UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2023-00756
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,369,545
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF TED SELKER, PH.D.
`
`Page 1 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Experience and Qualifications. ........................................................................ 1
`Legal Standards. .............................................................................................. 5
`A. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 5
`Person of ordinary skill in the art. ................................................................... 8
`III.
`IV. The person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field in the relevant
`time frame. ....................................................................................................... 8
`Factual Background ......................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Summary of the ’545 patent .................................................................. 9
`B.
`The development of the DoDots technology ...................................... 13
`VI. Claim Interpretation. ...................................................................................... 14
`A.
`“Networked information monitor” ...................................................... 15
`B.
`“Networked information monitor template” ....................................... 15
`VII. Discussion ...................................................................................................... 16
`A.
`Brown and Wecker do not render any of the claims obvious ............. 16
`1.
`Brown Overview ....................................................................... 16
`2. Wecker Overview ..................................................................... 50
`3.
`Beer Overview .......................................................................... 57
`4.
`There is No Motivation to Combine Brown and Wecker ......... 58
`5.
`The combination of Brown and Wecker does not render
`obvious “transmitting a request to the server over the network,
`the request requesting networked information monitor
`template.” .................................................................................. 72
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`6.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`The Combination of Brown and Beer, and/or Brown and
`Wecker in view of Beer do not render Claims 5, 11-12, and 16-
`21 of the ’545 patent obvious .................................................... 75
`Shimada and Buchholz ........................................................................ 77
`1.
`Shimada Overview .................................................................... 77
`2.
`Buchholz Overview .................................................................. 86
`3.
`There is no motivation to combine Shimada and Buchholz ..... 92
`4.
`Petitioner’s assertions regarding motivation to combine are
`flawed. ....................................................................................... 98
`The combination of Shimada and Buchholz does not render
`obvious any of the challenged claims. ....................................101
`The combination of Darnell in combination with Shimda and
`Buchholz does not render Claims 5, 8, and 12 of the ’545 patent
`obvious. ...................................................................................117
`The Combination of Krishna in combination with Shimada and
`Buchholz does not render Claims 11 and 16-21 of the ’545
`patent obvious. ........................................................................118
`VIII. Discussion Of Dependent Claims ................................................................119
`IX. Secondary Considerations Of Non-Obviousness ........................................119
`A. A nexus exists between the claims of the ’545 patent and the DoDots
`technology. ........................................................................................120
`The DoDots technology met a long felt need to improve on the
`browser experience. ...........................................................................123
`The DoDots Technology was met with industry praise. ...................129
`C.
`The Success of the DoDots Startup ...................................................133
`D.
`X. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS ................................................................134
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Ted Selker, declare as follows:
`I have been asked to review U.S. Patent No. 9,369,545 (“the ’545
`1.
`
`Patent”) to Kembel, et al.
`
`2.
`
`I have also been asked to review the cited references in the Petition to
`
`determine if any of the references alone or in combination render any of the
`
`challenged claims invalid.
`
`3.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials cited in Exh.
`
`A attached to this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`Based on my analysis set forth below, it is my opinion that none of the
`
`references alone or in combination render any of the challenged claims 1-21 of the
`
`‘545 patent invalid.
`
`I.
`
`Experience and Qualifications.
`
`5.
`
`Over a long career, I have cultivated and gained extensive experience
`
`in creating developer interfaces to present content, including internet content, to
`
`users through various forms. I currently work on several startups, have research
`
`and teaching positions at multiple universities, and consult for multiple companies.
`
`In particular, I am the Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of the
`
`Motocarma.com company, which is creating an AI based platform to help car
`
`buyers. I also have research and teaching responsibilities at the University of
`
`Maryland-Baltimore and Rochester Institute of Technology. And I am an
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`independent consultant with my own company, Selker Design Research.
`
`Ultimately, much of my work strives to demonstrate considerate technology, in
`
`which people’s intentions are recognized and respected. Put another way, I work
`
`on researching and developing ways to create user interfaces that are intuitive and
`
`easy to use.
