throbber
1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Before Hon. Hubert C. Lorin, David C. McKone, and Sheila F. McShane
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00343 and IPR2023-00344
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 and 9,696,868
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`SpaceTime3D, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`
`Apple Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1034
`Apple v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.
`IPR2023-00344
`
`

`

`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`44
`39
`32
`23
`
`4
`381
`
`Issue 6 –PO’s Secondary Considerations Evidence is Insufficient
`Issue 5 –Dr. Schaefer Does Not Qualify as a POSITA
`Issue 4 –HAC Renders Obvious the ’868 Patent’s claim 13
`Issue 3 -HAC Renders Obvious the “ordering” Feature
`Issue 2 –HAC Renders Obvious the “replacing …” Feature
`Issue 1 –A POSITA would have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•Overview of Anthony and Hanggie
`•The ’868 and ’654 Patents
`
`Table of Contents
`
`2
`
`

`

`3
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001 (’654 pat.), FIG. 16A; Petition (Pet.,) 9.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001 (’868 pat.), FIG. 16A; Petition (Pet.,) 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, cover.
`
`The ’868 & ’654 Patents
`
`3
`
`

`

`4
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 9; Petition (Pet.,) 7.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 9; Petition (Pet.,) 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, cover.
`
`The ’868 & ’654 Patents
`
`4
`
`

`

`5
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 9; Pet., 7.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 9; Pet., 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, 21:34-56; Pet., 9-10.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 22:7-30; Pet., 8.
`
`…
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, 3:5-17; Petition (Pet.,) 9.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 3:11-24; Petition (Pet.,) 7.
`
`The ’868 & ’654 Patents
`
`5
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`(654 IPR: APPLE1001, 37:44-38:55)
`The ’654 patent additionally recites a “timeline.”
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 38:40-39:51.
`
`’868 (and ’654) Claim 1
`
`6
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 38:40-39:51.
`
`Disputed Limitations
`
`7
`
`

`

`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Overview of Anthony and Hanggie
`
`8
`
`

`

`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1007
`
`Anthony
`
`9
`
`

`

`10
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4; Pet., 11-12.
`868 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4; Pet., 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4, ¶[42]; Pet., 11-12.
`868 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4, ¶[42]; Pet., 10-11.
`
`Anthony Discloses a Timeline that Displays Items in a 3D
`
`space
`
`APPLE1007.
`
`Anthony
`
`10
`
`

`

`11
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4; Pet., 11-12.
`868 IPR: APPLE1007, FIG. 4; Pet., 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1007, ¶[42]; Pet., 11-12.
`868 IPR: APPLE1007, ¶[42]; Pet., 10-11.
`
`Anthony’s items are arranged in a chronological order (e.g.,
`
`according to date of creation or date of edit)
`
`APPLE1007.
`
`Anthony
`
`11
`
`

`

`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, FIGS. 1B, 3; Pet., 10-11. 654 IPR: APPLE1006, FIGS. 1B, 3; Pet., 11-12.
`
`APPLE1006.
`
`Hanggie
`
`12
`
`

`

`13
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 1B, ¶[92], Pet., 14-22. 654 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 1B, ¶[92],; Pet., 16-22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`A user can switch between the CDWM (3D) and legacy
`
`DWM (2D) modes
`
`APPLE1006.
`
`Hanggie
`
`13
`
`

`

`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hanggie-Anthony Combination (HAC)
`
`The Anthony-Hanggieor
`
`ISSUE 1
`
`14
`
`

`

`15
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003, p38.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, p39.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1006, FIG. 3.
`
`APPLE1007, FIG. 4.
`
`HANGGIE
`
`COMBINATION FIGURE PROVIDED BY DR. FUCHS
`
`COMBINATION
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[59]-[75], Pet., 22-34. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[60]-[80], Pet., 23-35.
`
`ANTHONY
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`15
`
`

`

`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Anthony and Hanggiehave similar systems
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[64]-[65], Pet., 27-29. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[71]-[72], Pet., 28-30.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`16
`
`

`

`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Anthony and Hanggiehave overlapping inventorship
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[64]-[65], Pet., 27-29. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[71]-[72], Pet., 28-30.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`17
`
`

`

`18
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.), p45.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.), p44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶74.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶67.
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[67]-[73], Pet., 22-34. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶¶[74]-[80], Pet., 23-35.
`
`HAC would allow a user to view application windows in a 3D
`
`timeline.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`18
`
`

`

`19
`
`APPLE1006 (Hanggie), ¶[92].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶60.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶59.
`
`HAC would allow a user to switch between 2D and 3D modes.
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[59], Pet., 22-34. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[60], Pet., 23-35.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`19
`
`

`

`20
`
`APPLE1006 (Hanggie), ¶[92].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶60.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶59.
`
`HAC would allow a user to switch between 2D and 3D modes.
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[59], Pet., 22-34. 654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[60], Pet., 23-35.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Anthony and Hanggie
`
`20
`
`

