`
`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
`Patent 8,510,407 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A POSITA WOULD HAVE COMBINED BROWN AND WECKER ......... 1
` BROWN AND BROWN-WECKER RENDER THE CLAIMS OBVIOUS . 5
`A. Brown and Brown-Wecker render obvious a NIM template .................... 5
`1.
`Brown’s HTML instructions include control characteristics .......... 5
`2.
`Brown’s HTML instructions are data structures ............................. 9
`B. Brown’s desktop components render obvious a NIM, and have fully
`configurable frames ................................................................................ 11
`C. Brown’s URLs are instructions for the transmission and reception of
`content over a network from a web server .............................................. 14
`1. DoDots admits that XML is internet content, and CDF files are
`coded in XML ............................................................................... 14
`Patent Owner ignores other examples of content references in
`Brown ............................................................................................ 16
`D. Brown and Wecker render claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 obvious ........... 18
`E. The combination of Brown and Beer, and Brown, Wecker, and Beer
`renders Claims 5-6 and 17-18 obvious ................................................... 21
` A POSITA WOULD HAVE COMBINED SHIMADA AND BUCHHOLZ
` ....................................................................................................................... 23
`A. The combination of Shimada-Buchholz does not rely on the “expanding
`device” .................................................................................................... 24
`B. DoDots’ alleged disparity between “HTML” templates and templates
`“similar” to HTML is unsupported on the record ................................... 24
`SHIMADA-BUCHHOLZ RENDERS THE CLAIMS OBVIOUS .............. 25
`A. Shimada-Buchholz renders obvious a NIM template ............................. 25
`1.
`Shimada’s screen configuration data includes view characteristics
` ....................................................................................................... 25
`Shimada’s screen configuration data includes control
`characteristics ................................................................................ 26
`Shimada’s HTML is a “data structure,” for the same reasons
`described above for Brown ........................................................... 28
`Shimada’s URLs are instructions for the transmission and
`reception of content over a network from a web server ................ 29
`B. Shimada-Buchholz renders obvious a NIM ............................................ 29
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`C. Shimada-Buchholz renders obvious the dependent claims of the ’407
`Patent ....................................................................................................... 30
` THERE ARE NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS THAT SUPPORT
`PATENTABILITY ........................................................................................ 30
`A. DoDots Fails to Establish Nexus ............................................................ 31
`B. DoDots’ Alleged Secondary Considerations Fail to Outweigh the Strong
`Evidence of Obviousness ........................................................................ 32
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 to Kembel, et al. (“the ’407 Patent”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’407 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 Declaration of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
`
`SAMSUNG-1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
`
`SAMSUNG-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,278,448 B1 (“Brown”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,449,638 B1 (“Wecker”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,368 (“Beer”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,789,263 B1 (“Shimada”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,088,340 (“Buchholz”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,819,345 B1 (“Jones”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1011 HTML 4 Unleashed (“Darnell”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1012 IPR2019-01279 Final Written Decision
`
`SAMSUNG-1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,342,907 B1 (“Petty”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1014 Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Solutions
`LLC, No. 2021-1247, 2021 WL 5822248 (Dec. 8, 2021).
`
`SAMSUNG-1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,311,058 B1 (“Wecker 2”)
`
`SAMSUNG-1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,737,560 (“Yohanan”)
`SAMSUNG-1017 CNET News, “PointCast unveils free news service,”
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110616130215/http://news.cnet.
`com/PointCast-unveils-free-news-service/2100-1023_3-
`204658.html, last accessed Feb. 16, 2023
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`SAMSUNG-1018 Declaration of June Ann Munford
`
`SAMSUNG-1019 DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. et al., 6:22-cv-00535, W.D. Tex., filed May 24, 2022
`
`SAMSUNG-1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,094,681 (“Shaffer”)
`SAMSUNG-1021 RESERVED
`SAMSUNG-1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,185,614 B1 (“Cuomo”)
`SAMSUNG-1023 RESERVED
`SAMSUNG-1024 Joint Claim Construction Statement, 6:22-cv-00535, W.D. Tex.,
`filed May 15, 2023
`SAMSUNG-1025 IPR2019-01279, Paper 40 (CAFC Decision)
`SAMSUNG-1026 Email from Board dated November 15, 2023 authorizing
`Petitioner to file a Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`SAMSUNG-1027 Declaration of Michael Ballanco in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`SAMSUNG-1028 U.S. Patent No. 6,216,141 (“Straub”)
`SAMSUNG-1029 Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Philip Greenspun
`
`SAMSUNG-1030 Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Ted Selker
`SAMSUNG-1031 Transcript of the deposition of John Kembel
`SAMSUNG-1032 Transcript of the deposition of George Kembel
`SAMSUNG-1033 Official Version PDF, “The Honorable Dr. Douglas C.
