throbber
Paper 29
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,466 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’466 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). BlackBerry Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition
`and Preliminary Response, we instituted an inter partes review pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314, as to claims 1–26 of the ’466 patent. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response (Paper 20, “Reply”). On May 30, 2018, we held an oral
`hearing. Paper 28 (“Tr.”).1
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–26 of the ’466 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’466 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled BlackBerry Limited v. BLU Products, Inc., Case No. 16-
`23535 (S.D. Fla.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Application 13/770,190 (“the ’190
`application”) was filed February 19, 2013 and issued as the ’466 patent, but
`claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the benefit of application 10/983,606 (“the
`’606 application” or “parent application”), filed November 9, 2004, which
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,402,384 B2 (“the ’384 patent” or “parent
`patent”). The ’384 patent is involved in IPR2017-00913.
`
`
`1 The oral hearing included a related proceeding, IPR2017-00913. Paper
`25.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`B. The ’466 Patent
`The ʼ466 patent is directed to a graphical user interface including a
`dynamic bar for displaying preview information on a main screen of the
`graphical user interface. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Each dynamic bar is
`associated with respective one or more interfaces for applications and/or
`functions provided by the apparatus. Id. Each dynamic bar has a pop-up
`interface for providing preview information determined from information
`managed by applications and/or functions and links to invoke respective
`interfaces. Id. Figures 5 and 6 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`Figures 5 and 6 illustrate main screen 300 with dynamic bar 304 and
`
`expansion pop-up interface 602. Id. at 7:51–54, 8:1. Dynamic bar 304
`includes counts of new events 502 (e.g., new voice mail messages, email
`messages, SMS messages, or contacts online with which to chat). Id. at
`7:54–57. Expansion pop-up 602 lists particular services 604 associated with
`dynamic bar 304, such as voice mail, email, SMS, and chat, including an
`iconic representation of service 606 and preview information. Id. at 8:1–5.
`Preview information includes count 608 and link 610 to invoke the
`associated application user interface for the service. Id. at 8:5–7. According
`to the ’466 patent, “[p]review information may thus comprise information
`maintained by the associated applications and/or functions as well as
`information determined from this managed information[].” Id. at 8:7–10.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–26 of the ’466 patent. Claims 1, 14,
`and 22 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
`the claimed subject matter:
`1. A method for displaying preview information, the method
`comprising:
`displaying on a display dynamic preview information
`in a dynamic bar, the dynamic preview information being
`determined from information managed by a software
`application, the dynamic preview information being updated
`to reflect a change to the information managed by the
`software application; and
`expanding the dynamic bar to display an expanded
`dynamic bar in response to a first input, displaying the
`expanded dynamic bar comprising:
`displaying additional dynamic preview information
`determined from the information managed by the software
`application, the additional dynamic preview information
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`being different from the dynamic preview information
`displayed in the dynamic bar;
`the additional dynamic preview information
`comprising a selectable link which when activated, invokes
`the software application.
`Id. at 11:40–58.
`
`D. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial based on all asserted grounds of unpatentability as
`follows (Dec. 24):
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`§ 103(a)3
`Cadiz2
`§ 103(a)
`Cadiz and Hawkins4
`Cadiz and Siedlikowski5 § 103(a)
`Cadiz and Yamadera6
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1, 4, 6, 12–14, 17, 22, and 24
`2, 3, 15, and 23
`7–9, 18, 19, and 25
`5, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, and 26
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0186257 A1, filed June 8,
`2001, published Dec. 12, 2002 (Ex. 1006, “Cadiz”).
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`’466 patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,007,239 B1, issued Feb. 28, 2006 (Ex. 1007,
`“Hawkins”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,741,232 B1, issued May 25, 2004 (Ex. 1008,
`“Siedlikowski”).
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0123368 A1, filed Aug. 20,
`2001, published Sept. 5, 2002 (Ex. 1009, “Yamadera”).
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Olsen, who
`testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least
`an undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or
`equivalent thereof, and at least two years of experience in the relevant field,
`e.g., graphical user interfaces.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`Owner relies on the testimony of Dr. Ligler, who mainly agrees with Dr.
`Olsen’s assessment, but disagrees that the relevant field includes graphical
`user interfaces generally, and instead opines that the relevant field is
`“graphical user interfaces for communication devices, such as cellular
`telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other communication
`devices, particularly those which communicate over a wireless network.”
`PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40–44).