`

`21
`
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep., 21-22.
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep., 20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: POR, 53.
`868 IPR: POR, 49.
`
`Petitioner Reply (Pet. Rep.)
`
`PO Response (POR)
`PO attempts to import power limitations into the claims
`
`PO’s Arguments do not Negate Obviousness
`
`21
`
`

`

`22
`
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep., 21.
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep., 20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s alleged disadvantages do not take away from the
`
`advantages of the combination.
`
`PO’s Arguments do not Negate Obviousness
`
`22
`
`

`

`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`the “replacing …” Feature
`HAC Renders Obvious
`
`Issue 2
`
`23
`
`

`

`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1001 (’654 pat.), 38:25-29.
`
`APPLE1001 (’868 pat.), 39:3-19.
`
`The ’654 Patent
`
`The ’868 Patent
`
`The “replacing …” feature
`
`24
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`654 IPR: POR, p48.
`868 IPR: POR, p43.
`
`654 IPR: POR, p45.
`868 IPR: POR (Patent Owner Response), p40.
`
`PO’s remarks are disconnected from the claim language
`
`25
`
`

`

`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: POR, p49-50.
`868 IPR: POR, p45-46.
`
`PO’s remarks are disconnected from the claim language
`
`26
`
`

`

`27
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, 20:66-21:3; Pet. Rep., 4.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 21:29-43; Pet. Rep., 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 13A; Pet. Rep., 4-5.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 13A Pet. Rep., 4-5.
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, 5:37-47; Pet. Rep., 3.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 5:48-60; Pet. Rep., 3.
`
`PO’s alleged distinctions are unsupported by the patents
`
`868 and 654 Patents
`
`27
`
`

`

`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1029, 578.
`868 IPR: APPLE1029, 578.
`
`654 IPR: POSR, 14-15; APPLE1029.
`868 IPR: POSR, 13-14; APPLE1029.
`
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep., 8; APPLE1029, 578.
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep., 7-8; APPLE1029, 578.
`
`EX1029
`
`the POPR or POR.
`construction of “image” in 
`PO did not offer any 
`
`electronic device.”
`produced by … an 
`counterpart of an object 
`Plain meaning—“an optical 
`
`PO (Sur‐Reply)
`
`description.”
`representation or 
`vivid or graphical 
`visible representation;” “a 
`thing;” “a tangible or 
`of the form of a person or 
`reproduction or imitation 
`Plain meaning—“a 
`Petitioner
`
`PO’s Sur-reply (POSR) introduced PO’s construction of
`
`“image”
`
`Claim Construction: “image”
`
`28
`
`

`

`29
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[58]; Pet. Rep., 20.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[58]; Pet. Rep., 18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[50]; Pet. Rep., 20.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[50]; Pet. Rep., 19.
`
`The Prior Art renders the claims obvious even if PO’s
`
`belated construction of “image” is considered
`
`HANGGIE
`
`HAC still renders “image” obvious
`
`29
`
`

`

`30
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶¶[88]-[89]; Pet. Rep., 20.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶¶[88]-[89]; Pet. Rep., 18-19.
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 4; Pet. Rep., 20.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 4; Pet. Rep., 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Hanggie’swindows (images) in CDWM (3D) correspond to
`
`HANGGIE
`windows (objects) in legacy mode (2D)
`
`HAC still renders “image” obvious
`
`30
`
`

`

`31
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[92]; Pet. Rep., 10-11.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, ¶[92]; Pet. Rep., 10.
`
`654 IPR: POR, p38.
`868 IPR: POR, p33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`HANGGIE
`
`POR
`
`PO Mischaracterizes Hanggie
`
`31
`
`

`

`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`the “ordering” Feature
`HAC Renders Obvious
`
`Issue 3
`
`32
`
`

`

`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1001 (’654 pat.), 38:5-18.
`
`APPLE1001 (’868 pat.), 39:3-19.
`
`The ’654 Patent
`
`The ’868 Patent
`
`The “ordering …” feature
`
`33
`
`

`

`34
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.), p66.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.), p68.
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 4; Pet. Rep., 20.
`868 IPR: APPLE1006, FIG. 4; Pet. Rep., 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Combination
`
`Figure
`
`Anthony
`
`In HAC, application windows are arranged chronologically
`
`(e.g., date of creation or edit)
`
`HAC renders the “ordering” obvious
`
`34
`
`

`

`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`...
`
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep, p13.
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep, p12.
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1031, 67:22-68:3; Pet. Rep., 13-14.
`868 IPR: APPLE1031, 67:22-68:3; Pet. Rep., 12-13.
`
`...
`
`654 IPR: POR, p14.
`868 IPR: POR, p13.
`
`Pet. Rep.
`
`Dr. Schaefer Deposition Transcript
`PO’s incoherent argument is contradicted by its expert
`
`POR
`
`HAC renders the “ordering” obvious
`
`35
`
`

