DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Before Hon. Grace Karaffa Obermann, Kevin C. Trock, Amber L. Hagy,
`
`and Sharon Fenick
`
`9,369,545 | IPR2023-00756 | 39843-0150IP1
`8,510,407 | IPR2023-00701 | 39843-0149IP1
`8,020,083 | IPR2023-00621 | 39843-0148IP1
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`DoDots Licensing Solutions, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1046
`Samsung v. DoDots
`IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`Before Hon. Grace Karaffa Obermann, Kevin C. Trock, Amber L. Hagy,
`
`and Sharon Fenick
`
`9,369,545 | IPR2023-00756 | 39843-0150IP1
`8,510,407 | IPR2023-00701 | 39843-0149IP1
`8,020,083 | IPR2023-00621 | 39843-0148IP1
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`DoDots Licensing Solutions, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1046
`Samsung v. DoDots
`IPR2023-00701
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`* The record from IPR2023-00621 is primarily referenced throughout to address topics covered in all three IPRs
`
`Obvious over Shimada and Buchholz
`Wecker, and Beer
`Obvious over Brown and Beer, or Brown,
`Obvious over Brown and Wecker
`
`1-24
`
`5-6, 17-18
`
`1-4, 7-16, 19-24
`
`1-4, 7-11, 13-16, 19-23Obvious over Brown
`
`2
`
`1C
`
`1B
`1A
`
`35 U.S.C. (cid:108) 103
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Ground
`
`Obvious over Shimada in view of Buchholz
`Obvious over Brown
`Obvious over Brown
`
`35 U.S.C. (cid:108) 103
`
`1-16
`1-16
`
`1-5, 9-13
`Claim(s)
`
`2
`
`1B
`1A
`
`Ground
`
`IPR2023-00701
`’407 IPR*
`
`IPR2023-00621
`’083 IPR
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`* The record from IPR2023-00621 is primarily referenced throughout to address topics covered in all three IPRs
`
`Krishna
`Obvious over Shimada, Buchholz, and
`Darnell
`Obvious over Shimada, Buchholz, and
`Obvious over Shimada and Buchholz
`Obvious over Brown, Wecker, and Beer
`Obvious over Brown and Wecker
`
`11, 16-21
`
`5, 8, 12
`
`1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15
`
`5, 11-12, 16-21
`1-4, 6-10, 13-15
`
`2C
`
`2B
`
`2A
`1B
`1A
`
`35 U.S.C. (cid:108) 103
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Ground
`
`IPR2023-00756
`’545 IPR*
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`135
`
`128
`
`123
`
`96
`
`89
`
`79
`
`28
`
`13
`
`5
`
`Secondary considerations
`
`A POSITA would have combined Shimada, Buchholz, and Krishna
`
`A POSITA would have combined Shimada, Buchholz, and Darnell
`
`Features Alleged to be Lacking in Shimada-Buchholz
`
`A POSITA would have combined Shimada and Buchholz
`
`A POSITA would have combined Brown-Beer and Brown-Wecker-Beer
`
`Features Alleged to be Lacking in Brown and Brown-Wecker
`
`A POSITA would have combined Brown and Wecker
`
`Background/Overview
`
`Table of Contents
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Background / Overview
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’407 IPR), FIG. 11;(cited in Petition(’407 IPR),7 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR), FIG. 5; (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 6 )
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’407 IPR), Abstract; (cited in Petition (’407 IPR), 5 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR), 3:48-59; (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 6 )
`
`’407 Patent
`
`’083 Patent
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’545 IPR), FIG. 4; (cited in Petition (’545 IPR), 6 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’545 IPR), Abstract; (cited in Petition (’545 IPR), 5 )
`
`’545 Patent
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR), Claim 1 (see Petition (’083 IPR), 19-41)
`
`The ’083 Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’ SAMSUNG-1001 (’407 IPR), Claim 1 (see Petition (’407 IPR), 16-43)
`
`The ’407 Patent
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’545 IPR), Claim 1 (see Petition (’545 IPR), 14-38
`
`The ’545 Patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (’083 IPR), 3-4 (citing SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 5:41-44)
`
`which content is presented to the user.”