`While we agree with Dr. Ligler’s assessment that the ’466 patent
`describes its invention in the context of graphical user interfaces on
`communication devices (Ex. 2007 ¶ 44), the ’466 patent also describes that
`the mobile station devices with the user interfaces described “may be
`usefully incorporated into other computing devices which may not be mobile
`such as personal computers, workstations, telephone headsets and the like.”
`Ex. 1001, 11:25–30. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art, but note that our analysis would be the same
`under either definition.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear.7 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`
`
`7 We would construe the claim term discussed below the same under Phillips
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`For purposes of this decision, we find it necessary to construe
`“additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link.”
`Each independent claim recites “the additional dynamic preview
`information comprising a selectable link which when activated, invokes the
`software application.” In the Decision on Institution, based on the parties’
`arguments, we preliminarily determined
`that as long as some of the preview information in a display
`window, for example, contains dynamic preview information
`not shown in the dynamic bar, the entirety of the preview
`information may be considered “additional dynamic preview
`information.” Such additional dynamic preview information
`may include information, such as a static link as shown in
`Figures 4 and 6 of the ’466 patent.
`Dec. 10.
`Patent Owner disagrees with that determination and argues that
`additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link
`“requires the ‘additional dynamic preview information’ to be preview
`information that is dynamic and requires the ‘selectable link’ to include such
`dynamic preview information.” PO Resp. 12. Figure 6 from the ’466
`patent, shown below and annotated by Patent Owner, best illustrates Patent
`Owner’s position.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 6 from the ’466 patent, annotated by Patent Owner, illustrates a
`main screen following user action.
`From the above figure, Patent Owner contends that the “‘50 unread’
`selectable link is included in the ‘additional dynamic preview information’
`because the link includes dynamic information (e.g., 50).” PO Resp. 22–23.
`Patent Owner contends that none of the other links, for example the “5 Call
`Voice Mail,” would satisfy the disputed phrase requirement because, even
`though the “5” is dynamic (e.g., because the number of Voice Mail
`changes), it is not part of the link “Call Voice Mail.” Id.; Tr. 51–53.
`Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s construction and contends
`that additional dynamic preview information includes dynamic information,
`but it can also include other types of information such that the “selectable
`link” may or may not include dynamic information. Reply 2. For example,
`with respect to annotated Figure 6 from above, Petitioner argues “the only
`selectable link identified in FIG. 6 and described in the specification is
`selectable link 610 [5 Call Voice Mail], which does not include but is next to
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`dynamic information (i.e., count 608).” Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:1–10,
`Fig. 6). Petitioner argues that selectable link 610 exemplifies “additional
`dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link” because it is the
`only selectable link from Figure 6 that is described in the specification and
`because the additional dynamic preview information in interface 602
`includes dynamic count 608. Id.
`It is necessary for us to construe the phrase because there is a dispute
`about whether the prior art (Cadiz) describes “additional dynamic preview
`information comprising a selectable link.” In particular, Patent Owner
`agrees that Cadiz describes additional dynamic preview information, but
`disagrees that Cadiz describes links that include dynamic information. PO
`Resp. 32–36. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Petitioner’s
`construction and determine that additional dynamic preview information
`includes dynamic information, but can also include other types of
`information such that the “selectable link” may or may not include dynamic
`information.8
`We begin with the plain language of the independent claims. Claim 1
`is representative and recites “the additional dynamic preview information
`comprising a selectable link.” Thus, on its face, the claim states that the
`“additional dynamic preview information compris[es],” or includes, a
`selectable link. The claim does not state that the selectable link includes
`additional dynamic preview information. Patent Owner argues that based on
`the plain language of the claim, “it logically follows that the selectable link
`must also include information that is dynamic.” PO Resp. 15. But Patent
`
`8 This determination is consistent with our preliminary determination. Dec.
`10.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`Owner does not explain its position or how a claim that requires one thing to
`include another thing, means the converse. Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the plain language requires a
`selectable link that includes additional dynamic preview information.
`The phrase “additional dynamic preview information” was added
`during prosecution of the ’466 patent’s parent application, which matured
`into the ’384 patent. Ex. 1005, part 1, 108–111. While the written
`description of the ’466 patent, which is nearly identical to that of the ’384
`patent, describes dynamic preview information, the ’466 patent does not
`describe or use the phrase “additional dynamic preview information.” Both
`parties agree, however, that the description of “dynamic preview
`information” would have informed a person having ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention regarding the understanding of “additional
`dynamic preview information.” PO Resp. 16, n.1; Reply 2.
