allows the user to browse the web page on the web
`
`
`
` 2=
`
`
`2
`4
`$
`é
`
`‘me
`
`BOOKMARKMANAGEMENT SYVGTEM 20
`
`52
`
`browser.” /d., at { [0011].
`
`i 3D space |
`
`pointe vee eeeenee
`Window |
`‘within 2D :
`: space
`
`SI OE SE URE GON RR OHH: Sa FR ae"
`
`/d., atFIG. 10 (annotated with dashed text boxes and arrows).
`
`FIG. 10
`
`18
`
`
`
`B.
`
`68.
`
`Overview of Hennings
`
`Hennings was filed on May 26, 2004 and was published on October 28, 2004.
`
`Ex. 1006, at Cover Page, (22), (43). | understand from counsel that Hennings1s prior art to the
`
`’048 patent under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) because it was filed earlier than the
`
`earliest possible priority date for the ’048 patent, September 13, 2005.
`
`69.
`
`Henningsis directed to a browser window with a webpage 100 containing
`
`hyperlinks to other webpages open and opening the hyperlinked webpage in the browser window
`
`in response to a user’s interaction with a corresponding hyperlink. /d., at {J [0062]-[0063],
`
`FIG, 2.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`hitp-//wwwtraveltickets.com
`Travel Tickets~101
`Cac 102mR TRAVEL~ 110
`bagicurses
`wo ie
`pea100 TRAINS.|,
`
`
`~ 108
`
` hitpuAvww.traveliickelscom/cruises
`Travel Tickets - Cruises
`
`ti*s
`
`ALASKA~ 120
`gor de
`{ eetyceo CARIBBEAN
`{ ceo puERTO RICO\|
`{ ewe
`MEXICO~ 126
`
`
`
`118
`
`148
`
`aa
`
`
`[lipdewIravelticketscom/cruises/caribbeanhim
`Travel Tickets
`fw)
`CARIBBEAN CRUISE
`P|
`{
`GOLFING
`| sey SUNBATHING
`sy BEACHES
`
`-"
`ame, ..
`ee-
`
`-
`
`FIG. 2
`
`© BICYCLING
`a DEEP SEA FISHING
`
`
`
`128
`
`150
`
`‘20
`
`Id., at FIG. 2.
`
`Cc.
`
`70:
`
`Overviewof Sauve
`
`Sauve was assigned to Microsoft and filed on March 25, 2005. Ex. 1007, at Cover
`
`Page, (22), (73). | understand from counsel that Sauve is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) because it was filed before September 13, 2005, the earliest priority date of the °048
`
`patent. /d., at Cover Page, (22).
`
`20
`
`
`
`71.
`
`Requester relies on Sauve for its disclosure of “browsing software [that] is
`
`configured to recognize a ‘pin’ event, such as a hot key, a menu selection, andthe like. Upon
`
`recognizing the pin event, the browsing software splits a display screen into a pinned window
`
`and a tabbed window. The tabbed window displays one or more open tabs and the content of the
`
`currently in focus tab. The pinned window may display content that was previously displayed
`
`within one of the tabs in the tabbed window or may display new content. The browsing software
`
`may configure the navigation of the pinned window differently thanthe navigation for the tabs in
`
`the tabbed window. The pinnedwindow provides a convenient way to compare multiple web
`
`sites, review content identified within [a] search, and the like.” /d., at 1:50-62.
`
`72.
`
`In particular, Sauve discloses loading multiple webpages in respective “‘tabs’
`
`within the same browser window.” /d., at 1-33-35. According to Sauve, clicking on a hyperlink
`
`on a first webpage results in another webpage being downloaded in the background in another
`
`tab, and the user can choose to switch from the current viewing tab to this other tab to view the
`
`downloaded webpage, which has been rendered previously by the browser window on this other
`
`tab. fd, at 1:35-42,
`
`IX.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
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