`“a fully configurable frame, with one or more controls, through
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’407 IPR) 5:19-28; (’545 IPR) 4:54-63
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 5:40-48
`
`Networked Information Monitor – “NIM”
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (’083 IPR), 4-5 (citing SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 7:19-23)
`
`and that excludes executable applications/compiled code.”
`including the NIM frame, view, and control characteristics,
`“a data structure that defines the characteristics of a NIM,
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’407 Patent) 6:66-7:2; (’545 IPR) 6:33-37
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 7:17-23
`
`NIM Template
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`A POSITA would have combined Brown and Wecker
`
`(all IPRs)
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, Abstract (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`page can be selected and positioned on the composite desktop. …”
`retrieved from one or more Web sites is disclosed. A component on a Web
`“A method of creating a composite desktop built from Web content
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 3A; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 2 5)
`SAMSUNG1005FIG3A(
`(’083IPR)25)
`
`tditdiPtiti
`
`t
`
`Brown’s Composite Desktop and its Desktop Components
`
`Brown (US 6,278,448)
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 11:56-67, 12:1-10 (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 2 9)
`
`Brown’s HTML Instructions – Templates for Desktop Components
`
`Brown (US 6,278,448)
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 13:4-8; (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 3 2 – 3 3 )
`
`regularly retrieved and updated within the active desktop component 308.”
`file. CDF files are used to implement “subscriptions” in which information is
`“The HTML instructions on line 14 includes a URL corresponding to a CDF
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 3A; (cropped, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 2 4 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 12:1-8 (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 3 3 )
`
`Brown’s Content Subscriptions for Desktop Components
`
`Brown (US 6,278,448)
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 2 (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 5 2 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶92 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 5 1 )
`
`selected “on [a] Web page.”
`order to add [a] corresponding component to the composite desktop,’ the component being
`“Brown’s desktop shell, operated by the processing unit …, includes a ‘shell interface 214, in
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brown allows a user to add, delete, or modify Desktop Components
`
`Brown (US 6,278,448)
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 3:6-14 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 12-13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`information necessary for efficient download of web content to mobile device.”
`as a mobile channel. A mobile channel is a self describing web site that contains all the
`“… a single portion of content (such as a web page or a web site) is referred to herein
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, FIG. 7; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 3 0 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, FIG. 1; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 11)
`
`Wecker (US 6,449,638)
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶46 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 1-2)
`
`¶¶35-42.
`two basic techniques.” SAMSUNG-1003,
`implement Brown’s templates using these
`of Wecker, it would have been obvious to
`Brown’s disclosure is viewed in the context
`discloses these concepts and, when
`from a remote computer. Wecker clearly
`in memory and (2) requesting a template
`general knowledge: (1) storing a template
`were well-known and part of a POSITA’s
`relies on just two basic techniques that
`similar to the ’083 patent, the combination
`“In fact, because Brown’s disclosure is so
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`SAMSUNG-1027 (’083 IPR), 92:4-6 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4)
`
`A. “Absolutely. Yes.”
`
`in memory and then accessed later?”
`Q. “Is HTML code capable of being stored
`
` Selker Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶35 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 3:6-14
`desktop.” SAMSUNG-1005, 7:21-23;
`instructions, to their composite
`components, and their associated HTML
`such that a user could download desktop
`could be implemented as mobile channels,
`obvious that Brown’s desktop components
`“A POSITA also would have found it
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`download Brown’s HTML instructions:
`Wecker’s channel-based subscriptions would have provided a way to
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 3:17-20 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 14)
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 12:61-62 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 14)
`
`the appearance of data on a screen
`Wecker’s script templates define
`
`appearance of Desktop components
`Brown’s HTML Instructions define the
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶46 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 2)
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶37 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 14)
`
`2:8-36, 3:17-20.