`
`6.
`
`Recently, I also worked as the CTO of Alphyco over 2.5 years, a
`
`company focused on implementing AI to help detect and avoid potentially harmful
`
`communications to avoid unnecessary litigation risk. For three years, I worked
`
`extensively for Magic Leap, a startup in the augmented reality space. At the same
`
`time, I also worked on several research and development projects for future
`
`products and innovations for companies, such as Amazon, Google, and IBM.
`
`Specifically, I have created research technology prototypes at Magic Leap,
`
`Amazon, Master Card, Steelcase, Xerox PARC, Atari Research Labs, Brown &
`
`Sharpe, Weyerhaeuser Research Labs, and for several startups as well. At each of
`
`these positions, I have consistently applied the concepts of considerate technology
`
`to create intuitive ways for users to view information while also giving developers
`
`the tools to create these displays.
`
`7.
`
`During the COVID-19 pandemic, I helped create and obtain funding
`
`for Oregon State University’s Fast Respiratory Response project, for which I am
`
`also the Head of Innovation. I created PEEP-Alert.Com with two other founders to
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`build and get FDA approval for a device to address respiratory distress. The device
`
`allowed for continuous monitoring of respiratory patients, while also having visual
`
`and audible alarms to alert if pressure or flow are outside the bounds set by a
`
`medical provider.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to this work, my innovation has created profitable and award-
`
`winning products, ranging from notebook computers to operating systems. For
`
`example, my design of the TrackPoint in-keyboard pointing device for IBM is used
`
`in many notebook computers to this day. My visualization and visual interface
`
`work have made impacts in the performance of the PowerPC, usability in OS/2,
`
`ThinkPad setup, Google maps, etc. My adaptive help system has been the basis of
`
`various commercial products as well.
`
`9.
`
`I was also previously Director of Considerate Systems research at
`
`Carnegie Mellon University - Silicon Valley for 5 years. While there, I worked to
`
`develop the PhD program and campus’ research mission. I taught a series of
`
`classes in research methods, HCI, Android product design, and research in voting
`
`with disabilities. I also spent ten years as an Associate Professor at the MIT Media
`
`Laboratory, where I created the Context Aware Computing group, directed the
`
`CI/DI kitchen of the future/design of the future project, and co-directed the
`
`Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. I have also held teaching positions at
`
`Aarhus university, Hampshire College, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`and Brown University. I have given hundreds of invited lectures at other
`
`universities and conferences.
`
`10. My successes at targeted product creation and enhancement in the late
`
`1980s through the 1990s led to my role as an IBM Fellow and Director of User
`
`Systems Ergonomics Research at IBM. During some of that period, I served as a
`
`Consulting Professor at Stanford University where I taught my course: Proactive
`
`and Reactive Agents in User Interfaces. I also mentored students, especially the
`
`founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin from 1996 to 1998.
`
`11. My work has also resulted in numerous awards, patents, and papers,
`
`and has often been featured in the press. For example, I was a co-recipient of the
`
`Computer Science Policy Leader Award for Scientific American 50 and of the
`
`Time magazine 2002 Best Inventions award. Outside of this, I am Chair of the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery’s BayCHI SIG. Beyond this, I regularly
`
`lecture and meet with students at various other universities including Columbia and
`
`NYU.
`
`12. Beyond my own work, I also helped supervise the development of
`
`over 100 cellphone apps with companies and including the apps my students made
`
`in my Android Product development courses at Carnegie Mellon University. These
`
`started with WAP phones in the 1990s, they include several apps I am working on
`
`right now that variously run native, in react native or in browsers such as the
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`Motocarma.com app. I was involved in designing an early proxy server, WBI,
`
`which was marketed by IBM in the mid-1990s. I worked on many wearable
`
`demonstration systems for business education and entertainment that were widely
`
`written about.
`
`13.
`
`In sum, I have decades of experience in designing and implementing
`
`more intuitive and user-friendly means of accessing technological information.
