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 IPR2023-00701
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 B1
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF TED SELKER, PH.D.
`
`Page 1 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2023-00701
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 B1
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF TED SELKER, PH.D.
`
`Page 1 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`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 ’407 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
`C.
`“client computing device” ..................................................................16
`VII. DISCUSSION. ...............................................................................................17
`A.
`Brown, Wecker, and Beer, either separately or combined, do not
`render any of the claims obvious.........................................................17
`1.
`Brown Overview. ......................................................................17
`a.
`Brown does not disclose a NIM template.......................25
`i.
`The alleged NIM templates do not define “control
`characteristics.” ....................................................27
`None of the alleged controls identified in the
`Petition have characteristics that are defined in the
`alleged NIM template. ..........................................34
`
`ii.
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The alleged NIM templates are not “data
`structures.” ............................................................41
`The Petition fails to identify a NIM. ..............................44
`The Petition fails to identify transmission of a content
`request to a web server and reception of content
`transmitted from the web server in response to the
`content request, where the content is time-varying. .......49
`d. Wecker Overview ...........................................................52
`Beer Overview. .........................................................................59
`There is No Motivation to Combine Brown and Wecker
`(Ground 1B). .............................................................................60
`The combination of Brown and Wecker does not render
`obvious any of the challenged claims. ......................................73
`The combination of Brown and Wecker does not render claims
`1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 obvious. ...................................................76
`The Combination of Brown and Beer, and/or Brown, Wecker,
`and Beer do not render Claims 5-6 and 17-18 of the ’407 patent
`obvious (Ground 1C). ...............................................................80
`Shimada and Buchholz (Ground 2) .....................................................82
`1.
`Shimada Overview ....................................................................82
`2.
`Buchholz Overview. .................................................................91
`3.
`There is no motivation to combine Shimada and Buchholz. ....97
`4.
`Petitioner’s assertions regarding motivation to combine are
`flawed. .....................................................................................103
`The combination of Shimada and Buchholz does not render
`obvious any of the challenged claims. ....................................106
`a.
`The Petition fails to identify a NIM template. ..............107
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`5.
`
`iii.
`
`b.
`c.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`iv.
`
`Shimada’s screen configuration data is not the
`same as the “templates” of Buchholz. ................108
`The Petition fails to identify “view”
`characteristics. ....................................................111
`The Petition fails to identify a “data structure.” .113
`The Petition fails to identify “a data structure that
`defines . . . NIM frame, view, and control
`characteristics.” ..................................................114
`The Petition fails to identify transmission of a content
`request to a web server and reception of content
`transmitted from the web server in response to the
`content request, where the content is time-varying. .....118
`The Petition fails to identify a NIM. ............................120
`c.
`VIII. DISCUSSION OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS ...............................................122
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............122
`A. A nexus exists between the claims of the ’407 patent and the DoDots
`technology. ........................................................................................123
`The DoDots technology met a long felt need to improve on the
`browser experience. ...........................................................................126
`The DoDots Technology was met with industry praise. ...................131
`C.
`The Success of the DoDots Startup ...................................................135
`D.
`X. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS ................................................................137
`
`b.
`
`B.
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 147
`
`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. 8,510,407 (“the ’407
`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 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 1-16 of the
`
`‘407 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 5 of 147
`
`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 6 of 147
`
`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 7 of 147
`
`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 8 of 147
`
`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-2010.
`
`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 9 of 147
`
`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 10 of 147
`
`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 11 of 147
`
`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 ’407 patent provides a straightforward
`
`explanation in sufficient detail to permit people with an undergraduate degree in
`
`Computer Science or Computer Engineering to implement the invention.
`
`25. A POSITA with respect to the ’407 patent would have deep
`
`understanding of the way web technology and mobile systems operate. They would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related
`
`field and have three or more years of corresponding industry work experience. This
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`is consistent with the definition of a POSITA in IPR2019-01278. SAMSUNG-
`
`1012, 8.
`
`26.
`
`In view of my qualifications, experience, and understanding of the
`
`subject matter of the ’407 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
`
`’407 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 ’407 patent.
`A.
`28. The ‘407 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 These data structures, in turn, are instantiated by the
`
`
`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, 2:59-65;
`
`6:57–7:2; Fig. 13. For the sake of consistency, I will refer to these data structures
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 13 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`client devices into user experiences (referred to as “NIMs”) for interacting with
`
`web/Internet content. SAMSUNG-1001, 2:59-65; 6:57–7:22; It especially supports
`
`the presentation of time varying data. Figs. 12-13. Authoring and distributing NIM
`
`templates, provides numerous advantages that are disclosed in the ‘407 patent. Id;
`
`2:5-9, 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 ‘407 patent has been widely adopted
`
`with regard to 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. SAMSUNG-1001, 30:40-50 (“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
`
`
`as “NIM templates” in this declaration even if the specification uses a different
`
`term.