`Schmidt Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office of
`the Secretary of Defense,”
`https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/docs/bios/Schmidt_DOTE
`_BIO20240416.pdf?ver=gulFoMGyakgLeDTya8Wklw%3d%
`3d, last accessed May 25, 2024
`SAMSUNG-1034 Microsoft’s Computer Dictionary, 4th Edition
`SAMSUNG-1035 Inside Dynamic HTML
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`SAMSUNG-1036 U.S. Patent No. 6,539,387 (“Oren”)
`SAMSUNG-1037 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,700 (“Zellweger”)
`SAMSUNG-1038 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,962 (“Weinberg”)
`SAMSUNG-1039 XHTML™ 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language,
`https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-xhtml1-19991210/
`SAMSUNG-1040 U.S. Patent No. 9,438,467 (“The ’467 Patent”)
`SAMSUNG-1041 U.S. Patent No. 8,510,406 (“The ’406 Patent”)
`SAMSUNG-1042 U.S. Patent No. 8,020,083 to Kembel, et al. (“the ’083 Patent”)
`SAMSUNG-1043 Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0,
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1866
`SAMSUNG-1044 Declaration of Rakesh Ramde (in-house counsel of DoDots)
`submitted in IPR2019-01278
`SAMSUNG-1045 Transcript of Deposition of Rakesh Ramde (in-house counsel
`of DoDots) conducted in IPR2019-01278
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Arguments advanced by Patent Owner (“DoDots”) lack merit.
`
` A POSITA WOULD HAVE COMBINED BROWN AND WECKER
`Brown-Wecker is a straightforward combination of two Microsoft patents
`
`that are both directed to improving delivery of Internet content to user devices. As
`
`Drs. Schmidt and Greenspun explain, a POSITA would have considered their
`
`disclosures together and turn to Wecker for implementation techniques that would
`
`have been beneficial to Brown. 1 SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42; SAMSUNG-1029,
`
`¶46.
`
`In fact, because Brown’s disclosure is so similar to the ’407 patent, the
`
`combination relies on just two basic techniques that were well-known and part of a
`
`POSITA’s general knowledge: (1) storing a template in memory and (2) requesting
`
`a template from a remote computer. Wecker clearly discloses these concepts and,
`
`when Brown’s disclosure is viewed in the context of Wecker, it would have been
`
`
`1 After the POR, for which DoDots chose not to depose Dr. Schmidt, he was sworn
`
`in as Director, Operational Test and Evaluation—an advisor to the Secretary of
`
`Defense. SAMSUNG-1030. As such, Samsung has retained a new expert, Dr.
`
`Philip Greenspun, to provide additional testimony in support of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`obvious to implement Brown’s templates using these two basic techniques.
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶46.
`
`Brown uses templates to build “a composite desktop…from Web content
`
`retrieved from one or more Web sites,” and Wecker uses templates to produce “a
`
`mobile channel” that is “a self describing web site that contains all the information
`
`necessary for efficient download of web content.” Petition, 9-13. Brown’s
`
`templates are similar to Wecker’s because they each define the visual appearance
`
`of data on a screen. Petition, 10-12; SAMSUNG-1006, 2:8-36, 3:17-20.
`
`Understanding these similarities, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply
`
`Wecker’s techniques of downloading template files stored on remote devices (e.g.,
`
`as part of a channel) to Brown’s templates and would have used the downloaded
`
`templates as part of Brown’s composite desktop. Petition, 13-16. In this way, a
`
`user of Brown’s composite desktop would achieve the benefits of using remotely
`
`stored HTML templates via a model similar to Wecker’s mobile channel
`
`subscription model. Petition, 13-16; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42; SAMSUNG-
`
`1029, ¶46. Benefits of remotely managing templates and making them available
`
`for download were well-known and would have led a POSITA to implement these
`
`techniques in Brown, particularly because Brown already suggests local storage
`
`and remote download of its templates. Petition, 14; SAMSUNG-1005, 4:16-21,
`
`4:49-52, 5:45-47. Indeed, the benefits described by Wecker for managing its
`
`2
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`templates remotely and separately from Internet content would have motivated a
`
`POSITA to apply these techniques to Brown’s templates. Petition, 16;
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 4:53-62, 10:41-56. And a POSITA would have understood and
`
`found it obvious that these techniques could be applied to various types of
`
`templates, including Brown’s, and would not have needed to change Brown’s
`
`templates simply to have them available for download. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶¶46-
`
`47.
`
`DoDots attacks a strawman, wrongly describing the complexity of the
`
`combination and assuming bodily incorporation of Wecker’s specific templates
`
`and content delivery process. But that is not the law, and a POSITA would have
`
`been able to readily apply the well-known techniques of template storage and
`
`remote template management to Brown’s templates and desktop components.
`
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re
`
`Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). As detailed in the Petition and
`
`further explained below, a POSITA would have been motivated to make the
`
`Brown-Wecker combination. Id.; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42.
`
`Specifically, DoDots exaggerates the complexity of the combination of
`
`Brown and Wecker by erroneously alleging that the combination recites additional
`
`modifications, namely “us[ing] Wecker’s more complex method [of script
`
`3
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`templates] with Brown’s personal computers.” POR, 18. But the Petition never
`
`alleged that Brown’s HTML desktop components must be transformed into script
`
`templates. Petition, 13-19. Rather, the required modification to Brown’s HTML
`
`desktop components is that these components would have been downloaded and
`
`stored—something that DoDots’ expert Selker admits is “absolutely” possible.
`
`Petition, 13-19; SAMSUNG-1030,2 91:4-6; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42;
`
`SAMSUNG-1029, ¶48.
`
`Additionally, DoDots alleges that “style templates” are exclusive to HTML.
`
`POR, 19. That is, DoDots argues “style templates” (or “style sheets”) were not
`
`terms of art commonly used to describe HTML/XML templates. Id. This is
`
`simply not true, as evidenced by (1) multiple corroborating references in the
`
`Petition and (2) Selker, when asked about a “style template,” readily confirming its
`
`relationship to HTML. Petition, 20, 35, 53, 58-60; SAMSUNG-1011, 202-220,
`
`412; SAMSUNG-1030, 57:22-58:35; SAMSUNG-1035, 16-20; SAMSUNG-1039;
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶48; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶49.
`
`
`2 Deposition testimony of Selker is equally applicable to the ’083/’407/’545
`
`Patents unless otherwise noted. SAMSUNG-1030, 66:18-22, 68:24-69:15, 133:10-
`
`21.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`Finally, DoDots alleges that the differing operating systems (OS) disclosed
`
`by Brown/Wecker mean that they are “incompatible.” POR, 19. First, a POSITA
`
`would naturally implement the combination in the most capable OS available (e.g.,
`
`Windows 98), making DoDots’ arguments against a particular OS moot.
`
`SAMSUNG-1029, ¶50. Indeed, Petitioner has never alleged that a particular OS is
`
`required. Petition, 13. Second, “both Brown and Wecker describe the Windows
`
`95 OS as a suitable OS that can implement their techniques.” Petition, 15;
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 6:26-32; SAMSUNG-1006, 1:39-44, 8:15-21. Because Wecker
`
`uses its techniques for a desktop computer, DoDots arguments that a POSITA
`
`would not have considered Wecker for non-mobile implementations falls flat.
`
`Petition, 13-14; SAMSUNG-1006, 3:58-4:13, 6:45-7:26. Finally, Microsoft had
`
`already implemented “channels,” as described by Wecker, on a Windows 95 OS.
`
`SAMSUNG-1028, 11:60-12:6, FIG. 9; SAMSUNG-1006, 9:38-48; SAMSUNG-
`
`1029, ¶¶50-52.
`
` BROWN AND BROWN-WECKER RENDER THE CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS
`A. Brown and Brown-Wecker render obvious a NIM template
`1.