`
`14.
`
`In this case, my compensation is based solely on the amount of time
`
`that I devote to activity related to this case plus any direct expenses incurred and is
`
`in no way affected by any opinions that I render. I receive no other compensation
`
`from work on this action. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of
`
`this case.
`
`15. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which describes in further detail my
`
`qualifications, responsibilities, employment history, honors, awards, professional
`
`associations, lectures, and publications is submitted together with this declaration
`
`as DODOTS-2011.
`
`II. Legal Standards.
`A. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that an invention cannot be
`16.
`
`patented if the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the fundamental question in analyzing obviousness
`
`is whether, at the time of the invention, the subject matter of the claimed invention
`
`as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, taking
`
`into account: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness referred to as secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that objective indicia of non-obviousness
`
`(secondary considerations) include industry praise, commercial success, long-felt
`
`but unresolved need, copying, taking of a license, whether the invention was
`
`contrary to accepted wisdom, failure of others, and/or unexpected results. I also
`
`understand that there should be a nexus between the objective indicia and the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that multiple references can be combined, with one
`
`another and/or with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in
`
`rendering a claim obvious. I also understand, however, that obviousness cannot be
`
`established by simply demonstrating that each element was independently known
`
`in the prior art. Rather, it is necessary to identify a credible reason, such as a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation, that would have prompted a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that some appropriate factors to consider in regards to a
`
`reason that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention to combine the known elements in the prior art in a way the claimed
`
`invention does include (1) whether the claimed invention was merely the
`
`predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known function(s);
`
`(2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known
`
`problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the
`
`desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior
`
`art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed invention; (5) whether it
`
`would have been obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as when there
`
`is a design incentive or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions. I further understand that in order to
`
`render the claimed invention obvious, the prior art must have provided a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that obviousness cannot be established through
`
`hindsight. I understand this to mean that the claimed invention cannot be used as a
`
`roadmap to combine elements from different pieces of prior art, or different
`
`embodiments of a single prior art reference, to create the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that the claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`as a whole, and one must avoid aggregating pieces of prior art through hindsight
`
`that would not have been combined absent the inventor’s insight.
`
`III. Person of ordinary skill in the art.
`I have been informed of factors considered in determining the level of
`22.
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) may include: (1) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may
`
`not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.
`
`IV. The person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field in the
`relevant time frame.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed from
`
`the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`24. The specification of the ’545 patent provides a straightforward
`
`explanation in sufficient detail to permit people with an undergraduate degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science or Computer Engineering to implement
`
`the invention.
`
`25. A POSITA with respect to the ’545 patent would have deep
`
`understanding of the way web technology and mobile systems operate. They would
`
`most likely have a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science,
`
`or a related field and have three or more years of corresponding industry work
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`experience. This is consistent with the definition of a POSITA in IPR2019-01278.
`
`(SAMSUNG-1012, 9), and Petitioner’s definition (Pet. at 5).
`
`26.
`
`In view of my qualifications, experience, and understanding of the
`
`subject matter of the ’545 patent, I believe that I meet the above-mentioned criteria
`
`and consider myself a person with at least ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’545 patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field. I have supervised and directed many such persons over the course of
`
`my career.
`
`V.
`
`Factual Background
`Summary of the ’545 patent
`A.
`28. The ’545 patent describes a system and method that supports an
`
`ecosystem for developers to author and distribute, and for users to acquire, share,
`
`and modify data structures (referred to as “NIM Definitions” or “Network
`
`Information Monitor (‘NIM’) Templates”).1 SAMSUNG-1001, 33:39-46. These
`
`
`1 The specification uses these terms interchangeably, and there is no dispute that
`
`they all refer to the same inventive concept. See e.g., SAMSUNG-1001, 24:44-49;
`
`24:59; 33:5. For the sake of consistency, I will refer to these data structures as
`
`“NIM templates” in this declaration even if the specification uses a different term.