`screen.” Petition, 10-12; SAMSUNG-1006,
`define the visual appearance of data on a
`Wecker’s templates because they each
`13. Brown’s templates are similar to
`produce ‘a mobile channel ….’ Petition, 9-
`desktop…,’ and Wecker uses templates to
`“Brown uses templates to build ‘a composite
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`1006, 3:17-20; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶37.
`SAMSUNG-1005, 12:61-62; SAMSUNG-
`Brown’s ‘desktop components.’”
`the ‘HTML instructions’ that define
`structures that are similar in objective to
`also referred to as ‘templates,’ are data
`that Wecker’s mobile channel ‘script files,’
`“First, a POSITA would have recognized
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`instructions:
`Wecker’s script templates are similar in objective to Brown’s HTML
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶46 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 2)
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶39 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 15)
`
`remote download of its templates.”
`already suggests local storage and
`Brown, particularly because Brown
`POSITA to implement these techniques in
`were well-known and would have led a
`and making them available for download
`“Benefits of remotely managing templates
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`computer.’”
`‘wireless push server’ or ‘remote
`would also be accessed via Wecker’s
`‘remote computers,’ such components
`desktop components are retrieved from
`or found obvious that, because Brown’s
`“Second, a POSITA would have recognized
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 5:45-47 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 2)
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 4:13-21 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 15)
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 4:49-52 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 2)
`
`Brown itself suggests accessing templates from “remote computers”:
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 10:46-52 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 2 – 3 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 4:53-62 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 17 -1 8 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶41 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 17-18)
`
`Wecker’s methods improve data transfer
`
`updated web content information, without transmitting new script.”
`the script files, the data can be updated quite frequently, giving the user of mobile device 18
`over very low bit rate channels’ and that, ‘since an individual file is typically much smaller than
`script from the data in the web content, web content can be transmitted to mobile device 18
`display internet content in a customizable way. Wecker explains that, ‘[b]y separating the
`reduce client-side storage requirements, and/or to capitalize on the growing need to
`data transfer times, increase usability, standardize interfaces across different devices,
`“Moreover, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wecker with Brown to improve
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`Wecker would have provided benefits to Brown’s existing system.
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶46 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 1)
`
`3:17-20.
`Petition, 10-12; SAMSUNG-1006, 2:8-36,
`system. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶35-42.”
`that would have been beneficial to Brown’s
`to Wecker for implementation techniques
`consider their disclosures together and turn
`similarities that would have led a POSITA to
`explain, the references have several
`to user devices. As Dr Schmidt and I
`to improving delivery of Internet content
`Microsoft patents that are both directed
`simple, straightforward combination of two
`“The combination of Brown and Wecker is a
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶38 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 15)
`
`1005, Cover; SAMSUNG-1006, Cover.
`between their products.” SAMSUNG-
`reasons to provide commonality
`have been motivated by business
`be compatible as the assignee would
`reasonably expected their techniques to
`and a POSITA would therefore have
`assigned to the ‘Microsoft Corporation’
`Finally, both Brown and Wecker are
`1005, 6:26-32; SAMSUNG-1006, 8:15-21.
`implement their techniques. SAMSUNG-
`as a suitable operating system that can
`describe the Windows 95 operating system
`“Moreover, both Brown and Wecker
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`matter, would be compatible:
`describing similar operating systems and directed to similar subject
`A POSITA would have reasonably believed two Microsoft references,
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 6:48-51 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 5 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 4:3-6 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 5 )
`
`Wecker's technique is used by Wecker's Windows 95 desktop computer
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 8:15-25 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 1 5 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 6:23-32 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 1 5 )
`
`Wecker
`
`Brown
`
`the Windows 95 operating system:
`Contrary to DoDots assertion, Brown and Wecker each describe using
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`24
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`SAMSUNG-1003 (’083 IPR), ¶35 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`1006, 3:6-14
`desktop.” SAMSUNG-1005, 7:21-23; SAMSUNG-
`associated HTML instructions, to their composite
`download desktop components, and their
`as mobile channels, such that a user could
`Brown’s desktop components could be implemented
`“A POSITA also would have found it obvious that
`
`SAMSUNG-1027 (’083 IPR), 92:4-6 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4)
`
`A. “Absolutely. Yes.”
