IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`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
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,510,407
`
`
`
`
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`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
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,510,407
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE BROWN/WECKER COMBINATIONS FAIL ...................................... 2
`A.
`Failure to establish a prima facie case. .................................................. 2
`1. Undeveloped grounds. .................................................................. 2
`2.
`Improper new evidence and arguments. ....................................... 4
`3. Unsupported, generalized obviousness assertions. ...................... 4
`4. Ground 1A. ................................................................................... 5
`5.
`Failure to address a reasonable expectation of success or
`predictable results. ........................................................................ 6
`Failure to establish motivation to combine. ................................. 6
`6.
`Petitioner’s failure is not one of bodily incorporation. ......................... 7
`1.
`Incompatibility. ............................................................................ 7
`2. Combining Brown and Wecker would eliminate the concept of
`separate NIM. ............................................................................. 11
`The prior art fails to disclose crucial claim limitations. ...................... 12
`1.
`Fully configurable. ..................................................................... 12
`2. Data structures / NIM template. ................................................. 14
`3. Content. ...................................................................................... 15
`4. Request and storage of NIM template. ....................................... 16
`D. No motivation to add Beer. ................................................................. 17
`III. THE SHIMADA/BUCHHOLZ COMBINATION FAILS ........................... 17
`i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`Failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. ....................... 17
`A.
`Petitioner never addresses the structure in Buchholz. ......................... 19
`B.
`Shimada does not disclose the claimed templates. ............................. 20
`C.
`Shimada does not disclose the claimed view characteristics. ............. 21
`D.
`Shimada does not disclose the claimed control characteristics. ......... 21
`E.
`Shimada does not disclose the claimed NIM. ..................................... 21
`F.
`IV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 22
`A. Nexus. .................................................................................................. 22
`B.
`Failure of others. .................................................................................. 25
`C.
`Industry praise. .................................................................................... 25
`D.
`Commercial success. ........................................................................... 26
`E.
`Long-felt need. .................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`A/S v. Coolit Sys. Inc.,
`19-cv-00410-EMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246288 (N.D. Cal.
`Sep. 11, 2022) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................ 7
`Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharm,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 967 (D. Nev. 2020) ................................................................... 27
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 28
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 4
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 5
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 3
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 17
`Google v. Home Bondholders,
`IPR2015-00662, Paper 17 (August 20, 2015) .................................................... 25
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 10
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`38 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00582, Paper 34 (August 5, 2019) ........................................................ 4
`Intel Corp. v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG,
`2022-1038, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4436 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023) .................... 7
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR No. 2018-00827 ............................................................................. 5, 7, 18, 19
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 7, 8, 9, 10
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 7
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 23
`Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 23
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 7, 10
`Truswall Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc.,
`813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 23
`Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC v. Brunswick Corp.,
`81 F.4th 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 25
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC,
`69 F.4th 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`Description
`Lenovo Holding Co, Inc. et al. v. DODOTS Licensing Sols.,
`IPR2019-01278 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)
`Lenovo Holding Co. v. DODOTS Licensing Sols. LLC, 2021
`U.S. App. LEXIS 36126, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021)
`Defendants’ Proposed Claim Constructions, dated March 1,
`2023, submitted in DODOTS Licensing Solutions LLC, v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al., Case No.: 6:22-cv-00535-
`ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex)
`Relevant portions of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`8,510,407
`June 21, 2022, Memo Regarding Interim Procedure for
`Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with
`Parallel District Court Litigation
`Agreed Scheduling Order, dated December 29, 2022
`Excerpts from Dr. Schmidt’s three declarations in support of
`Samsung’s petitions in IPR2023-00621, IPR2023-00756, and
`IPR2023-00701
`Samsung’s counsel’s first email to DODOTS’ counsel regarding
`meet and confer on the alleged typographical error
`July 27, 2023 Order from the United States District Court,
`Western District of Texas in DODOTS Licensing Solutions LLC
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:22-cv-00535-ADA,
`(W.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Ted Selker, Ph.D.
`Curriculum Vitae of Ted Selker, Ph.D.
`INENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`INENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Introduction to Active Channel Technology, dated 08/15/2017
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,660,868
`What is Data Structure? (available at
`https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/data-structure-meaning/)
`HTML Data Guide, W3C Interest Group Note 08 March 2012
`Specifications of Personal Computers Over Time (available at
`https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/tech-takes/specifications-
`personal-computers-over-time)
`Barnett, S., Palm VII: Like its predecessors, the Palm VII
`doesn’t do all that a desktop does, but it just might do enough
`CNET: Windows CE to become “Windows powered” (available
`at https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/cnet-windows-ce-
`become-windows-powered#close-modal)
`Declaration of John Kembel
`Imagining a Web Beyond the Browser; Fortune Magazine,
`February 21, 2000
`Lyons, D., Browser Bashers; Forbes, May 15, 2000
`Baig, E., Bits of organization clear clutter; USA Today
`Heim, K., Tools turn browser into galaxy, July 7, 2000
`Mossberg, W., New Metabrowsers Allow You To Create a Quilt
`of Web Pages, May 18, 2000
`A New World Needs a New Internet
`DoDots Technical Overview
`How to Build Dots
`Declaration of George Kembel
`June 15, 1999 Email from Tom Kosnik to investors re: Periphio
`(next steps)
`SOFTBANK Venture Capital’s Technology Fund Invests in
`DoDots, Inc., October 13, 1999
`DoDots Website
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`
`2043
`2044
`
`2045
`2046
`2047
`
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`
`DoDots Technology Embraced by ABC Television Network
`and ABC.com to Deliver Innovative ABC Dots on the Internet,
`October 2, 2000
`Leading Online Companies Do Dots With DODOTS ; DoDots'
`Technology Delivers Internet Packaging and Distribution for
`Internet Content, Applications and Services, March, 13, 2000
`Excite@Home Partners With DODOTS to Enhance Service for
`Business Professionals On Work.com, March 13, 2000
`DoDots Announces Partnership With Wireless Solution
`Provider 2Roam at DEMOmobile 2000 Wireless Conference in
`Pasadena, California, September 7, 2000
`Dots Go Live; Web Sites Now Offer Internet Applications,
`Content, and Services in Dots, April 3, 2000
`Conference Guide to Demo 2000
`DemoMobile Conference Program, September 6-8, 2000
`Demo 2000: The innovation Continues, March 6, 2000
`DoDots Named “Investors’ Choice” Winner at Telenelogic
`Partners’ Internet Outlook Conference in Burlingame,
`California, September 20, 2000
`Stanford Business School Case Study of DODOTS, June 2000
`Stanford Business School Case Study of DODOTS, September
`2001
`Dots Messaging and XML specification
`Yurko, C., DoDots: The Web without a browser, April 7, 2000
`Back to the launch pad: after a few dormant years, tech
`entrepreneurs are returning to the game.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,332
`U.S. Patent No. 8,935,690
`U.S. Patent No. 9,325,795
`U.S. Patent No. 9,817,545
`U.S. Patent No. 10,180,831
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`2053
`2054
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`2064
`2065
`2066
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,955,994
`The App Store turns 10, July 5, 2018
`Samsung Launches Its Own App Store for WM and Symbian
`Devices, February 4, 2009
`INENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`Internet Explorer 4.0 for Windows
`Slob, A., I Installed Internet Explorer 5, but where’s my Active
`Desktop?, May 12, 1999
`Markoff, J., Microsoft v. Netscape: The Border War Heats Up,
`September 29, 1997
`Lewis, P., State of the Art; The year of Big Bandwidth,
`February 11, 1999
`King, J., Windows 95 Y2K fix was kept from users, May 3,
`1999
`Dunn, A., Technology: Computers Face 9/9/99 in a Warmup to
`Year 2000, September 9, 1999
`U.S. Patent No. 8,020,083
`U.S. Patent No. 9,369,545
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407
`Ha, P., Motorola PageWriter 2000, October 25, 2010
`Declaration of Rakesh Ramde, IPR2019-00988, DoDots Exhibit
`2003, December 23, 2019
`Declaration of Rakesh Ramde, IPR2019-01279, DoDots Exhibit
`2003, April 27, 2020
`Internet Explorer 4, October 1, 1997
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A quarter century of hindsight bias by the biggest companies in the world
`
`has proven insufficient to defeat the patent. Petitioner’s primary reference (Brown)
`
`describes Microsoft’s Active Desktop. It was released as part of Internet Explorer
`
`4.0 in 1997. DODOTS-2057–2058, DODOTS-2069. Active Desktop was not
`
`hidden prior art; Microsoft exerted its market strength to put it on almost every PC
`
`in the world. DODOTS-2059. But, as explained in the Patent Owner Response and
`
`below, Brown / Active Desktop and other PDA/pager prior art fail to obviate
`
`DoDots’ novel, fully configurable, browser-less solution.