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`data structures, in turn, are instantiated by the client devices into non-browser-
`
`based user experiences (referred to as “NIMs”) for interacting with web/Internet
`
`content. Id. Authoring and distributing NIM templates, rather than custom
`
`applications, provides numerous advantages that are disclosed in the ‘545 patent.
`
`Id., 34:42-54. In fact, history has shown that this NIM/NIM template architecture
`
`creates advantages because it allows for cross platform NIMs, improved ease of
`
`installation, better performance, and more simplistic updating NIMs. And because
`
`of these advantages, the technology of the ‘545 patent has been widely adopted and
`
`is used as the primary means for distribution for mobile apps.
`
`29. More specifically, the specification explains that NIM templates
`
`contain data that defines a fully configurable frame, its elements and controls, and
`
`specifies the web location of content. Id., 30:34-44 (“The NIM definition module
`
`418 contains details defining the NIM, such as the look-and-feel 419, of the Raw
`
`NIM, initialization URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) 420, and a location 421 of
`
`where the developer would like the NIM to open on a user's computer screen.”);
`
`Id., 6:34-45 (“Each NIM template defines the characteristics of a specific NIM,
`
`including fully configurable frame characteristics, viewer and control
`
`characteristics, and NIM content references.”); Id., 21:15-27 (“The NIM
`
`definitions, as discussed above, includes the NIM frame definition and the
`
`definition of the controls for filling the viewer within the frame with content..”);
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`Id., Figs. 3-7. These fully configurable frames allowed developers to create unique
`
`and tailored frames that could present information to a user. This was a critical
`
`feature that distinguished the inventions from traditional web browsers that were
`
`severely limited by the requirements of browser compatibility. Id., 4:59-61 (“The
`
`fully configurable frame utilized in accordance with the invention stands in
`
`contrast to present web browsers, which are branded by the browser vendor and
`
`which have limited means by which to alter the controls associated with the
`
`browser.”)
`
`30. Moreover, much of the invention’s benefit emerged from the fact that
`
`a client device instantiates a NIM Template into a NIM, which is displayed on a
`
`client device. Id., 2:28-49; 6:31-37. The NIM represents a mini-application that can
`
`operate on the client device. Id., , 5:13-47. It is “a frame in which Internet content
`
`presented (focusing user attention on this application by not including a general
`
`navigation capability).” Id., 8:32-35. Also, the NIM is separate and distinct from a
`
`traditional web browser and the operating system. And unlike emerging
`
`technologies at the time, including Microsoft’s ActiveX and other traditional
`
`applications, multiple NIMs could be constructed on a client device using multiple
`
`NIM Templates that were downloaded from a server. Id., 11:61-65, 13:24-30;
`
`31. And because, all that is required to instantiate a NIM (on the client
`
`computer) is its definition one could easily distribute NIMs across various
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`platforms quickly and efficiently. Id., 33:63-34:7. Additionally, a NIM template
`
`could be coded in markup languages, including XML, which were more efficient
`
`and effective data structures. Id., 21:55-60. This made NIMs more versatile and
`
`broke it free from the structural limitations of HTML, which was a language for
`
`creating web pages not applications.
`
`32. Further, as the Federal Circuit has already recognized, the code of a
`
`NIM template is not an executable computer program; and NIMs were content that
`
`are instantiated to create a fully configurable frame with content and controls. See
`
`DODOTS-2002. Thus, it is apparent to a POSITA that a NIM is not a conventional
`
`application or an applet, which are executable, compiled and interpreted like
`
`traditional computer program code. Finally, the ’545 patent provides a succinct
`
`summary of the NIM/NIM Template architecture as well as the distribution system
`
`as shown below in Figure 11 of the ’545 patent. In summary, the NIM template is
`
`requested by the client device, after which it is transmitted to the client device from
`
`a server. Id., cols. 20-22. The client device instantiates the NIM from this NIM
`
`template. Id. Finally, the desired content is retrieved by the client device using
`
`information from the NIM template, which is produced to be displayed and
`
`interacted with in the NIM. Id.
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, Fig. 11
`The development of the DoDots technology
`B.
`33.
`I also understand that the Kembel brothers developed the technology
`
`
`
`of the ’545 patent in response to a prevailing need created by the counter-intuitive
`
`and unwieldly web browser, which was the primary form of accessing the internet
`
`at the time of the invention. Notably, based on my experience at the time, it was
`
`well known that web browsers were difficult to use because the presented
`
`information in a stepwise manner like pages in a book.
`
`34.
`
`[Omitted]
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`35.
`
`[Omitted]
`
`36. On the other hand, DoDots created the NIM/NIM template
`
`architecture, which allowed for the distribution of applications they termed “Dots”.
`
`These were fully configurable frames that allowed developers to create unique
`
`applications. This invention took internet content outside of a web browser and
`
`made it easier for people to access, share, and use internet-based information. It
`
`was a novel solution that was ultimately usurped by various companies to provide
`
`mobile applications to users as mobile devices became ubiquitous in our modern
`
`world.
`
`VI. Claim Interpretation.
`I understand that claim construction is the process of determining the
`37.
`
`meaning of words used in a patent claim in order to understand the meaning of the
`
`claim. I understand that the proper construction of a term is how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), at the time of the invention, would have
`
`understood the term based on its use in the claims, specification, and prosecution
`
`history (the intrinsic record) of the patent. I understand that in some cases it may
`
`be appropriate to consider information outside of the intrinsic record. Nevertheless,
`
`I understand that the intrinsic record controls.
`
`38.
`
`In proceedings before the USPTO, I understand that claims are
`
`construed using the same standard used by district courts, meaning that claims are
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA.
`
`39.
`
` In comparing the claims of the ’545 patent to the known prior art, I
`
`have considered the ’545 patent based upon my experience and knowledge in
`
`relevant fields. In my opinion, with the exception of “networked information
`
`monitor,” “networked information monitor template,” and “execute,” the claim
`
`terms of the ’545 patent are generally used in their ordinary and customary sense
`
`as a POSITA would understand them.
`
`A.
`40.
`
`“Networked information monitor”
`I have used the undisputed definition for “network information
`
`monitor” (NIM), which is “a fully configurable frame, with one or more controls,
`
`through which content is presented to the user.” The PTAB and the Petition used
`
`this construction. SAMSUNG-1012; Petition, 3; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶28.
`
`B.
`41.
`
`“Networked information monitor template”
`I have used the undisputed definition for “network information
`
`monitor template,” which is “a data structure that defines the characteristics of a
`
`NIM, including the NIM frame, view, and control characteristics, and that excludes
`
`executable applications/compiled code.” The PTAB used this construction in
`
`IPR2019-00988 and the Federal Circuit affirmed. SAMSUNG-1012, 10;
`
`SAMSUNG-1014, 9.
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. Discussion
`I have reviewed the references cited in the Petition, and based on this
`42.
`
`review, determined that none of these references alone or in the combinations cited
`
`in the Petition render the challenged claims 1-21 of the ’545 patent invalid. In this
`
`section, I discuss those references and indicate why none of these references or
`
`their combinations referenced in Grounds 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C in the Petition
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the challenged claims. I explain further why
`
`a POSITA would not be motivated to combine the references cited in the Petition.
`
`A. Brown and Wecker do not render any of the claims obvious
`Brown Overview
`1.
`43. U.S. Patent No. 6,278,448 (“Brown”) describes a mechanism for
`
`creating and customizing a composite desktop2 that can include web content.
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 2:54-57; 4:13-15.
`
`44.
`
`[Omitted]
`
`45. Specifically, Brown discloses a system/method for a user to modify a
`
`graphical user interface in the operating system by embedding various web content
`
`
`2 For windows-based operating systems such as Microsoft Windows or MacOS,
`
`this interface is referred to as a “desktop”, because it is the area on a screen in
`
`which a user works.