`
`later?”
`stored in memory and then accessed
`Q. “Is HTML code capable of being
`
`Schmidt Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
` Selker Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶48 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 3-4)
`
`downloaded and stored. Petition, 13-19; SAMSUNG-1027, 91:4-6.”
`HTML desktop components in view of Wecker is that these components would have been
`its script templates. Petition, 13-19. Accordingly, the only required modification to Brown’s
`associated HTML instructions, to their composite desktop,’ similar to Wecker’s teachings of
`into script templates, only that ‘a user could download desktop components, and their
`“But the Petition never alleged that Brown’s HTML desktop components must be transformed
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`script templates] with Brown’s personal computers.”
`modifications, namely “us[ing] Wecker’s more complex method [of
`erroneously alleging that the combination recites additional
`DoDots exaggerates the complexity of the combination by
`
`The Brown-Wecker Combination
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`SAMSUNG-1011 (’083 IPR), 222 (annotated, cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1027 (’083 IPR), 58:22-59:3 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4)
`- I mean you could - sure.”
`those other things didn't have, you know
`with a style template, but the idea - all
`A. “Yeah. I mean HTML didn't start off
`
`notion?
`style template? Is that an HTML-derived
`“Is HTML what then introduced, like, a
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`
`
` Selker Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶49 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4)
`
`20; SAMSUNG-1027, 57:22-58:35.”
`confirmed its relationship to HTML. Petition,
`about the phrase ‘style template,’ readily
`way and (2) Dr. Selker, when questioned
`in the Petition used this phrase in the same
`fact that (1) multiple corroborating references
`“This is simply not true, as evidenced by the
`
` Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`art commonly used to describe HTML/XML templates.”
`DoDots argues “style templates” (or “style sheets”) were not terms of
`
`associated with HTML
`Style templates, or style sheets, are terms of art known to be
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 1:39-44 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 15)
`
`SAMSUNG-1006, 8:15-21 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 15)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶50 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4 – 5 )
`
`1006, 3:58-4:13, 6:45-7:26.”
`considered Wecker for non-mobile implementations falls flat. Petition, 13-14; SAMSUNG-
`techniques for a desktop computer, DoDots arguments that a POSITA would not have
`15; SAMSUNG-1005, 6:26-32; SAMSUNG-1006, 1:39-44, 8:15-21. Because Wecker uses its
`same types of applications on both the desktop computer and on the mobile device.” Petition,
`implement their techniques,’ and Wecker further discloses that a “user typically runs the
`describe the Windows 95 operating system as a suitable operating system that can
`“Second, as described in the Petition and Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, ‘both Brown and Wecker
`
`
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶50 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 4 – 5 )
`
`combination. Petition, 13-19.”
`Indeed, the petition never alleges that a particular OS is required to implement the
`consumer edition of Windows), making DoDots’ arguments against a particular OS moot.
`operating system available as of the critical date (e.g., Windows 98 for Microsoft’s
`“[A] POSITA would naturally implement the combination in the most recent version of any
`
`
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`The combination does not rely on a particular operating system (OS)
`
`27
`
`
`
`2828
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`and Brown-Wecker
`
`Features Alleged to be Lacking in Brown
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`70
`
`66
`
`62
`
`57
`
`51
`
`46
`
`41
`
`30
`
`Brown-Wecker renders claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 obvious (’407 IPR)
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, and 15 obvious (’083 IPR)
`
`request requesting networked information monitor template” (’545 IPR)
`Brown-Wecker renders obvious “transmitting a request to the server over the network, the
`
`execute the [first and [second] NIM template” (’083 IPR)
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious “one or more processors configured to access or
`
`NIM to request content” (’083 IPR)
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious “instructions configured to cause the first/second
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious a “content reference/element” (’083 and ’545 IPRs)
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious a “fully configurable frame” (all IPRs)
`
`Brown’s HTML instructions are “data structures” (all IPRs)
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious “control characteristics” (all IPRs)
`
`Table of Contents for Brown and Brown-Wecker
`
`29
`
`
`
`3030
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious “control
`
`characteristics” (all IPRs)
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (’083 IPR), 4-5 (citing SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 7:19-23)
`
`and that excludes executable applications/compiled code.”