`
`DoDots burst onto the scene in 2000-2001 by succeeding where Microsoft
`
`and others failed—i.e., by developing the modern-day apps and app ecosystem, an
`
`alternative to the browser-controlled Internet. DODOTS-2058; DODOTS-2021,
`
`¶20; DODOTS-2022.
`
`This IPR is the third time the patent has been challenged, and it should fail
`
`like the previous two attempts. Notably, only Samsung was so bold as to attempt to
`
`invalidate the patent over Active Desktop from the Y2K era or Shimada/Buchholz
`
`prior art technology from the decade of limited-function PDAs/pagers and dial-up
`
`modems. DODOTS-2010, ¶138-41; DODOTS-2060–2062.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`But history tells the real story. A community of investors backed DoDots
`
`despite Active Desktop having been widely distributed for years at the time. And
`
`Samsung’s IPR, meanwhile, rests on the premise that the entire world failed to
`
`realize that the one missing piece to escaping the browser was simply downloading
`
`HTML. It was not. It was the NIM template and the NIM that was instantiated
`
`from it. But for the collapse of the dot-com bubble, this novel invention was on
`
`track to obtain millions in potential investments.
`
`II. THE BROWN/WECKER COMBINATIONS FAIL
`Failure to establish a prima facie case.
`A.
`Undeveloped grounds.
`1.
`Petitioner’s arguments are fluid. Petitioner originally relied on the
`
`application of one allegedly known technique (“rendering content using
`
`templates/script files”) and the potential to somehow render “Brown’s desktop
`
`components … as ‘mobile channels.’” Pet., 12-13, 15. .1 DoDots addressed that
`
`faulty logic. POR,2 17-21. On reply, Petitioner recharacterizes the technique as
`
`“requesting a template” that is “part of” a channel. Reply, 1-4.
`
`
`1 Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`2 Citations to the POR and DODOTS-2010 are to the “corrected” versions of those
`filings.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`Petitioner and its two experts have spun those positions into fog of
`
`terminology that never clearly address NIM templates or fully configurable frames.
`
`They conflate clearly distinct terms (e.g., “components” vs. “HTML instructions”
`
`vs. user-viewable “content”, “mobile channels” vs. “part of a channel” vs. “CDF
`
`files,” “rendering” vs. “downloading”, “scripts” vs. “templates” vs. “scripts that
`
`define templates”3). Compare DODOTS-2010, ¶46, 50-51, 116-120, 122, 125,
`
`127-31, 168, 171. Petitioner also leaves behind a wake of alternative positions it
`
`never resolved (e.g., “a POSITA would have recognized or found obvious”)4.
`
`The Petition thus fails to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), and 42.104(b)(4)-(5) due to the above inconsistencies and confused
`
`positions—as well as those addressed below in this Section. Petitioner has not
`
`provided DoDots a coherent position to which to respond. Dell Inc. v. Acceleron,
`
`LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
`
`1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The failure of coherence across the Petition in Reply arises in part from a
`
`failure to conduct the required analysis under Graham v. John Deere Co., 38 U.S.
`
`
`3 SAMSUNG-1006, 3:17.
`4 Cf. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (focusing
`only on what a reference discloses is a “meaningfully distinct contention” from
`arguing what would have been obvious to a POSITA).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`1 (1966) factor 2. Petitioner only purported to do so in connection with to one
`
`limitation: “electronic storage” of a NIM template. Pet., 8. Petitioner has never
`
`articulated the actual deficiencies that it seeks to use Wecker to fill in, e.g.: (1) the
`
`difference between each of Brown’s HTML tags5 and each of the claimed NIM
`
`templates (sometimes relying on Wecker’s scripts) or (2) the difference between
`
`the undisclosed data Brown receives when components are added to the desktop
`
`and the claimed NIMs or NIM templates. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec.
`
`Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Improper new evidence and arguments.
`2.
`Without stating why—or how his approach is different than Dr. Schmidt’s—
`
`Petitioner’s second expert submitted a new summary on motivation to combine.