`Brown’s HTML instructions include control characteristics
`DoDots alleges that “a control characteristic is a characteristic of a control
`
`itself,” “located ‘in a [] control space’ within a frame,” and that these
`
`characteristics must be completely defined within the NIM template. POR, 26-34.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`However, there is no disavowal or redefinition of the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the term “characteristic” in the ’407 patent that would support such a narrow
`
`interpretation. POR, 26-34. Rather, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`“control characteristics” would include any data in the NIM template that dictate
`
`the existence/nature/functionality/appearance of a control. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶53.
`
`The construction of “NIM template” does not limit the feature of a “control”
`
`with its use of the word “characteristic”—it broadens it by simply requiring
`
`definition of “control characteristics” of the NIM. Petition, 4-5. Additionally, the
`
`’407 patent makes clear that NIM templates can include “control calls” (the
`
`invoking of control functionality defined outside of the template). SAMSUNG-
`
`1001, 29:33-36. From this disclosure, a POSITA would understand that a control
`
`need not be fully defined within the NIM template. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶28-29;
`
`SAMSUNG-1029, ¶54.
`
`Under its narrow interpretation, DoDots alleges that Brown’s “resizable”
`
`characteristic is a “frame characteristic,” not a “control characteristic.” POR, 26-
`
`30. DoDots attempts to support its flawed argument by referring to a different
`
`DoDots patent (DODOTS-2015, 36:12-15, FIG. 28B)3 while ignoring conflicting
`
`
`3 Although this patent supports the idea that “resizable” is an example “frame
`
`characteristic,” it does not state that “resizable” cannot also be a “control
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`disclosure within the ’407 patent, which clearly describes “resize” as a control.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 17:37-39 (“a control button…to resize”). Because Brown’s
`
`“resizable” characteristic defines a resize control, it aligns precisely with the ’407
`
`patent’s description of control characteristics. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶55. In contrast,
`
`the ’407 patent does not describe “resizable” as being “a frame characteristic.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 7:11-13, 17:37-39; FIG. 28B. Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood Brown’s “resizable” characteristic to be a “control characteristic” of its
`
`desktop components. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶55.
`
`Other controls defined within Brown’s HTML instructions are also control
`
`characteristics. Petition, 23-26; SAMSUNG-1005, 2:41-43, 4:20-24, 10:34-39,
`
`13:22-29, 13:33-34, FIG. 3A. For example, the ’407 patent describes “imbedded
`
`ActiveX…applications.” SAMSUNG-1001, 4:63-66, 17:2-5, 23:58-62. Brown
`
`describes the use of Active-X controls in the same manner as the ’407 Patent,
`
`which describes a nearly identical example to what is depicted in Brown.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 23:65-2, 26:55-59; SAMSUNG-1005, 2:41-43, 4:20-24, 10:34-
`
`39, 13:22-29, 13:33-34, FIG. 3A; Petition, 23-26, 42-43. Indeed, the ’407 patent
`
`describes a “Web Conduit” control which is the rendering portion of the frame.
`
`
`characteristic” of a NIM, for example, changing the size of the control area by
`
`resizing the NIM. DODOTS-2015, 36:12-15, FIG. 28B.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`SAMSUNG-1001, 35:38-43, 36:35. Brown’s HTML instructions clearly define
`
`the rendering portion of the frame and Brown’s Active-X controls aligns directly
`
`with the ’407 patent’s Web Conduit. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶56.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 3A (color added).
`
`Finally, characteristics of the scroll bar controls in Brown’s desktop
`
`components are defined by Brown’s HTML instructions. Petition, 42-43;
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 7:49-65, 9:13-27, 11:43-12:43, 13:22-44. As Dr. Greenspun
`
`explains, whether these controls are present and the size of the scroll element are
`
`defined by the frame size specified in Brown’s HTML instructions. SAMSUNG-
`
`1029, ¶57. Although the characteristics of these controls are indirectly defined by
`
`frame size, the ’407 patent does not exclude that type of indirect definition.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 22:35-40 (describing “a fixed height and width that is a
`
`8
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`function of the NIM’s width”). Because characteristics of Brown’s scroll bars are
`
`functions of a frame’s width and height, Brown’s definition of the frame size in its
`
`HTML instructions defines control characteristics in a manner similar to the ’407
`
`patent. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶57.
`
`2.