`

`36
`
`654 IPR: POSR, 6-7.
`868 IPR: POSR, 6-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: POR, 14, 21.
`868 IPR: POR, 13, 19.
`
`654 IPR: Pet., 10-11.
`868 IPR: Pet., 9.
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, 38:6-11.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, 39:7-12.
`
`object,”
`application orinteracted with said third 
`second object, and (iii) opened said third 
`second application or interacted with said 
`with said first object, (ii) opened said 
`opened said first application or interacted 
`“based on a last time that said user (i) 
`
`PO Sur‐Reply
`
`meaning” 
`plain and ordinary 
`should be given their 
`space and 3D space] 
`“terms [other than 2D 
`
`applications”;
`most recently used 
`space based on the 
`orders images in 3D 
`“the claimed invention 
`
`PO Resp.
`
`meaning.
`plain 
`necessary; 
`construction 
`No 
`Petitioner
`
`object,”
`interacted with said third 
`third application and
`object, and (iii) opened said 
`interacted with said second 
`second application and
`object, (ii) opened said 
`interacted with said first 
`said first application and
`said user one of (i) opened 
`“based on a last time that 
`
`Patent(s)
`
`PO’s Sur-reply (POSR) introduced PO’s construction of
`
`“based on” for the first time in the proceedings
`
`Claim Construction: “based on”
`
`36
`
`

`

`37
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1031, 63:27-64: 20; Pet. Rep., 13-14.
`868 IPR: APPLE1031, 63:27-64: 20; Pet. Rep., 12-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`...
`
`...
`
`PO’s incoherent argument is contradicted by its expert
`
`Dr. Schaefer Deposition Transcript
`
`HAC renders the “ordering” obvious
`
`37
`
`

`

`38
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 13A; Pet. Rep., 17.
`868 IPR: APPLE1001, FIG. 13A; Pet. Rep., 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applications listed in a taskbar don’t represent all open applications
`
`HAC renders the “ordering” obvious
`
`38
`
`

`

`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`HAC Renders ’868 Claim 13 Obvious
`
`Issue 4
`
`39
`
`

`

`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1001 (’868 pat.) 42:4-10.
`
`Claim 13 (’868 Patent)
`
`40
`
`

`

`41
`
`APPLE1006 (Hanggie), ¶[65].
`
`APPLE1006 (Hanggie), ¶[92].
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1006 (Hanggie), ¶[57].
`
`868 IPR: Pet., 44-47; Pet. Rep., 24-27.
`
`creating images in 3D space to replace objects in 2D space
`Hanggiediscloses switching between 2D and 3D modes and
`
`HAC teaches “switching”
`
`41
`
`

`

`42
`
`EX2020, 59:4-17; POSR, 24-25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1001 (’868 pat.) 42:4-10.
`
`to switch, but does not require switching the entire 2D space to 3D
`Dr. Fuchs correctly notes that claim 13 recites receiving a request
`
`space
`
`HAC teaches “switching”
`
`42
`
`

`

`43
`
`868: APPLE1033, ¶¶[55]-[56]; Pet. Resp. 25-26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`868 IPR: APPLE1003 (Fuchs Dec.) ¶59.
`
`Dr. Fuchs explains that HAC renders obvious claim 13
`
`HAC teaches “switching”
`
`43
`
`

`

`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Schaefer Does Not Qualify
`
`as a POSITA
`
`Issue 5
`
`44
`
`

`

`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[31]; Pet., 10.
`868 IPR: APPLE1003, ¶[31]; Pet., 9.
`
`PO’s expert does not satisfy the experience required for a
`
`POSITA.
`
`Definition of a POSITA
`
`45
`
`

`

`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPLE1031 (Schaefer Deposition Transcript), 17:22-18:8.
`
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep., 7; 654 IPR: Pet. Rep., 7.
`
`PO’s expert does not satisfy the experience required for a
`
`POSITA.
`
`Dr. Schaefer Cannot Opine as to a POSITA’s Knowledge
`
`46
`
`

`

`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO’s Secondary Considerations
`
`Evidence Lacks Nexus
`
`Issue 6
`
`47
`
`

`

`48
`
`APPLE1032 (Def. Motion to Dismiss).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: APPLE1032, 17, 10; Pet. Rep., 26-27.
`868 IPR: APPLE1032, 17, 10; Pet. Rep., 28.
`
`Patent Owner Already Conceded That Its 2007 Product Did
`
`Not Practice the ’868 and ’654 Patent’s Claims
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`48
`
`

`

`49
`
`868 IPR: Pet. Rep., 28-29.
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep., 27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`654 IPR: Pet. Rep.
`
`Unexplained Licenses Alone Are Insufficient
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`49
`
`

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