`
`SAMSUNG-1029, ¶46-47. He also introduced Straub as additional prior art on
`
`reply. SAMSUNG-1029, ¶52. This new evidence and new argument adds to the
`
`confusion and are improper at this stage. It should be stricken or disregarded.
`
`Unsupported, generalized obviousness assertions.
`3.
`Petitioner fails, on reply, to support the generalized assertions made in the
`
`Petition (e.g., improving technology “and/or other relevant business or technical
`
`reasons”). See, e.g., Pet., 16, 69. Such statements are insufficient as a matter of
`
`
`5 Brown does not use the word “template.” It is Petitioner’s label.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`law. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-00582, Paper 34,
`
`p. 21-22 (August 5, 2019) (informative decision) (“a generic desire for ‘improved
`
`access times’ is “merely a bald statement ....”).
`
`At most, the Reply seeks to establish compatibility of different Windows
`
`operating systems. They were not compatible—certainly not CE and 95.
`
`DODOTS-2010, ¶153-57. But it would not matter if they were, because “mere
`
`compatibility of references is insufficient to support obviousness.” Johns Manville
`
`Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR No. 2018-00827, Paper 9, p. 17 (citing
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`
`Further, Petitioner evidently conducted a cursory search of the claim
`
`language and cobbled together its combinations through hindsight bias. For
`
`example, Petitioner does not contest making an error when evidently trying to
`
`match words across references: conflating the word “desktop” in Wecker (a
`
`physical computer) with the active desktop in Brown (a software rendered layer).
`
`Compare Pet., 13 with POR, 20.
`
`Ground 1A.
`4.
`The Reply does not address Gound 1A. It thus does not contest lack of
`
`obviousness over a single-reference.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`5.
`
`Failure to address a reasonable expectation of success or
`predictable results.
`The Reply fails to even mention the term “predictable” or the phrase
`
`“reasonable expectation” in connection with Brown and Wecker under its
`
`reconstituted theories. Reply p. 1-5. And the generalized recitations in the original
`
`Petition would not suffice even if applicable. Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`
`732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013); A/S v. Coolit Sys. Inc., No. 19-cv-00410-
`
`EMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246288, at 23-24 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2022).
`
`Failure to establish motivation to combine.
`6.
`The Petition initially asserted that Brown provided a motivation to retrieve
`
`Brown’s “desktop components ….” Pet., 14 (citing SAMSUNG-1005 4:16-21). On
`
`reply, Petitioner asserted that “Brown already suggests local storage and remote
`
`download of its templates.” Reply, 2 (citing SAMSUNG-1005, 4:16-21, 4:49-52,
`
`5:45-47).
`
`The cited portions of Brown are even more inapplicable to the new theory.
`
`DODOTS-2010, ¶161-63; SAMSUNG-1005, 4:16-21 (discussing user-viewable
`
`components selected from different web pages, not templates), 4:49-52
`
`(generalized statement about remote tasks), 5:45-47 (generalized statement that
`
`computers can to one another remotely).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`The Reply also mischaracterizes Dr. Selker’s testimony. It asserts that Dr.
`
`Selker stated that the ability to download and store HTML “components” was
`
`“absolutely” possible. Reply, 4 (citing SAMSUNG-1030, 92:4-6). He was asked
`
`about storing HTML code in memory, not the act of downloading. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s failure is not one of bodily incorporation.
`Incompatibility.
`1.
`The Reply does not contest that Wecker discloses a method that is “more
`
`complex than [the] conventional” method “where full HTML pages are transferred
`
`from a server to a client.” POR, 18.
`
`Instead, Petitioner seeks to justify its failures by reciting the lack of a need to
`
`establish “bodily incorporation” of the references Reply, 3. That principle does not
`
`obviate Petitioner’s need to provide an explicit analysis, with articulated reasoning
`
`and rational underpinnings, in support of an asserted motivation to combine. KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Johns Manville, IPR No. 2018-
`
`00827, Paper 9, p. 11-12. It is also notable that the technology at issue in this IPR
`
`is more varied, complex, and unpredictable than the mechanical components in
`
`KSR. 550 U.S. at 422-26 (mounting a sensor on a fixed location).
