Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 97 PageID #: 25241
`
`EXHIBIT 23
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 97 PageID #: 25242
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`____________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 97 PageID #: 25243
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’438 PATENT ......................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’438 PATENT .............. 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’438 PATENT .............. 2
`C. PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .......................................... 3
`D. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....... 3
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER § 314(A) .................................... 3
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 4
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) .......................... 4
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................... 5
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ......................... 6
`V. GROUND 1: NAGANO IN VIEW OF BALFANZ RENDERS
`CLAIMS 1-7 OBVIOUS ............................................................................ 20
`A. SHOWING OF PRIOR ART ......................................................................... 20
`B. NAGANO IS ANALOGOUS ART .................................................................. 21
`C. BALFANZ IS ANALOGOUS ART .................................................................. 23
`D. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE BALFANZ WITH NAGANO ................................. 25
`E. CLAIM 1 .................................................................................................. 26
`F. CLAIM 2: “SAID INFORMATION-PROCESSING TERMINAL HAS A FUNCTION
`OF CONTRIBUTING DATA TO SAID DISPLAY APPARATUS AND A FUNCTION
`OF ADDING A COMMENT TO CONTRIBUTED DATA” ................................... 57
`G. CLAIM 3: “FURTHER COMPRISING MEANS FOR SELECTING AN OBJECT
`DISPLAYED ON SAID DISPLAY APPARATUS” .............................................. 60
`H. CLAIM 4 .................................................................................................. 62
`I. CLAIM 5: “WHEREIN A PROCESS IS CARRIED OUT TO ASSOCIATE
`INFORMATION ON A COMMUNICATION ESTABLISHMENT BETWEEN SAID
`FIRST SHORT-DISTANCE COMMUNICATION UNIT AND SAID INFORMATION-
`PROCESSING TERMINAL WITH INFORMATION ON A COMMUNICATION
`
`ii
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 97 PageID #: 25244
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`ESTABLISHMENT BETWEEN SAID SECOND COMMUNICATION UNIT AND
`SAID INFORMATION-PROCESSING TERMINAL” .......................................... 70
`J. CLAIM 6: “WHEREIN SAID DISPLAY APPARATUS IS AN ELECTRONIC
`NOTICE BOARD” ....................................................................................... 73
`K. CLAIM 7: “WHEREIN SAID DISPLAY APPARATUS IS AN ELECTRONIC
`NOTICE BOARD” ....................................................................................... 73
`VI. GROUND 2: NAGANO IN COMBINATION WITH BALFANZ AND
`HAMBERG RENDERS CLAIM 2 OBVIOUS ......................................... 73
`A. THE PROPOSED COMBINATION OF HAMBERG WITH NAGANO/BALFANZ ..... 73
`B. CLAIM 2 .................................................................................................. 79
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 81
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 83
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ...................................................................... 83
`B. RELATED MATTERS ................................................................................. 83
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ............................................................... 83
`D. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ........................................ 84
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 97 PageID #: 25245
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`Abbot Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 554 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`Curtis-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291
`(Fed. Cir. 2018)
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. & Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v.
`Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., 297 F.Supp.3d 668
`(E.D. Tex. 2018)
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`Texas Instruments v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F. 3d 1295
`(Fed. Cir. 2007)
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`iv
`
`11, 15
`
`17
`
`11
`16, 17
`14, 16
`
`10, 11
`
`10
`6, 18
`
`19
`
`16
`16
`11
`
`20, 73
`2
`21
`5, 6
`7, 9-11, 28, 60
`4
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 97 PageID #: 25246
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b)
`
`
`4
`
`90
`89
`83
`83
`83
`84
`89
`89
`6
`84
`84
`5
`5
`5
`5
`6
`6
`6
`90
`90
`
`v
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 97 PageID #: 25247
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1-7 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438 (“the ’438
`
`Patent”), issued on October 3, 2006, to Maeoka, et al. Ex. 1001, ’438 Patent. As
`
`demonstrated below, the purportedly distinguishing feature of the ’438 Patent of
`
`using short-distance communication channels to authenticate communications
`
`otherwise occurring over a network was known in the art well before the priority
`
`date of the ’438 Patent. Accordingly, IPR of the Challenged Claims should be
`
`instituted.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’438 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’438 Patent
`The ’438 Patent is directed toward an electronic notice-board system with a
`
`display and one or more mobile terminals. ’438 Patent, 1:6-12; 3:16-20. In such
`
`systems, mobile users can use their devices to upload content so the public can view
`
`the content on the notice board. ’438 Patent, 1:13-23, 3:1-6. The ’438 Patent
`
`describes existing electronic notice-board systems, but identifies a problem to be
`
`solved: remote users may post an “improper notice.” ’438 Patent, 1:37-42; Dec. 521.
`
`
`
`1 All citations to “Dec.” are to paragraph numbers in Ex. 1003, Declaration of
`
`Dr. Thomas La Porta.
`
`1
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 8 of 97 PageID #: 25248
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`The ’438 Patent proposes location-limited authentication. By allowing only users
`
`who are “close to” the electronic notice board to authenticate, the posting of
`
`“improper notice[s]” by remote users can be avoided. ’438 Patent, 10:4-8, 1:45-50.
`
`To enforce the required proximity, the ’438 Patent proposes an authentication
`
`process take place using a “short-distance communication means” such as infrared
`
`or a “radio LAN.” ’438 Patent, 9:65-10:2; 3:32-36.
`
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’438 Patent
`Applicant Hitachi, Ltd. (“Applicant”) filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/747,267 (the ’267 Application) on December 30, 2003. Id. The ’267 Application
`
`claimed priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2003-144259, filed on May 22,
`
`2003. Id. During prosecution, the claims were rejected under § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 411119720 to Uno. Ex.
`
`1002, ’438 File History, pp. 27-28. In response, Applicant amended both
`
`independent claims to require (1) an authentication process carried out using the
`
`“short-distance communication unit,” and (2) further communication over a
`
`network, contingent on the success of this authentication. ’438 File History, pp. 18-
`
`20. Applicant characterized these amendments, saying “a first communication path
`
`is used to authenticate a user and a second communication path is used to convey
`
`data to the display apparatus, or information-processing terminal. If authentication
`
`is not affirmed, the transmission of data is prevented.” ’438 File History, p. 22. The
`
`2
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 97 PageID #: 25249
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`Patent Office subsequently allowed claims 1-7, as amended, on June 17, 2006, and
`
`the ’167 Application issued as the ’438 Patent on October 3, 2006. ’438 File History,
`
`p. 6; ’438 Patent.
`
`C.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner applies May 22, 2003, as the priority
`
`date for the Challenged Claims, but reserves the right to challenge this priority claim
`
`in this or any other proceeding. Should Patent Owner attempt to swear behind either
`
`prior art reference relied upon in the grounds below, Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`demonstrate the ’267 Application does not support the Challenged Claims.
`
`D.
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’438 Patent would have
`
`been a person having at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree with at least two
`
`years of experience in computer systems and computer networks or related
`
`technologies. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and
`
`vice-versa. Dec. 35.
`
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER § 314(a)
`While there is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’438 Patent,
`
`no preliminary injunction motion has been filed, the district court has not been
`
`presented with or invested any time in the analysis of prior art invalidity issues, and
`
`3
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 97 PageID #: 25250
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`no Markman hearing has been held. (Ex. 1010, Maxell v. Apple Docket Control
`
`Order). Apple also timely filed this Petition within the statutorily prescribed 1-year
`
`window. Declining to institute IPR here in view of the co-pending district court
`
`litigation would essentially render nugatory the 1-year filing period of § 315(b).
`
`Notably, § 315(b) originally contained only a 6-month filing window, which was
`
`amended to 1-year prior to passage of the America Invents Act to “afford defendants
`
`a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims that are
`
`relevant to the litigation” before having to file an IPR petition. 157 Cong. Rec. S5429
`
`(daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Moreover, making the status of the
`
`district court litigation a threshold consideration before institution also ignores the
`
`common scenario, contemplated by Congress, of obtaining a district court stay based
`
`on institution. Cf. 157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Chuck Schumer); H. Rep. No. 112-98, Part I, at 48 (2011). For these reasons, and
`
`those explained below, the instant Petition should be instituted.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’438 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the Challenged Claims of
`
`the ’438 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states:
`
`4
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 97 PageID #: 25251
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`1. Petitioner is not the owner of the ’438 Patent;
`
`2. Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claim of the ’438 Patent; and
`
`3. This Petition is not filed one year or more after Petitioner was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’438 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’438 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1.
`
`The Grounds for Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication JP 2003-22227 to Nagano (“Nagano”)
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2003/0149874 to Balfanz et al. (“Balfanz”).
`Ground 2: Claim 2 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`being obvious over Nagano in view of Balfanz and further in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 7,340,214 to Hamberg (“Hamberg”).
`
`Reference
`Exhibit Nos.
`
`1004, 1005
`
`1004, 1005,
`1006
`
`Sections V-VI identify where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
`
`in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`5
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 97 PageID #: 25252
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance
`
`of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in §§ V-VI. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(5). Exs. 1001–1015 are attached.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, which is the meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in view of the patent and file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.
`
`Dictionaries or other extrinsic sources may assist in determining the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning but cannot override a meaning that is unambiguous from the
`
`intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`1.
`
`“an authentication process for allowance to use said display
`apparatus/said information-processing terminal”
`
`Claim 1 recites “an authentication process for allowance to use said display
`
`apparatus.” Claim 4 recites “an authentication process for allowance to use said
`
`information-processing terminal.” These terms should be construed to mean “a
`
`process that authorizes the user to use the display apparatus/information-processing
`
`terminal.” ’438 Patent, 6:63-67. Patent Owner and Petitioner have agreed to apply
`
`6
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 13 of 97 PageID #: 25253
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`this construction for the purposes of the related litigation. Ex. 1008, Claim
`
`Construction Statement, pp. 3-4.
`
`2.
`
`“means for selecting an object displayed on said display
`apparatus”
`
`Claim 3 recites “means for selecting an object displayed on said display
`
`apparatus.” This term should be construed under § 112, ¶ 62as having the function
`
`“to select an object displayed on said display apparatus,” and the corresponding
`
`structure of “input/output unit 103, including a liquid crystal display device and a
`
`keyboard, and associated software; or equivalents thereof.” In the ’438 Patent, one
`
`embodiment of the information terminal is depicted in FIG. 2:
`
`
`
`2 All references to 35 U.S.C. refer to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. unless stated
`
`otherwise.
`
`7
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 14 of 97 PageID #: 25254
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`
`
`’438 Patent, FIG. 2.
`
`Throughout the ’438 Patent, the sole structure providing support for the
`
`“means for selecting” is the “input/output unit 103” of the mobile terminal depicted
`
`in FIG. 2 (which is an “information processing terminal”; ’438 Patent, 3:17-18).
`
`This “input/output unit 103” is described by the ’438 Patent:
`
`8
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 15 of 97 PageID #: 25255
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`The input/output unit is a component for displaying information to the
`user and receiving data entered by the user. The input/output
`unit typically includes a liquid crystal display device and a ten-key
`board. However, the input/output unit is not limited to the liquid crystal
`display device and the ten-key board. That is to say, the input/output
`unit can be any component as long as the component is capable of
`receiving an input entered by the user and displaying an output to the
`user.
`
`’438 Patent, 3:59-67.3 Under § 112, ¶ 6, a claim element “expressed as a means …
`
`for performing a function without the recital of structure … in support thereof …
`
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure … described in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” § 112, ¶ 6. Regardless of the attempt at
`
`broadening language to broaden the scope of the input unit (“the input/output
`
`unit can be any component as long as the component is capable of receiving an input
`
`entered by the user and displaying an output to the user,” as quoted above), the only
`
`“structure” actually disclosed in the above-quoted disclosure is the liquid crystal
`
`display and keyboard (the physical “ten-key board”). Ex. 1015, Williams Deposition,
`
`p. 95, l. 17 – p. 96, l. (Maxell’s expert stating that the specification of the ’438 Patent
`
`does not include any other examples of the structure of input/output unit 103); see
`
`
`
`3 Reference numeral omitted from quotations throughout where unambiguous.
`
`9
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 16 of 97 PageID #: 25256
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`also Dec. 42 (explaining an LCD alone cannot be an input unit because it cannot
`
`provide touchscreen functionality without a separate touchscreen unit, which the
`
`’438 Patent does not disclose). Accordingly, the proper construction of this claim
`
`term should be broad enough to include the “disclosed structure” of “a liquid crystal
`
`display device and a ten-key board” and equivalents thereof.
`
`In related litigation, Patent Owner has agreed this claim term should be
`
`construed according to § 112, ¶ 6, but has proposed a structure of “input/output unit
`
`103 and associated software that allows for the claimed selection function.” Claim
`
`Construction Statement, pp. 37-38. In prior unrelated litigation, Patent Owner and
`
`the defendant in that litigation agreed to this construction. Maxell LTD. v. Huawei
`
`Device USA Inc. et al., 297 F.Supp.3d 668, 682 (E.D. Tex. 2018). In contrast to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, this construction omits the sole structure actually
`
`disclosed in the ’438 Patent (the LCD display and the keyboard) in favor of an
`
`“input/output unit.” “Unit” is precisely the type of “generic term” identified by the
`
`Federal Circuit as “not connot[ing] sufficiently definite structure.” Massachusetts
`
`Inst. of Tech. & Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner’s construction in the related litigation would thus
`
`construe one mean-plus-function term using another means-plus-function term and
`
`thereby fail to satisfy a claim construction’s “purpose of explaining and defining the
`
`10
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 17 of 97 PageID #: 25257
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`terms in the claims.” Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`Nor can the broadening language quoted above (“the input/output unit can be
`
`any component as long as the component is capable of receiving an input entered by
`
`the user and displaying an output to the user”) expand the scope of this claim term.
`
`Doing so would run counter to the plain language of § 112, ¶ 6, because no other
`
`structure is actually “disclosed in the specification.” As such, structure to perform
`
`the claimed function should be limited to the disclosed LCD and physical keyboard,
`
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`3.
`
`“input unit for receiving an input entered by a user”
`
`Claim 1 recites an “input unit for receiving an input entered by a user.” This
`
`term should be construed under § 112, ¶ 6 as having the function “to receive input
`
`entered by a user” and corresponding structure of “a keyboard, or equivalents
`
`thereof.” The standard for when § 112, ¶ 6 applies is “whether the words of the claim
`
`are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite
`
`meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
`
`1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In particular, “generic terms” like “mechanism,”
`
`“means,” “element,” and “device” do not connote sufficiently definite structure.
`
`Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1354. “Unit,” like these examples, is a
`
`generic nonce word reflecting nothing more than a verbal construct. Diebold
`
`11
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 18 of 97 PageID #: 25258
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding
`
`the term “unit” does not, standing alone, convey any structure). Nor does the term
`
`“input” as prepended to “unit” convey any structure, as it simply recapitulates the
`
`claimed function (“receiving an input entered by a user”). Here, in particular, a
`
`POSITA would not have understood the term “input unit” to convey any particular
`
`structure. Dec. 43 (opining “input unit” does not convey any particular structure).
`
`The input/output unit 103 is the only structure described in the specification capable
`
`of performing the claimed function of receiving an input entered by a user. Within
`
`“input/output 103,” the only input unit described is a “ten-key board.” Dec. 42-43
`
`(opining the only input unit disclosed is the ten-key board, and there is no description
`
`in the ’438 Patent that the disclosed LCD provides input functionality). As such, the
`
`structure for this claim limitation should be limited to that same keyboard and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`In related litigation, Patent Owner has proposed construing this term
`
`according to plain and ordinary meaning. Claim Construction Statement, pp. 33-34.
`
`However, in that litigation, Patent Owner’s expert conceded that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “input unit” was “any component” that is capable of receiving
`
`an input: “Q: Understood. So, then the plain and ordinary meaning under your
`
`opinion of the input unit is any component as long as the component is capable of
`
`receiving an input? A. At the highest level, in general, yes.” Williams Deposition
`12
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 19 of 97 PageID #: 25259
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`Transcript, p. 39. A term encompassing “any component” is the opposite of one that
`
`conveys “sufficiently definite structure,” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`in the related litigation should be rejected.
`
`4.
`
`“display apparatus”
`
`Claims 1-7 recite a “display apparatus.” For the reasons given below, this
`
`claim term should be construed as an “electronic notice board.”
`
`
`
`The ’438 Patent uses terms interchangeably to mean
`“electronic notice board”
`
`A proper construction of “display apparatus” is an “electronic notice board”
`
`because the ’438 Patent (1) provides a limited discussion of a “display apparatus”
`
`and equates a display apparatus with a “display terminal”; and (2) interchangeably
`
`describes a display terminal and electronic notice board.
`
`Other than the claims, the term “display apparatus” appears only in the
`
`“Summary of the Invention” section of the specification and briefly in the
`
`“Background of the Invention” section. ’438 Patent, 1:52-2:26; 1:12. In the
`
`“Detailed Description of the Invention” section, the ’438 Patent uses the terms
`
`“display terminal” and “[electronic] notice board” interchangeably and does not use
`
`the term “display apparatus.” For example, the ’438 Patent describes FIG. 7 as
`
`“explain[ing] a login procedure of a contributor/inspector using the electronic
`
`13
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 20 of 97 PageID #: 25260
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`notice board,”4 while FIG. 7 labels the element receiving the login information from
`
`the mobile terminal as a “Display terminal,” thereby equating the “electronic notice
`
`board” of the Detailed Description with the “display terminal” of the Figures. ’438
`
`Patent, 6:48-50; FIG. 7 (right-hand side); 6:51-58 (describing the display terminal
`
`receiving the login information and referring to “the display terminal 2 as a notice
`
`board”). Thus, the ’438 Patent equates the display terminal with the electronic notice
`
`board and uses the terms interchangeably. Dec. 44-45.
`
`The ’438 Patent describes the display terminal as including electronic notice
`
`board functionality. For example, the ’438 Patent describes the display terminal as
`
`including a data store that “includes an electronic notice-board program for
`
`implementing an electronic notice-board function.” ’438 Patent, 4:66-5:1. By this
`
`description, the ’438 Patent is further describing the display terminal as having
`
`electronic notice board functionality implemented by the electronic notice-board
`
`program. See ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (“[I]t is entirely proper to consider the functions of an invention in seeking to
`
`determine the meaning of particular claim language.”) (internal quotes omitted).
`
`
`
`4 Emphasis to quotations added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`14
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 21 of 97 PageID #: 25261
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
`Finally, the Specification describes the “electronic notice-board system” at
`
`different points as “having a display apparatus” (’438 Patent, 1:11-12), “comprising
`
`display terminals” (’438 Patent, 2:30-31), and “for allowing information to be
`
`contributed to an electronic notice board” (’438 Patent, Abst.). Indeed, the
`
`application as filed began the Abstract by stating “An electronic notice-board
`
`system for allowing information to be contributed to an electronic notice board
`
`comprises the electronic notice board and a mobile terminal.” ’438 File History,
`
`pp. 104-105. Accordingly, the Specification does not draw a distinction between
`
`“display apparatus,” “display terminal,” and “electronic notice board.”
`
`Of these, only “electronic notice board” actually explains what the claimed
`
`“display apparatus” is and distinguishes the “display apparatus” from one of its
`
`subcomponents, namely “display unit 212” as depicted in FIG. 35. Abbot Labs. v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 554 F.3d 1341, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“‘Claim construction’ is for the
`
`purpose of explaining and defining terms in the claims, and usually requires use of
`
`words other than the words that are being defined.”).
`
`
`
`5 A POSITA would not have understood “display apparatus” to be just display
`
`unit 212, because the claimed display apparatus “compris[es]” the communication
`
`units, shown separately from display unit 212. Dec. 44.
`
`15
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 22 of 97 PageID #: 25262
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
` Applicant repeatedly characterized the display apparatus
`as an electronic notice board
`
`The specification of the ’438 Patent repeatedly describes “the present
`
`invention” as including a “notice board” or an “electronic notice board” as one
`
`component of an “electronic notice board system,” rather than a generic display
`
`apparatus.’438 Patent, 1:6-10 (“the present invention … relates to a system for
`
`displaying information on a notice board”); 1:46-48 (“It is thus an object of the
`
`present invention to provide an electronic notice-board system …”); 9:65-67 (“In
`
`accordance with the present invention, it is possible to implement an electronic
`
`notice board in an electronic notice-board system”). Where, as here, Applicant
`
`repeatedly characterized a claim term, it is proper to construe that term accordingly.
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have
`
`recognized that when a patent ‘repeatedly and consistently’ characterizes a claim
`
`term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance with
`
`that characterization.”); Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.
`
`3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a patent thus describes the features of the
`
`‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.”).
`
`See also, VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014); ICU
`
`Med., 558 F.3d at 1374–75.
`
`16
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 23 of 97 PageID #: 25263
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
` Claim differentiation should not apply
`
`Should Patent Owner contend the principal of claim differentiation as applied
`
`to claims 6 and 7 (which state “wherein said display apparatus is an electronic notice
`
`board”) requires construing “display apparatus” differently from “electronic notice
`
`board,” this argument should be rejected. The principal of claim differentiation
`
`imparts the “presumption that an independent claim should not be construed as
`
`requiring a limitation added by a dependent claim.” Curtis-Wright Flow Control
`
`Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, “claim
`
`differentiation cannot broaden claims beyond their proper scope.” Id. at 1381
`
`(internal quotes omitted).
`
`Because (as discussed above) Applicant identified the “present invention” as
`
`including an “[electronic] notice board” and did not describe any other alternative
`
`for the claimed “display apparatus,” claim differentiation cannot now enlarge the
`
`scope of the claim term. GPNE Corp, 830 F.3d at 1371 (“GPNE’s claim
`
`differentiation argument does not alter this conclusion. Claim differentiation is not
`
`a hard and fast rule, but rather a presumption that will be overcome when the
`
`specification or prosecution history dictates a contrary construction.”) (internal
`
`citations and quotes omitted).
`
`17
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-4 Filed 07/27/20 Page 24 of 97 PageID #: 25264
`IPR2020-00201
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s proposed construction should no