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`into a computer’s desktop. Brown is tied directly to the desktop of Microsoft’s
`
`Windows operating system. SAMSUNG-1005, 4:32-33, 10:29-39. In particular,
`
`Brown notes that, “[t]he composite desktop is implemented as a Web page, and the
`
`creation of the composite desktop includes building a composite Web page made
`
`up of one or more components selected and retrieved from one or more locations”
`
`using html. Id., 4:15-19. Components of a web page(s) can be selected for and
`
`positioned on the composite desktop. Id., 2:57-59. The components can be a static
`
`image, an active desktop component, an entire Web page, or an object that
`
`references an ActiveX control. Id., 2:59-60, 4:21-24. Additionally, components
`
`could also be “retrieved from one or more locations” which include local storage,
`
`or remote computers comprised of Web pages and Active X controls and
`
`application programing interface (API).” Id., 4:18-25. In sum, Brown describes a
`
`modified and enhanced Microsoft desktop that includes a web page with web
`
`content, and not a unique ecosystem of applications that could be created,
`
`distributed, and used through the usage of the NIM/NIM template architecture of
`
`the ’545 patent.
`
`46. Brown further explains that the composite desktop information is
`
`stored in a system registry local to and part of the operating system, and that local
`
`content is used to generate “HTML instructions,” which could also be used to
`
`describe a web page. Id., 4:14-23 (The composite desktop is implemented as a
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`Web page, and the creation of the composite desktop includes building a
`
`composite Web page ….); see also id., 6:33-41. As a result, the composite
`
`desktop has elements that look and act like Windows operating system icons to
`
`control and retrieve material from the local operating system, its installed
`
`applications, and its users local stored environment. Additionally, the “HTML
`
`instructions” for multiple desktop components are located within in a single HTML
`
`file/document (for a single web page) on the client device named “desktop.htt.” Id.
`
`An exemplary listing of a “desktop.htt” file is shown in Brown at columns 11 and
`
`12. Id., 11:43-12:43.
`
`47. Brown also notes that “a registry is a mechanism for storing program
`
`data and preferably includes one or more files on persistent storage and associated
`
`code for accessing the data.” Id. at 6:20-24. By disclosing these facts, Brown
`
`teaches away from the NIM/NIM template architecture of the ’545 patent.
`
`Specifically, Brown emphasizes the special html viewer contemplated by Brown
`
`runs programs, interprets ActiveX, takes files from the client and integrates those
`
`programs into the Windows operating system on a computer. This is different from
`
`the invention of the ’545 patent, where the NIM/NIM template architecture is
`
`designed to work across various platforms.
`
`48.
`
`In fact, as shown below, Brown’s composite desktop 302 operates
`
`with traditional Microsoft Windows icons 304 as well as desktop components that
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`display web-based content in the form of a web page in the form of a web page.
`
`Specifically, the desktop components include (1) a static desktop component 306
`
`(green box), (2) an active desktop component 308 (red box), and (3) a web page
`
`desktop component 310 (blue box).
`
`
`
`(SAMSUNG-1005, Fig. 3A, annotated)
`It is also important to note that “[e]ach [desktop] component has an
`49.
`
`associated section of [in the single] hypertext markup language [HTML]
`
`instructions [that is used by the composite desktop] and is displayed on the
`
`composite desktop in the same manner as it is displayed on a Web page.” Id., 2:62-
`
`65. These instructions are contained in a single file – the desktop.htt file shown in
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`columns 11-12 of the patent. In fact, portions of the HTML document in Brown’s
`
`HTML instructions corresponding to each desktop component 306, 308, 310 are
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50. When the HTML document is rendered, each fragment shown above
`
`controls the visual appearance and location of a particular desktop component
`
`within the composite desktop 302. There are not separate HTML files/documents
`
`for each component.
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 145
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`

`

`
`
`51. Additionally, an HTML viewer 212 is used to read the HTML
`
`desktop.htt file 210 created from the registry and generate the HTML layer of the
`
`comp