`
`Further, the bodily-incorporation problem arises where there is no “factual”
`
`record establishing that references were incompatible. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Pact
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`XPP Schweiz AG, No. 2022-1038, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4436, at *8-9 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Feb. 24, 2023). And “fundamental differences between the references are central to
`
`th[e] motivation to combine inquiry” and the predictability inquiry. Id.; Adidas AG
`
`v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoted); TriVascular, Inc. v.
`
`Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS
`
`Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (assertion of benefits in
`
`same field of technology insufficient).
`
`The Reply then contends that the only modification necessary to “Brown’s
`
`HTML desktop components is that these components would have to be
`
`downloaded and stored.” Reply, 4.
`
`That new, explicit assertion forecloses Petitioner from any other (previous or
`
`future) position as to how or why Wecker and Brown might be combined. It is also
`
`an impossible one, which a POSITA would not have considered.
`
`First, Brown’s components contain user-viewable content (e.g., JPG image
`
`files), not templates. DODOTS-2010, ¶52, 163; SAMSUNG-1005, 11:21-24.
`
`Second, the individual tags in the desktop.htt file are just a few of the many
`
`tags (lines) contained within the file. Those “fragments” (which are “not separate
`
`HTML files/documents”) could not simply be downloaded, or even accessed by
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`Brown. DODOTS-2010, ¶51, 178-80. And the present record only speaks to entire
`
`files being downloaded. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶111
`
`Third, Brown’s tags result from a registry that is created by user choices
`
`input to, and stored locally on, the computer. DODOTS-2010, ¶46-47, 96, 179
`
`(e.g., data typed by the user); SAMSUNG-1005, 3:1-2, 6:20-32.
`
`Fourth, Brown’s desktop.htt file is generated locally from data in that
`
`registry. Id. And it is generated by a browser (Internet Explorer 4.0), which
`
`executes an undisclosed driver (deskhtml.dll):
`
`<!----
`1.
`2. ***** This file is automatically generated by Microsoft
`Internet
`Explorer
`4.0
`(deskhtml.dll)*****
`3. -------->
`Id.; SAMSUNG-1005, 11:43-46.
`The Internet Explorer 4.0 function is a black box. DODOTS-2010, ¶178-80.
`
`It takes in data and outputs a collection of tags in a single file. DODOTS-2010,
`
`¶47-50.
`
`Fifth, a computer could not obtain remotely what Brown expressly creates
`
`locally—by allowing a local user to choose positions and layout of content on the
`
`Active Desktop. Dr. Greenspun agrees. SAMSUNG-1029 ¶58.
`
`Sixth, Wecker only receives Internet content in three discrete files. POR, 17-
`
`18. Wecker then uses a “loadable transport” (220) to execute a visual basic (VB)
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`script to “blend” those files together into an HTML file (224) for display (45).
`
`DODOTS-2010, ¶131; SAMSUNG-1006, 2:17-19, 3:18-20, 10:41-46. Wecker
`
`Figure 6 and Brown Figure 7 show the above concepts visually. Wecker receives
`
`three files; Brown receives data from the registry (706) and then uses Internet
`
`Explorer to generate one HTT file (714).
`
`Indeed, there is no record evidence that Wecker discloses how the content it
`
`receives is split in the first place.
`
`Seventh, there is no evidence Wecker’s files are transmitted in response to a
`
`user request. DODOTS-2010, ¶182.
`
`Eighth, Wecker expressly teaches away from Brown. It first explains the
`
`rationale: “The bit rate of conventional wireless channels is very low.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1010, ¶123-26; SAMSUNG-1006, 1:59-60. As a result, Wecker only
`
`uses channels that are of a “very low bit rate.” Id.; SAMSUNG-1006, 4:53-62, 3:1-
`
`7. It then prohibits sending entire webpages like Brown’s desktop.htt or even “Web
`
`page desktop component 310.” “[T]he delivery of very large content (such as
`
`HDML content) is highly impractical.” Id.; SAMSUNG-1006, 1:60-62, 10:41-46.
`
`In fact, Wecker states that “[t]here is presently no reasonable way to deliver push
`
`style content (such as hypertext mark-up language (HTML) content provided on a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`global network such as the internet and world wide web) to such [mobile] devices
`
`in a wireless manner.” SAMSUNG-1006, 1:55-58.
`
`Notably, even if the individual HTML tags in Brown cloud be split, they
`
`would still constitute the type of combined content Wecker states cannot be
`
`transmitted. Each would still constitute HTML (SAMSUNG-1010, ¶125)—not
`
`content split into data files, CDF files, and scripts, as Wecker requires.
`
`2.
`
`Combining Brown and Wecker would eliminate the concept
`of separate NIM.
`Modifying Brown’s desktop as the Reply suggests would destroy the basic
`
`objective of Brown. TriVascular, 812 F.3d at 1060; In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
`
`902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Allowing Internet Explorer to fuse NIM templates together in
`
`a single desktop.htt file would create the antithesis of the patent. The patented
`
`invention allows developers full control over their own NIMs. SAMSUNG-1010,
`
`¶28-31. The claims are clear about the need for separate NIMs/NIM templates.
`
`Various claims recite separate NIMs, separate instructions, separate GUIs, NIMS
`
`that communicate with one another, and the ability to update the features of NIMs
`
`in response to content as it is received. See, e.g., DODOTS-2063, claims 4-6;
`
`DODOTS-2064, claim 12; DODOTS-2065, claims 2 and 12. Since every claim, in
`
`each patent, recites a NIM and NIM template; these concepts must cohere. The
`
`Brown-Wecker combination precludes all of that.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`C. The prior art fails to disclose crucial claim limitations.
`Fully configurable.
`1.
`Fully configurable NIM.
`a.
`The Reply states that “Brown places no restriction on the frames of its
`
`desktop components and, thus, Brown discloses fully configurable frames.” Reply
`
`p. 12-13. That conclusion is flawed—e.g., under the affirming-the-consequent
`
`fallacy. It was Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that Brown’s frames were fully
`
`configurable.
`
`The patent states that for a NIM to be “fully configurable,” everything
`
`(controls, content, frame, and branding) must be fully configurable; they cannot be
`
`“trapped within the frame of a browser.” POR, 3-8, 39-40 (citing 407 Patent 2:25-
`
`36); see also SAMSUNG-1030, 103:3-20. Brown discloses the opposite. It
`
`expressly gives Internet Explorer 4.0, not the developer, full authority over its
`
`frames/components. And Petitioner does not contest that Brown’s components are
`
`restricted by external controls (see below), cannot describe their own control
`
`characteristics, and cannot change or revise any of the content that appears in them.
`
`POR, 38-40.
`
`Control characteristics.
`b.
`The Reply asserts that the word “characteristic” broadens the scope of the
`
`word “control.” Reply, 5-6. The logic fails here. The term “control” is a noun. By
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`contrast, the word “control” in the claimed phrase “control characteristic” is an
`
`adjective; it modifies another noun (“characteristic”). A NIM template is “a data
`
`structure that defines the characteristics of a NIM, including the NIM frame, view,
`
`and control characteristics ….”—under the agreed construction. Thus, the object of
`
`the claim is a characteristic, not a control.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner incorrectly equates the phrase “control characteristics”
`
`with the word “control.” Reply, 6. That is an attempt to modify the agreed upon
`
`claim construction—one that would render superfluous the word “characteristic.”
`
`In terms of the prior art disclosures, Petitioner expressly relies upon “control
`
`calls.” Id. A reference (or call) to a “control” is not a “characteristic” of the thing
`
`being called.
`
`Petitioner’s only attempt at identifying a characteristic is the “resizable”
`
`attribute disclosed in Brown. Reply, 6-7. Even so, Petitioner is forced to
`
`acknowledge that “this patent supports the idea that ‘resizable’ is an example
`
`‘frame characteristic ….’” Reply, 6 n.3. And simply “changing the size of the
`
`control area by resizing the NIM” (id.) excludes the “control” aspect. SAMSUNG-
`
`1010, ¶65, 73-75. It merely states that the frame is resizable. It does not “define”
`
`the “characteristics” of a “control”, e.g., how the frame is resized or controlled in
`
`any other “fully configurable manner.” DODOTS-2010, ¶62-65.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00701 (U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407)
`PO’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`Location of controls.
`c.
`Petitioner provides a single argument for asserting that the control
`
`characteristic need not define a control located “in a control space.” It erects a
`
`strawman about disavowal. Reply, 5-6. But DoDots did not rely on any alleged
`
`disavowal; thus this issue is uncontested on reply.
`
`Petitioner’s approach also fails for two addit
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