`including the NIM frame, view, and control characteristics,
`“a data structure that defines the characteristics of a NIM,
`
`“Control characteristics” are recited in the NIM Template construction.
`
`“Control characteristics”
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 11:56-67, 12:1-10 (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 2 9)
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 8:46-53 (cited Reply (’083 IPR), 7)
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 10:1-6 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 7)
`
`’083 Patent’s description of resize
`
`controls
`
`Brown’s “resizable” control
`the Challenged Patents.
`Resizing controls are “control characteristics” as this is consistent with
`
`characteristic
`
`Brown’s resizing control characteristics
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`characteristics” or state that a “characteristic” cannot be both a frame
`The additional patent cited by DoDots also does not redefine “control
`
`and control characteristic
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶55 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 7)
`
`FIG. 28B.”
`by resizing the NIM. DODOTS-2015, 36:12-15,
`example, changing the size of the control area
`a ‘control characteristic’ of a NIM, for
`does not state that ‘resizable’ cannot also be
`‘resizable’ is an example ‘frame characteristic,’ it
`“Although this patent supports the idea that
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure within the challenged patents.
`patent (DODOTS-2015, 36:12-15, FIG. 28B), while ignoring conflicting
`are not “control characteristics” by referring to a different DoDots
`DoDots attempts to support its flawed argument that resizing controls
`
`Brown’s resizing control characteristics
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`The Challenged Patents do not redefine “control characteristics”
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 8:16-22 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 6)
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 7:17-23 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 4)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶54 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 5-6)
`
`characteristics’ of the NIM.”
`simply requiring definition of ‘control
`the word ‘characteristic’ – it broadens it by
`limit the feature of a ‘control’ with its use of
`“The construction of ‘NIM template’ does not
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`functionality, or appearance of a control.
`include any data in the NIM template that dictate the existence, nature,
`A POSITA would have understood that “control characteristics” would
`
`The ’083 Patent broadly describes “control characteristics”
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 9:61-67 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR) 7-8)
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 3A; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 2 5)
`SAMSUNG100FIG3A(
`(’083IPR)2)
`
`didiPii
`
`challenged patents simply renders data
`
`The “minimum” control in the
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 16:61-67 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 7)
`
`Compare
`
`’083 Patent’s example of a
`
`“stock ticker display”
`
`component with embedded controls
`Brown depicts a “Microsoft Investor”
`
`Active-X based control that is described in Brown:
`The Challenged Patents describe an almost identical example of an
`
`Brown's Active-X controls align with embodiments in the '083 Patent
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 9:13-27; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 4 3 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, FIG. 3A; (annotated, cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 4 3 )
`
`scroll bars:
`Brown includes other examples of “control characteristics,” such as
`
`Brown’s other “control characteristics” – Scroll Bars
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 15:50-62 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR) 8-9)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶57 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 7-8)
`defines characteristics of its title bar control.”
`a manner similar to how the ’083 patent
`instructions defines control characteristics in
`Brown’s definition of the frame size in its HTML
`are functions of a frame’s width and height,
`… Because characteristics of Brown’s scroll bars
`size specified in Brown’s HTML instructions.
`of the scroll element are defined by the frame
`“Whether these controls are present and the size
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`rendered based on the frame size
`
`
`
`
`
`A NIM’s “title bar” control is
`
`
`
`
`
`on frame size:
`Like Brown, the ’083 Patent defines its control characteristics based
`
`Brown’s other “control characteristics” – Scroll Bars
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶54 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 5-6)
`
`9:15-19, 13:49-53, 13:57-59, 20:38-40.”
`invoking of control functionality defined outside of the template).” SAMSUNG-1001, 8:46-53,
`“Additionally, the ’083 patent makes clear that NIM templates can include ‘control calls’ (the
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response (’083 IPR), 27
`
`are defined outside of the HMTL for the alleged NIM templates.”
`define control characteristics because the actual controls for resizing/moving the alleged NIMs
`“Second, a POSITA would not recognize or find obvious that the alleged NIM templates would
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`externally defined controls:
`patents description of controls, which explicitly includes such
`Externally defined controls are within the scope of the challenged
`
`Brown’s other “control characteristics” – Control Calls
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`interface that allows another file to “call its methods”
`ActiveX is a separate executable file with an
`
`SAMSUNG-1011, 324 (cited in SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶54 )
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶54 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 5-6)
`
`can be called using the HTML ‘<OBJECT>’ tag), 324.”
`used in the ’083 Patent. SAMSUNG-1011, 151 (describing that Active-X controls
`“Darnell describes the process of calling a control with respect to Active-X, an example
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`externally defined controls:
`patents description of controls, which explicitly includes such
`Externally defined controls are within the scope of the challenged
`
`Brown’s other “control characteristics” – Control Calls
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`NIM template
`control definitions outside of the
`“Embedded” controls reference
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 17:1-5 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 7)
`
`outside of the NIM template
`“Control calls” are executed
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 8:46-53 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 6)
`
`externally defined controls:
`patents description of controls, which explicitly includes such
`Externally defined controls are within the scope of the challenged
`
`Brown’s other “control characteristics” – Control Calls
`
`40
`
`
`
`4141
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Brown’s HTML instructions are “data structures”
`
`(all IPRs)
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (’083 IPR), 4-5 (citing SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 7:19-23)
`
`and that excludes executable applications/compiled code.”
`including the NIM frame, view, and control characteristics,
`“a data structure that defines the characteristics of a NIM,
`
`A “data structure” is recited in the NIM Template construction.
`
`“Data structure”
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`Ex-2025, 2 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 10)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR), 8:36-45 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 9)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶58 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 9)
`
`DODOTS-2025, 2; DODOTS-2033, 42.”
`corroborate that HTML is an acceptable language in which a NIM template can be defined.
`a NIM template. SAMSUNG-1001, 8:36-45. … Moreover, the Patent Owner’s own exhibits
`patent, which recites ‘dHTML’ (‘dynamic’ HTML) as an example language that can define
`“This position [that HTML is not a data structure] is impossible to reconcile with the ’083
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`structure”) and DoDots’ Product Evidence Uses “HTML”
`language that can define a NIM template (and thus be a “data
`The ’083 Patent describes “dHTML” – Dynamic HTML – as an example
`
`Brown’s HTML instructions are “data structures”
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶60 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 10)
`
`structure in computer science.”
`that a tree is a fundamental data
`of elements’; a POSITA would recognize
`explains that ‘An HTML document is a tree
`“[T]he 1995 HTML standard document
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶¶58, 60 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 9-10)
`
`SAMSUNG-1040 (’083 IPR), 20 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 10)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the HTML Document Object Model (DOM) – a hierarchical structure.”
`structure” is a genus term that encompasses many different types of data formats, to include
`popular examples of such formats. … In particular, a POSITA would understand that “data
`data structure must be serialized into a computer readable format. HTML and XML are
`another, e.g., from the server to a client. For this to happen over an Internet connection, the
`such as a Web-based system. Structured data must be transmitted from one computer to
`“This position is also impossible to reconcile with the practicalities of a client server system,
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have considered HTML to be a “data structure”
`
`Brown’s HTML instructions are “data structures”
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`SAMSUNG-1032 (’083 IPR), 3 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 10)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶60 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 10)
`
`“structure” SAMSUNG-1032, 3, 82-92.”
`Inside Dynamic HTML (referenced in Brown) which dedicates five chapters to HTML document
`“Microsoft also describes the DOM as a structure in other publications, for example,
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft considered HTML to be a “data structure”
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious a “fully
`
`configurable frame” (all IPRs)
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (’083 IPR), 3-4 (citing SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 5:41-44)
`
`through which content is presented to the user.”
`“a fully configurable frame, with one or more controls,
`
`A “fully configurable frame” is recited in the NIM construction.
`
`“Fully configurable frame”
`
`47
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 16:61-65
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 11:65-67
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 12:42-45
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 10:55-57
`
`’083 Patent
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶¶61-62 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 11)
`
`defined by a ‘developer.’ SAMSUNG-1001, 10:55-57, 11:11-15, 65-67; 12:20-45; 16:61-65.”
`patent, none of which specify that a NIM frame must include a configurable control
`Dot developer.” … In support of this argument, Patent Owner cites to several areas of the ’083
`configurable frame” because the “frame shape and content [cannot] be wholly defined by the
`“The Patent Owner alleges that none of the desktop components of Brown include “a fully
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`content to be defined by a “developer”
`The Challenged Patents do not require frames, controls, and
`
`“Fully configurable frame”
`
`48
`
`
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex-2021, 15 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 12)
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, Appendix A (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 12)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶62(cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 11-12)
`
`a configurable control added by a developer.”
`“In fact, the Patent Owner’s exhibits provide numerous examples of NIMs that do not include
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`content to be defined by a “developer”
`The Challenged Patents do not require frames, controls, and
`
`“Fully configurable frame”
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 12:61-67 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, 7:21-26 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`The frames of Brown’s desktop components can
`
`be repositioned and resized
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶63 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`Brown’s desktop components. SAMSUNG-1005, 7:9-47; 8:10-16; 10:9-15; 12:44-13:21.”
`found obvious that standard controls defined by HTML are available for addition in
`its desktop components and, without restrictions, a POSITA would have understood or
`above, §VI.A. Moreover, Brown does not place any restrictions on the HTML included in
`discussed above, Brown’s frames have one or more controls. Petition, 25-29, 42-46; see
`components and, thus, Brown discloses fully configurable frames. Petition, 23-25. And, as
`“As explained in the Petition, Brown places no restriction on the frames of its desktop
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`configurable
`The Challenged Patents merely require the frame to be fully
`
`“Fully configurable frame”
`
`50
`
`
`
`51
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Brown/Brown-Wecker renders obvious a “content
`
`reference/element” (’083 and ’545 IPRs)
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’545 IPR), claim 1 (cropped)
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR), claim 1 (cropped)
`
`challenged patents.
`A “content reference” or “content element” is recited in claim 1 of the
`
`“Content reference/element”
`
`52
`
`
`
`53
`
`Ex-2033 (’083 IPR), 12 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 14)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1027 108:23-25 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`A. “Yes.”
`
`internet content comprises?”
`Q. “How about XML? Is XML a format that
`
`Selker Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001 (’083 IPR) 11:1-5 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶65 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 13)
`
`internet ‘content.’” DODOTS-2033, 12.”
`Moreover, the Patent Owner’s own exhibits corroborate that XML was understood to be
`the same. SAMSUNG-1001, 11:1-4, 14:29-37, 21:18-20; SAMSUNG-1027, 107:19-25.
`“The ’083 patent admits that XML is ‘internet content,’ and Dr. Selker’s testimony confirms
`
`Greenspun Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`therefore, XML is a “content reference”
`The Challenged Patents admit that XML is “internet content,” and
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SAMSUNG-1005 12:1-8 (cited in Petition (’083 IPR), 33)
`
`(
`
`SG
`
`S
`
`)
`
`)
`
`(
`
`SAMSUNG-1006 10:57-60 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 14-15)
`
`Brown
`
`Wecker
`
`SAMSUNG-1026 (’083 IPR), ¶66 (cited in Reply (’083 IPR), 14)
`
`patent itself.”
`assertation that CDF files themselves cannot be internet content is at odds with the ’083
`XML, in the context of Brown’s CDF, is not internet content. … The Patent Owner’s
`describing the use of CDF). SAMSUNG-1006, 10:57-60 … The POR does not explain
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