`
`2 For the sake of consistency, I will refer to these instantiated NIM Template as
`
`NIMs.
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`computer screen.”); Id., 6:66 – 7:2 (“Each NIM template defines the characteristics
`
`of a specific NIM, including fully configurable frame characteristics, viewer and
`
`control characteristics, and NIM content references.”); Id., 21:11-14 (“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..”);
`
`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 claimed inventions from traditional web browsers applications
`
`that were severely limited by the requirements of browser compatibility.
`
`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., 33:46-50. The NIM represents a mini-application that can
`
`operate on the client device. Id., 5:9-44; 25:60-26:40; 30:40-50. It is a frame in
`
`which Internet content presented and thereby focusing user attention on this
`
`application by not including a general navigation capability. Also, the NIM is
`
`separate and distinct from a traditional web browser applications and operating
`
`systems. 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.; 11:28-32; 19:13-16.
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`31. And because, all that is required to instantiate a NIM on the client
`
`computer is its definition [NIM template], one could easily distribute NIMs across
`
`various platforms quickly and efficiently. Id., 7:5-10. Additionally, a NIM template
`
`could be coded in markup languages, including XML, which were more efficient
`
`and effective data structures. Id., 22:7-13. 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
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:21-28; 6:66 – 7:2; 30:40. 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 ‘407 patent
`
`provides a succinct summary of the NIM/NIM Template architecture as well as the
`
`distribution system as shown below in Figures 2, 11, 12 of the ‘407 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/renders 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 displayed with the NIM Id.
`
`12
`
`Page 16 of 147
`
`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 ’407 patent in response to a prevailing need created by what they believed to
`
`be 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 17 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`[Omitted].
`
`36. 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 18 of 147
`
`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 ’407 patent to the known prior art, I
`
`have considered the ’407 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 ’407 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 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, 3-4; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶28. Also, the terms
`
`“Application Media Packages,” “network information monitors” (NIMs), and
`
`“Dots” are used interchangeably in the ’407 patent.
`
`B.
`41.
`
`“Networked information monitor template”
`I have used the 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
`
`15
`
`Page 19 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01278 and the Federal Circuit affirmed this construction. SAMSUNG-
`
`1012, 13-14; SAMSUNG-1014, 9.
`
`“client computing device”
`C.
`42. One other term that would benefit from construction is “client
`
`computing device.” Independent claims 1 and 13 of the ‘407 patent (and their
`
`dependent claims) recite a “client computing device” in the preamble. The
`
`preambles do not just refer to any device that comprises the structures of claims 1-
`
`12 or performs the method of claims 13-24. A POSITA understands that the device
`
`must be a client device. Indeed, the preamble of claim 13 recites “a client
`
`computing device having electronic storage and one or more processors.” The
`
`body of claim 13 then refers to “the electronic storage,” and “display.” A POSITA
`
`understands that “the electronic storage,” and “display,” refers back to the
`
`components of “a client computing device” that are recited in the preamble.
`
`Further, claim 1 recites “display,” “processors,” and “presentation, on the display. .
`
`. .” A POSITA understands that a client device (e.g., a personal computer) would
`
`have an electronic display for displaying a graphical user interface to a user. A
`
`POSITA understands that servers interact with client devices, but servers are not
`
`themselves a client device. Thus, a POSITA understands that “a client computing
`
`device” is an “end user device.” Accordingly, for the purpose of my analysis,
`
`where applicable, I considered a “client device” to be an “end user device.”
`
`16
`
`Page 20 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. DISCUSSION.
`I have reviewed the references cited in the Petition, and based on this
`43.
`
`review, determined that none of these references alone or in the combinations cited
`
`in the Petition render the challenged claims 1-24 of the ’407 patent invalid. In this
`
`section, I discuss those references and indicate why none of these references or
`
`their combinations referenced in Grounds 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 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, Wecker, and Beer, either separately or combined, do not
`render any of the claims obvious.
`Brown Overview.
`1.
`44. U.S. Patent No. 6,278,448 (“Brown”) describes a mechanism for
`
`creating and customizing a composite desktop3 that can include web content.
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 2:54-57; 4:13-15.
`
`45.
`
`[Omitted].
`
`46. Specifically, Brown discloses a system/method for a user to modify a
`
`graphical user interface in the operating system by embedding various web content
`
`
`3 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.
`
`17
`
`Page 21 of 147
`
`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 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 ’407 patent.
`
`47. 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
`
`Web page, and the creation of the composite desktop includes building a
`
`18
`
`Page 22 of 147
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2010
`Samsung v. DoDots - IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`
`
`composite Web page…) (emphasis added); 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
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