`Brown’s HTML instructions are data structures
`DoDots alleges that HTML is not a data structure. POR, 34-37. This
`
`position cannot be reconciled with the ’407 patent, which (1) depicts HTML as an
`
`example NIM format, and (2) offers no disavowal or redefinition of “data
`
`structure.” SAMSUNG-1001, 6:25-27, 21:32-35, FIG. 29A; SAMSUNG-1029,
`
`¶58.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 29A (annotated).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`Additionally, DoDots’ own exhibits corroborate that HTML is a data
`
`structure. DODOTS-2017, 5, 11, 13, 17; DODOTS-2025, 2; DODOTS-2033, 42.
`
`Finally, a POSITA would have understood that HTML is an example of a data
`
`structure as HTML documents are structured and include data.4 SAMSUNG-1029,
`
`¶59.
`
`
`
`DODOTS-2025, 2 (annotated).
`Brown’s HTML instructions are “data structures,” at least because (1)
`
`DoDots has availed themselves of HTML as a suitable NIM template format, and
`
`(2) a POSITA would understand that “data structure” is a genus term that
`
`encompasses many different types of data formats, to include the HTML
`
`
`4 DoDots’ own exhibit frequently mentions “HTML data,” and repeatedly uses the
`
`word “structure” in relation to this HTML data. DODOTS-2017, 5, 11, 13, 17.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`Document Object Model—a hierarchical structure. Petition, 24; SAMSUNG-
`
`1001, FIG. 29A; SAMSUNG-1030, 83:19-84:18; DODOTS-2025, 2; DODOTS-
`
`2033, 42; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶55, 110; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶¶60-61; SAMSUNG-
`
`1034; SAMSUNG-1035, 3, 82-92; SAMSUNG-1036, Cover, 1:15-40, 3:54-4:6;
`
`SAMSUNG-1037, Cover, 2:47-56, 3:14-28, 4:32-41; SAMSUNG-1038, Cover,
`
`2:27-48, 6:52-65, 12:17-39; SAMSUNG-1043, 20.
`
`B.
`
`Brown’s desktop components render obvious a NIM, and have
`fully configurable frames
`DoDots alleges that none of the desktop components of Brown include “a
`
`fully configurable frame” because the “frame shape and content [cannot] be wholly
`
`defined by the Dot developer.” POR, 37-41; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶62.
`
` In support of this argument, DoDots cites to several areas of the ’407 patent,
`
`none of which specify that a NIM frame must include a configurable control
`
`defined by a “developer.” SAMSUNG-1001, 5:21-28; 17:15-26; 17:32-43; 17:62-
`
`65. At best, these passages suggest that NIMs “may” include controls that are
`
`specifically designed by a developer, but that such a feature is not a requirement.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, 5:21-28, 17:15-26, 17:62-65. Additionally, none of these
`
`passages are directly tied to what it means to be a “fully configurable frame,” much
`
`less offer a definition of “fully configurable frame” or disavow coverage of NIMs
`
`where the frame shape and content is not wholly defined by the Dot developer. Id.
`
`In fact, DoDots’ exhibits provide examples of NIMs that do not include a
`
`11
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`configurable control added by a developer. SAMSUNG-1001, Appendix A, 3
`
`(depicting “zero or more <CONTROL> tags”); DODOTS-2021, 15, citing
`
`DODOTS-2028, Technical Overview at 1. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶63.
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, Appendix A, 3.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`
`
`
`DODOTS-2021, 15, citing DODOTS-2028, Technical Overview at 1.
`
`DoDots construction of NIM merely requires “a fully configurable frame,
`
`with one or more controls.” Petition, 3-4. As explained in the Petition, Brown
`
`places no restriction on the frames of its desktop components and, thus, Brown
`
`discloses fully configurable frames. Petition, 21-23. Moreover, Brown does not
`
`place any restrictions on the HTML included in its desktop components and,
`
`without restrictions, a POSITA would have understood that standard controls
`
`defined by HTML are available for addition in Brown’s desktop components.