`The specification of the ’466 patent describes that “dynamic preview
`information need not be limited to a count” and that “the [dynamic preview]
`information may include some details of a recent event” such as “Missed
`call from NNN.” Ex. 1001, 7:60–65. Although the ’466 patent does not
`explicitly define “dynamic” information, the ’466 patent does describe what
`is considered static information by explaining that “[a]n application icon or
`information or text (e.g. name or title) describing the application is
`generally static and as such is not particularly useful for representing
`changing information associated with the application activated by the icon.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:58–62 (emphasis added). To us, information such as “Missed
`call from NNN” falls into the category of including static “information or
`text (e.g., name or title) describing the application” as described in the ’466
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`patent, because such information is not limited to changing information
`associated with the application. This type of information, however, is
`described, along with a dynamic count, as exemplary of “dynamic preview
`information.” Id. at 7:60–65. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner, and
`find that the ’466 patent describes “dynamic preview information” as
`information that can include information that is not dynamic. Reply 2.
`Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why the description of
`“dynamic preview information” in the ’466 patent discussed above supports
`its contentions that the claimed “selectable link” must include dynamic
`preview information. PO Resp. 15–16. It is not enough for Patent Owner to
`merely highlight the passage and conclude that it “describes information that
`is itself dynamic (e.g., counts of new events, information about a missed
`call).” PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:54–67). Patent Owner never
`explains its position on why information such as “Missed call from NNN” is
`dynamic information, but information such as “Call Voice Mail” as shown
`in Figure 6 is not.9 We will not construe terms narrowly without a reasoned
`explanation for doing so.
`We next address Patent Owner’s arguments that the prosecution
`history of the parent ’384 patent supports its construction. Id. at 16–24.
`First and foremost, the claim language in the ’384 patent, added by
`amendment and discussed during prosecution of that patent, is not the same
`as the claim language before us in this case. Patent Owner does not
`
`
`9 During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner indicated that the entire
`content (e.g., each word or symbol) must be dynamic (e.g., changes) in order
`for such information to qualify as “additional dynamic preview
`information.” See, e.g., Tr. 47:24–48:1.
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`sufficiently explain why remarks made regarding the ’384 patent claim
`phrase “a selectable link embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`information” sheds light on the claim language before us, which is “the
`additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link.”
`Indeed, it appears that Patent Owner’s argument that the selectable link
`includes dynamic preview information is premised on the notion that the
`phrase in the ’466 patent is the same as the phrase in the ’384 patent. The
`phrases are not the same, and Patent Owner fails to show why we should
`consider the prosecution history of the ’384 patent when the phrases are
`different. For this reason alone, we are not persuaded that the prosecution
`history of the ’384 patent with respect to a different claim phrase is
`particularly relevant to the meaning of the disputed phrase before us in this
`case. Moreover, we have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
`prosecution history of the ’384 patent, but disagree that the evidence to
`which Patent Owner directs us supports the contention that the claims before
`us should be construed as narrowly as proposed.
`Patent Owner argues that during prosecution of the ’384 patent, it
`amended the claims to overcome a rejection in view of Ögren10 to include
`“displaying a selectable link embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`information to invoke the software application.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex.
`1005, 109) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner argues that it explained that
`the selectable link is embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`information, such that the selectable link may be selected by selecting a
`portion of the additional dynamic preview information, such as by moving a
`
`
`10 EP 1434411 A1, filed Dec. 23, 2002, pub. June 30, 2004 (“Ögren”).
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`cursor over a portion of the dynamic preview information and actuating an
`input device. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005, 114–115). Patent Owner asserts
`that because it was explained during prosecution that the “selectable link” is
`a “portion” of the additional dynamic preview information, the selectable
`link must include dynamic preview information. Id. at 18. Such reasoning
`does not follow from representations made to the Office. Rather, during
`prosecution, Patent Owner explained that the selectable link is a portion of
`the additional dynamic preview information, but did not explain in any way
`what makes up the additional dynamic preview information or that the
`selectable link must itself include additional dynamic preview information as
`Patent Owner now asserts. Ex. 1005, 114–115.
`According to Patent Owner, the Examiner subsequently rejected the
`claims as obvious in view of Ögren and Aaltonen11 and relied on Aaltonen’s
`Figure 22E for the phrase of “displaying a selectable link embedded in the
`additional dynamic preview information to invoke the software application.”
`PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 84–85) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner
`argues that it distinguished Aaltonen by explaining that Aaltonen’s Figure
`22E does not disclose a selectable link embedded in the additional dynamic
`preview information, because Aaltonen’s link is not embedded in the
`additional dynamic preview information. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 70–71).
`Patent Owner argues that it again emphasized that the selectable link may be
`selected by selecting a portion of the additional dynamic preview
`information, such as by moving a cursor over a portion of the dynamic
`preview information and actuating an input device. Id. Patent Owner
`
`11 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0020904 A1, filed July 11,
`2005, pub. Jan. 26, 2006 (“Aaltonen”).
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`asserts that because it was explained during prosecution that the “selectable
`link” is a “portion” of the additional dynamic preview information, the
`selectable link must include dynamic preview information. Id. For similar
`reasons articulated above, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner explained
`in any way that the selectable link must include additional dynamic preview
`information. Ex. 1005, 70–71. Moreover, the argument that Aaltonen does
`not disclose a selectable link “embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`information” was “expressly disclaim[ed]” in an interview summary noting
`the argument that Aaltonen is not prior art. Id. at 63. As we stated in our
`Decision on Institution, we are reluctant to rely on statements expressly
`disclaimed during prosecution and that the Examiner never accepted. Dec.
`8.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the Examiner subsequently rejected the
`claims again as obvious in view of Ögren and Wagner12 and relied on
`Wagner to meet “displaying a selectable link embedded in the additional
`dynamic preview information to invoke the software application.” PO Resp.
`19 (citing Ex. 1005, 48–50). Patent Owner argues that it again emphasized
`that the selectable link may be selected by selecting a portion of the
`additional dynamic preview information, such as by moving a cursor over a
`portion of the dynamic preview information and actuating an input device.
`Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005, 39). Patent Owner asserts that because it was
`explained during prosecution that the “selectable link” is a “portion” of the
`additional dynamic preview information, the selectable link must include
`dynamic preview information. Id. For similar reasons articulated above, we
`
`12 U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0155908 A1, filed June 20, 2003, pub. Aug.
`12, 2004 (“Wagner”).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`are not persuaded that Patent Owner explained in any way that the selectable
`link must include additional dynamic preview information. Ex. 1005, 39.
`Patent Owner also argues that during an interview with the Examiner,
`the Patent Owner and Examiner agreed that presentation of static icons in,
`for example, a dynamic bar was distinct from presentation of dynamic
`preview information in a dynamic bar. PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 62).
`That “agreement” was with respect to information in a dynamic bar, and not
`in an expanded dynamic bar, and, therefore Patent Owner’s arguments are
`not commensurate in scope with the disputed phrase. Moreover, such
`agreement does not mean, necessarily, that dynamic information cannot
`include a static link or icon, along with dynamic information beside it.
`Patent Owner did not explain in any way that the selectable link must
`include additional dynamic preview information, even if the selectable link
`is part of or next to the dynamic information as Patent Owner now asserts.
`Ex. 1005, 62.
`In summary, Patent Owner’s arguments based on the prosecution
`history of the ’384 patent do not persuade us that “additional dynamic
`preview information comprising a selectable link” must be interpreted as
`narrowly as Patent Owner suggests for the reasons above. Patent Owner
`fails to explain sufficiently why the representations made before the Office
`demonstrate that Patent Owner disclaimed or disavowed a link and dynamic
`information next to the link as “additional dynamic preview information.”
`As explained above, the prosecution history on this point is equivocal, and
`does not persuade us of a clear and unmistakable disavowal or disclaimer of
`the scope of the term “additional dynamic preview information comprising a
`selectable link” to exclude information, such as an icon or link next to
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`dynamic descriptive information. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334
`F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`We do, however, find the prosecution history sheds light on what
`Patent Owner relied on from the specification of the ’384 patent to provide
`written description support for the “selectable link embedded in the
`additional dynamic preview information.” According to statements made
`during prosecution, support for “a selectable link embedded in the additional
`dynamic preview information” is found in Figures 4 and 6 (same Figures 4
`and 6 in the ’466 patent and the ’384 patent) and paragraphs in the original
`specification of the parent application and involved application that
`correspond to the same paragraphs in the ’466 patent. See Ex. 1001, 7:20–
`28, 7:51–8:10; see also Ex. 1005, 114–15. In particular, the prosecution
`history includes the following statement:
`Claim 28 describes the expanded dynamic bar including
`additional dynamic preview information and “a selectable link
`embedded in the additional dynamic preview information to
`invoke the software application”. This is shown, for example,
`in FIGS. 4 and 6 of the present application, and described in
`paragraphs [0046] and [0048]. A person skilled in the art
`would understand that a “selectable link” is a portion of the
`display, often text, that a user can select, for example by
`positioning a cursor over the link and actuating an input device,
`such as a mouse button or a clickable trackball switch. This
`selectable link is embedded in the additional dynamic preview
`information of the expanded dynamic bar. That is, the
`selectable link may be selected by selecting a portion of the
`additional dynamic preview information, such as by moving a
`cursor over a portion of the dynamic preview information and
`actuating an input device.