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 7:9-47; 8:10-16; 10:9-15; 12:44-13:21; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶64.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`C. Brown’s URLs are instructions for the transmission and reception
`of content over a network from a web server
`DoDots alleges that Brown’s “CDF subscription” is not “internet content,”
`
`and therefore, not “a network location of content,” and that the URL of the CDF
`
`subscription is not a “transmission, over a network to a web server at a network
`
`location, of a content request for content to be displayed within the frame of the
`
`viewer graphical user interface defined by the networked information monitor
`
`template” and “reception, over the network from the web server at the network
`
`location, of content transmitted from the web server in response to the content
`
`request, the content being time-varying.” POR, 41-43; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶65.
`
`1.
`
`DoDots admits that XML is internet content, and CDF files are
`coded in XML
`Selker’s testimony confirms that XML is “internet content.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1030, 107:19-25. Moreover, DoDots’ own exhibits corroborate that XML was
`
`understood to be internet “content” around the time of the critical date. DODOTS-
`
`2033, 12; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶66.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`
`DODOTS-2033, 12.
`
`
`
`CDF is based on XML, as corroborated by Wecker. SAMSUNG-1006,
`
`10:57-60. DoDots does not explain why an XML file, in the context of CDF, is
`
`not internet content. POR, 41-43. The claim simply requires “a content request
`
`for content to be displayed within the frame of the viewer graphical user interface”
`
`and “reception…of content transmitted from the web server in response to the
`
`content request.” Id. Brown’s CDF file is certainly for Brown’s desktop
`
`component GUI and, as discussed above, is content. DoDots’ assertation that CDF
`
`15
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`files themselves cannot be internet content is at odds with their own evidence.
`
`POR, 41-42; SAMSUNG-1030, 107:19-25, 110:21-111:23 (Selker admitting that
`
`he was not aware CDF files were written in XML); SAMSUNG-1006, 10:57-60;
`
`Petition, 38. DoDots’ argument about Brown’s content being “time-varying” are
`
`entirely based upon the faulty assumption that XML CDF files are not “content.”
`
`POR, 43; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶¶67-68.
`
`Petition, 38 (annotated).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner ignores other examples of content references in
`Brown
`Although Brown’s CDF subscription was relied upon in the Petition as an
`
`illustrative example, the Petition clearly articulates that: (1) according to Dr.
`
`Schmidt, “a POSITA would have understood that a Uniform Resource Locator
`
`(‘URL’) [is a] ‘network location,’” and that content is available at these network
`
`locations, and (2) Brown depicts multiple desktop components, each with its own
`
`content reference. Petition, 42-43; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶23, 52-53, 64-67. DoDots
`
`offers no explanation of why the other desktop components of Brown, as presented
`
`16
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`in the Petition, do not also include content references (e.g., http://www.uspto.gov/).
`
`POR, 41-43. Indeed, even Selker recognizes that Brown’s FIG. 3A displays “three
`
`kinds of active desktop items” where “content is retrieved from a URL.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1030, 126:5-127:19, 130:17-21; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶69.
`
`Petition, 23.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`
`Petition, 26.
`
`
`
`D. Brown and Wecker render claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 obvious
`For claim 1, DoDots argues that Wecker does not teach “electronic storage
`
`having stored thereon a plurality of networked information monitor templates,” and
`
`that “Petitioner appears to imply that Wecker’s script/default templates are NIM
`
`templates” and “the Petition fails to discuss Wecker’s templates having all of the
`
`claimed features of a NIM template.” POR, 43-45; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶70.
`
`The Petition never alleges that Wecker’s “scripts” are NIM templates and
`
`makes clear that HTML instructions for Brown’s desktop components are the
`
`claimed NIM template, and that “a user could download desktop components, and
`
`18
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`their associated HTML instructions, to their composite desktop,” similar to
`
`Wecker’s teachings of its script templates. POR, 43-45; Petition, 12-16, 31.
`
`Accordingly, DoDots arguments are moot as they are premised on the above faulty
`
`assumption. POR, 43-45; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶71.
`
`DoDots then argues that “Wecker storing script templates in ‘cache
`
`memory’ does not teach a POSITA anything about where or how to store Brown’s
`
`alleged NIM templates.” POR, 44-45. DoDots provides no evidence why storing
`
`HTML templates in a cache is beyond the general knowledge and skill of a
`
`POSITA, and Selker provides no supporting testimony (but acknowledged that
`
`storing HTML is “absolutely” possible). POR, 44-45; DODOTS-2010, ¶170;
`
`SAMSUNG-1030, 91:4-6; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶72.
`
`For claims 12 and 24, DoDots argues that “[n]othing in Dr. Schmidt’s
`
`opinion or the Petition describes a server that receives a request for a NIM
`
`template and transmits a NIM template in response to this request” because “an
`
`HTML file is not a NIM template.” POR, 45. This circular argument depends
`
`entirely on DoDots’ arguments above and fails with them. See supra, §III.A. The
`
`Petition makes clear that “the users of desktop 16 can preferably subscribe to
`
`channels”—sending a “user request” for a template that defines the channel’s
`
`content (via a “subscription”), and that Brown and Wecker both disclose
`
`19
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`“download[ing] digital information from ‘server’ computers.” Petition, 13, 37, 52-
`
`53; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶73.
`
`DoDots also argues that “Brown fails to disclose any details on what is
`
`transmitted to Brown’s computer when a user requests the alleged NIM template.”
`
`POR, 45. Brown makes clear in its disclosure, as cited in the Petition, that desktop
`
`components can be retrieved from “remote computers,” which, as noted in the
`
`Petition, supports its combination with Wecker. Petition, 15-16; SAMSUNG-
`
`1005, FIG. 4; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶74.
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 4.
`
`
`
`DoDots also argues that “Wecker does not resolve” this alleged deficiency
`
`of Brown because (1) “[t]he petition fails to provide any evidence that Wecker’s
`
`scripts, data, and CDF files are transmitted based in response to a user request,” (2)
`
`20
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`“neither the Petition nor Wecker explain the contents of the scripts, data, or CDF
`
`files,” and (3) “the scripts, CDF files, script templates, and default templates are
`
`not NIM templates.” POR, 46. All of these arguments fail because, as explained
`
`above, the Petition never alleges that Wecker’s “scripts” are NIM templates and
`
`makes clear that HTML instructions for Brown’s desktop components are the
`
`claimed NIM template. POR, 43-45; Petition, 12-16, 31; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-
`
`42. Moreover, contrary to what is alleged by DoDots, Wecker discloses that “the
`
`users of desktop 16 can preferably subscribe to channels in a standard fashion
`
`which provide the user with certain channel content.” POR, 43-45; Petition, 12-16
`
`(emphasis added). SAMSUNG-1029, ¶75.
`
`E.
`
`The combination of Brown and Beer, and Brown, Wecker, and
`Beer renders Claims 5-6 and 17-18 obvious
`DoDots’ arguments for these claims are entirely based on the combination of
`
`Brown, Wecker, and Beer. POR, 46-48. DoDots first argues that “there would be
`
`no motivation to combine” because “Beer is concerned with obtaining user
`
`interface templates, which is not the same as internet content.” POR, 46-47;
`
`SAMSUNG-1029, ¶76.
`
`First, it assumes that references must have the exact same purpose to be
`
`combined. POR, 46-47. This is not what is required for obviousness. Petition, 59-
`
`62 (“the application of known techniques (e.g., Beer’s PGUI parser) to a known
`
`structure (e.g., Brown’s client computer) to yield predictable results”); KSR Int’l
`
`21
`
`

`

`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00701
`Attorney Docket: 39843-0149IP1
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). DoDots fails to explain what is not
`
`“predictable” about the combination. POR, 46-47; Petition, 59-62; SAMSUNG-
`
`1003, ¶¶138-144; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶77.
`
`Second, contrary to DoDots’ argument (which is improper), Beer describes
`
`that its PGUI “displays the user interface rendered in the specified style for
`
`response to events and for display of content.” SAMSUNG-1007, 2:33-35, 14:11-
`
`22; Petition, 58-59. Accordingly, even if DoDots’ misguided requirement for
`
`obviousness was applied, the references would still be combinable. POR, 46-47;
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, ¶145; SAMSUNG-1029, ¶78.
`
`DoDots then argues that “Beer’s UIL is a custom language related to a user
`
`interface, while HTML is markup language” which are “fundamentally different.”
`
`POR, 47. However, Beer discloses that “[t]he UIL user interface description is
`
`preferably a text file in a format similar to various text-markup languages, such as
`
`HTML.” SAMSUNG-1007, 3:42-44 (emphasis added). DoDots provides no
`
`explanation of why a format that is similar to HTML is “fundamentally different”
`
`tha