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 114–115 (emphases added).
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`We do not discern from the prosecution history a clear disavowal or
`disclaimer of the scope of the term “additional dynamic preview
`information” to exclude a link, for example, that is next to dynamic
`information, especially in light of the above passage. Based on the above
`passage, referring to the same Figures 4 and 6 in this case, a static link that is
`next to dynamic information would all be considered part of “additional
`dynamic preview information.” This is shown in Figure 6 reproduced
`above, for example, where the seemingly static “call voice mail” link is next
`to dynamic information “5.”
`Patent Owner does not address the above statement from the
`prosecution history, but rather argues that Figures 4 and 6 and the
`specification explaining those figures supports its construction. PO Resp.
`21–23. Figure 6 is shown above, and Figure 4, annotated by Patent Owner,
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 from the ’466 patent, annotated by Patent Owner, illustrates a
`main screen following user action.
`With respect to Figure 4, Patent Owner argues that “the displayed
`unread messages 404 / recent new emails 406 make up the additional
`dynamic preview information of expanded drop down 407 and that the
`additional dynamic preview information ‘compris[es]’ a ‘selectable link’
`because the link (e.g., the list) includes dynamic information (e.g., unread
`messages 404 / recent new emails 406).” Id. at 22–23 (footnote omitted).
`The Specification, however, describes the list, what Patent Owner argues is
`the link, as the “recent emails,” which a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood means what is seen in 407. Ex. 1001, 7:40–48.
`The list or link contains static information, in that it is not changing, even
`though the list is beside or part of the dynamic preview information seen in
`404. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument with
`respect to Figure 4, because it is not consistent with the actual written
`description in the specification. Moreover, Patent Owner’s arguments that
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`the highlighted portion seen above in reproduced Figure 4 (“From: Jack |
`Subject: Help me!”) is dynamic (PO Resp. 22, n.4) have not been explained
`and would appear to be inconsistent with Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding Figure 6.
`With respect to Figure 6, Patent Owner argues that the “50 unread” is
`the only link that meets the disputed phrase because the link includes
`dynamic information (e.g., 50). Id. at 23. The specification, however,
`describes in detail link 610 as exemplary of the type of link found in the
`expansion pop-up 602. Ex. 1001, 8:1–7. There is no discussion of the “50
`unread” link as representative of the claimed invention. We find that the
`only described link, link 610, along with element 608, provide support for
`the disputed phrase, because the combination of the two (e.g., “5 Call Voice
`Mail”) is “additional dynamic information” that includes a selectable link
`(“Call Voice Mail”). We also have considered the testimony of Dr. Ligler,
`to which we are directed. See Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 45–49. His brief testimony on
`the matter does not assist us much at all and is based on the same flawed
`premises we have addressed already. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 ¶ 49 (“[I]t would
`seem logically to follow that the ‘selectable link’ must itself contain
`dynamic preview information.”).
`For all of the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s arguments that “additional dynamic preview information
`comprising a selectable link” requires the additional dynamic preview
`information to be preview information that is dynamic and requires the
`selectable link to include such dynamic preview information. PO Resp. 12.
`Based on the record before us, “additional dynamic preview information
`comprising a selectable link” means that additional dynamic preview
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00914
`Patent 8,713,466 B2
`
`information includes dynamic information, but it can also include other
`types of information such that the “selectable link” may or may not include
`dynamic information.
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Cadiz
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 4, 6, 12–14, 17, 22, and 24 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cadiz. Pet. 4–43. In
`support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Olsen.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`1. Cadiz
`Cadiz describes a system and method of providing peripheral
`awareness of information to a user. Ex. 1006, Abstract. The method
`automatically and dynamically provides current information in an interactive
`peripheral display utilizing a customizable dynamic object, or “ticket,”
`paired with a “viewer.” Id. Each ticket is represented by a data structure
`such as an XML data file and inc

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket