`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ARRIS ENTERPRISES LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,107,532
`Filing Date: May 3, 2002
`Issue Date: September 12, 2006
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FOCUSED NAVIGATION WITHIN A
`USER INTERFACE
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01803
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DAN R. OLSEN JR., PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,107,532
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 113
`
`SONY EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 4
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 4
`V.
`STATE OF TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 5
`VI. THE ’532 PATENT ...................................................................................... 12
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ........................................................................... 12
`B. Overview of the ’532 Patent ................................................................ 12
`C.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 13
`D.
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 14
`E.
`Claim 50 .............................................................................................. 16
`F.
`Claim 52 .............................................................................................. 17
`VII. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 18
`A. Anticipation ......................................................................................... 18
`B. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 18
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................................... 22
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 22
`A.
`“visual card” (Claims 1, 26, 50, and 52) ............................................. 23
`B.
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a first sequence of
`visual cards …” (Claim 52) ................................................................. 24
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a second sequence
`of visual cards …” (Claim 52) ............................................................ 25
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`X. CLAIMS 1-53 OF THE ’532 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE PRIOR ART ........................................................................... 26
`A. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 26
`1.
`Törnqvist ................................................................................... 26
`2.
`Bergsten .................................................................................... 30
`3.
`Kazamaki .................................................................................. 32
`4.
`LaJoie ........................................................................................ 34
`5.
`Sciammarella ............................................................................. 35
`B. Ground 1: The combination of Törnqvist and Bergsten renders
`obvious claims 1-11, 16-20, 24, 26-36, 41-45, and 50-53. ................. 36
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 36
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 49
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 52
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 54
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 54
`7.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 55
`8.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 55
`9.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 56
`10. Claim 10 .................................................................................... 57
`11. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 57
`12. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 57
`13. Claim 17 .................................................................................... 58
`14. Claim 18 .................................................................................... 58
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`15. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 59
`16. Claim 20 .................................................................................... 61
`17. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 62
`18. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 62
`19. Claims 27-36, and 41-45 ........................................................... 67
`20. Claim 50 .................................................................................... 70
`21. Claim 51 .................................................................................... 76
`22. Claim 52 .................................................................................... 77
`23. Claim 53 .................................................................................... 81
`C. Ground 2: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and
`Kazamaki renders obvious claims 3, 4, 25, 28, 29, and 49. ................ 81
`1.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 82
`2.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 83
`3.
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 84
`4.
`Claims 28, 29, and 49 ............................................................... 85
`D. Ground 3: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and LaJoie
`renders obvious claims 12-15, 23, 37-40, and 48. .............................. 86
`1.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 86
`2.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 88
`3.
`Claims 14 and 15....................................................................... 90
`4.
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 91
`5.
`Claims 37-40 and 48 ................................................................. 92
`Ground 4: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and
`Sciammarella renders obvious claims 21, 22, 46, and 47. .................. 94
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`Claims 21 and 22....................................................................... 95
`Claims 46 and 47....................................................................... 96
`2.
`XI. EXHIBITS 1011 AND 1014 TO 1021 ........................................................ 96
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 99
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Sony
`
`Corporation (“Sony” or “Petitioner”) in connection with a petition for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,107,532 (“the ’532 patent”),1 which I understand is
`
`being submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office by Sony.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been retained as a technical expert by Sony to
`
`study and provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability
`
`or unpatentability of, claims 1-53 of the ’532 patent (“the Challenged Claims”).
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I was not asked to provide any opinions that are
`
`not expressed herein.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`usual and customary rate of $500.00 per hour plus travel expenses. My
`
`compensation is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my
`
`analysis or on the outcome of this matter, and in no way affects the substance of
`
`my statements in this declaration.
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’532 patent is Exhibit 1001 to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner, Sony, or any of its
`
`subsidiaries. I also have no financial interest in the Patent Owner, ARRIS
`
`Enterprises LLC. I do not have any financial interest in the ’532 patent and have
`
`not had any contact with the named inventors of the ’532 patent, James A.
`
`Billmaier, John M. Kellum, Anthony. F. Istvan, Dewey M. Reid, and Philip A.
`
`Rogan.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I am currently the CEO of a software startup in educational
`
`technology (SparxTeq, Inc). I hold a doctorate in Computing and Information from
`
`the University of Pennsylvania.
`
`6.
`
`I have more than 35 years of experience in computer science and
`
`human-computer interaction (HCI), and have authored over 70 papers in the field
`
`of computer science. The topics on which I have published papers include user
`
`interface management systems, syntactic representations of user interfaces, multi-
`
`user interaction across networks, induction of interaction behavior from pictures,
`
`novel interaction techniques using speech and laser pointers, interactive machine
`
`learning, interactive robotics, and interactive television. I have authored 3
`
`textbooks on the techniques of software design for human-computer interaction. I
`
`currently hold 4 patents in human-computer interaction.
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`For 3 1/2 years I was an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at
`
`Arizona State University. I then served for 30 years on the faculty of Brigham
`
`Young University (BYU), retiring as a full professor in 2015. During that time at
`
`BYU, I also served as the chair of the Department of Computer Science. I took
`
`leave from BYU in 1996 to become the founding director of the Human Computer
`
`Interaction Institute in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon
`
`University. I returned to BYU in 1998.
`
`8.
`
`I have had extensive involvement in professional societies, such as the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the premiere society in computing.
`
`I have served in many offices of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer
`
`Human Interaction (SIGCHI) and currently serve as its vice president of
`
`operations. I have been conference chair of CHI, which is the premier conference
`
`in Computer Human Interaction. I was the founding editor of ACM’s Transactions
`
`on Computer Human Interaction. I was a co-founder and active leader for the
`
`conference on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) for the past 29
`
`years. I have also served at the governor’s request on the Utah Science,
`
`Technology and Research (USTAR) board, which oversees and funds state
`
`economic development efforts in technology.
`
`9.
`
`I twice received best paper awards in intelligent user interfaces. In
`
`2004, I was appointed to the CHI Academy for international excellence in
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`Computer Human Interaction research. In 2007, I was recognized as an ACM
`
`Fellow for research in computer science and in 2012 received the CHI Lifetime
`
`Research Award, which is the highest award in Computer Human Interaction.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that a copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a
`
`more detailed summary of my background, experience, and publications, is
`
`provided as Appendix A.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`11.
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed and relied upon the materials
`
`cited in this declaration, as well as those listed in the attached Appendix B. In
`
`addition to these materials, I may consider additional documents and information
`
`in forming any supplemental opinions. To the extent I am provided additional
`
`documents or information, including any expert declarations in this proceeding, I
`
`may offer further opinions.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`12. This declaration is directed to the Challenged Claims of the ’532
`
`patent, and sets forth the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached,
`
`and the bases for each.
`
`13. Based on my experience, knowledge of the art as of the effective
`
`filing date of the ’532 patent, analysis of prior art references, and the understanding
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had of the claim terms in light of
`
`4
`
`Page 9 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`the specification as of the effective filing date, it is my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’532 patent are each unpatentable as being either anticipated by or
`
`obvious over one or more of the prior art references discussed below. In forming
`
`my opinions, counsel for Sony told me to assume the effective filing date of the
`
`’532 patent is August 29, 2001.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF TECHNOLOGY
`14. Graphical user interfaces have a long history before the ’532 patent.
`
`The field is widely believed to have begun in 1963 with the advent of Ivan
`
`Sutherland’s Sketchpad system. This system was interactive and graphical, but
`
`very unlike the personal computers that were familiar in 2001.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`15. Personal computing with a graphical user interface became
`
`mainstream with the introduction of the Apple Macintosh in 1984, however, Apple
`
`was not the first to introduce these ideas. The Xerox Star developed at Xerox
`
`PARC was the basis for many of the ideas in the Macintosh user interface. Ex-
`
`1014. The X Window system, which standardized many earlier concepts, was also
`
`released in 1984. Ex-1021. Microsoft’s Windows operating system took off with
`
`Windows 3.0 in 1990. Ex-1018. Windows borrowed many user interface ideas
`
`from the Macintosh and also the Xerox Star. All of these technologies existed
`
`approximately a decade before the first filing of the ’532 patent. These systems,
`
`and in particular the Macintosh system, given its widespread adoption, would have
`
`been well known to anyone of ordinary skill in the art in 2001.
`
`16.
`
`Inside Macintosh, published in 1985, clearly documented the behavior
`
`of the Macintosh and other systems like it. It told programmers exactly how to
`
`program the various features of Macintosh graphical user interfaces. Ex-1011. This
`
`clearly laid out the behavior of widely known user interfaces at the time.
`
`17. Human Computer Interaction has a long history in the academic and
`
`research community as well. Sketchpad was a research rather than commercial
`
`product. In 1973 Newman & Sproull published their landmark textbook from
`
`which a generation of computer science students learned computer graphics. Ex-
`
`1019. Out of 28 chapters, 5 are devoted to interactive systems. The concepts of
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`windowing transformations (the basis for scrolling) and dragging as well as the use
`
`of buttons and a mouse were all covered in this text. Virtually everyone educated
`
`in interactive systems in the 70’s and 80’s would have learned from this book.
`
`18.
`
`In 1990 the Foley and van Dam supplanted Newman & Sproull by
`
`incorporating an additional two decades of development. Ex-1015. The Foley and
`
`van Dam text enjoyed a similar dominance until into the mid 1990’s when a
`
`variety of new texts were published. Foley and van Dam more completely describe
`
`scrolling of lists, window/viewport transformation, and interactive behavior when
`
`moving the window in world coordinates. See Ex-1015, pp. 210-212, and 365.
`
`19.
`
`In 1974, the 1st Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and
`
`Interactive Techniques (now known as SIGGRAPH) was held in Boulder,
`
`Colorado. This conference has run continuously ever since. In 1982 the ACM
`
`Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (now known as CHI) was
`
`first held in Boston in 1983 and has run continuously ever since. In 1988 the first
`
`User Interface Software and Technology conference was held in Banff, Alberta. In
`
`addition, there were key academic journals such as ACM Transactions on Graphics
`
`(TOG founded 1982) and ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction
`
`(TOCHI founded 1994). In 2001 there was already a very deep and rich literature
`
`on graphical user interfaces. By 2001, graphical user interfaces were no longer
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`novel and, as will be shown, the interactive techniques described in the ’532
`
`already existed.
`
`20.
`
`Indeed, in the years leading up to 2001 the field of human computer
`
`interaction and interactive software became a discipline in its own right. In 1994
`
`Carnegie-Mellon University founded the Human Computer Interaction Institute
`
`and soon began offering B.S., M.S. and PhD degrees in Human Computer
`
`Interaction. Georgia Tech founded its Graphics, Visualization, and Usability
`
`Center with its own degree programs. Similar programs sprang up at UC Berkley,
`
`University of Washington, and University of Michigan. The text Developing User
`
`Interfaces was published in 1998 and is representative of many texts published at
`
`the time. Ex-1020.
`
`21. A term appearing numerous times in the claims of the ’532 is “visual
`
`card.” A visual card was not a common term in 2001, but we can surmise a
`
`definition from the ’532 specification, which in essence indicates a visual card is a
`
`visually presented object or data structure. See Ex-1001, 3:28-4:14. The mapping
`
`of a data structure to a graphical representation is as old as computer graphics and
`
`has been described in foundational texts such as Newman & Sproull.
`
`22.
`
`In terms of its software architecture, a visual card is an instance of the
`
`Model View Controller pattern described in SmallTalk-80. Ex-1016. Model View
`
`Controller is also described in Olsen. Ex-1020. The display of graphical
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`representation in a small rectangular area was also well known. It is described in
`
`Newman & Sproull under the name viewport but appears again in X Windows,
`
`Microsoft Windows, and the Macintosh, as the term window. In all cases the usage
`
`is the same as visual card in the ’532 specification.
`
`23. Visual cards in the ’532 patent are arranged into sequences. A
`
`sequence is an ordered list of objects and can be represented as an array, a list, or a
`
`variety of other data structures. The sequence diagrams in Figures 3-9 and 11 are
`
`like the circular list diagrams from one of computer science’s most venerable data
`
`structures book “The Art of Computer Programming” (published 1973). Ex-1017.
`
`Scrolling display of lists are found in Inside Macintosh, and Foley & van Dam. See
`
`Ex-1011, p. I-56; and Ex-1015, p. 365. Therefore, lists of visual cards were well
`
`known in 2001.
`
`24. Scrolling of sequences, as in claim 1 of the ’532 patent, was not at all
`
`novel in 2001. The Macintosh showed scrolling from the beginning, and scrolling
`
`was specifically defined for the window (i.e., a graphical representation on the
`
`screen) to remain fixed (i.e., fixed focus) with the underlying data moving, just as
`
`in the ’532 patent. Scrolling of lists of things in particular was not novel, nor was
`
`scrolling a sequence along an axis. Virtually all instances of scrolling in the
`
`decades prior to 2001 were along an axis, the most common technique by far. And,
`
`scrolling of two sequences along perpendicular axes is shown repeatedly in the
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`prosecution history as well as the specific items of art described below, like
`
`Törnqvist, Bergsten, and Kazamaki.
`
`25.
`
`In claim 2, scrolling/selection in one sequence changes the sequence
`
`being used in the other axis. The use of one sequence to control or select other
`
`sequences was not new in 2001. It is described, for example, in the Microsoft
`
`Windows Guide to Programming. See Ex-1018. Similarly, claim 18 describes one
`
`sequence being selected by another sequence. This is exactly the concept shown in
`
`cascading menus, found on virtually every personal computer in existence in 2001.
`
`26. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 25 all describe well known scrolling
`
`behaviors. Clicking a button (single user action), releasing a button (user action)
`
`and holding down a button (continuous action) were all introduced into scrolling at
`
`the very beginning of personal computing. Inside Macintosh describes exactly
`
`these behaviors. See Ex-1011, pp. I-36 and I-313. Anyone who had used a personal
`
`computer would have understood them.
`
`27. Claims 5-8, 12-15, 20, and 21 all describe specific images related to
`
`interactive television. The fact that these are television-related images does not
`
`change the implementation of these techniques in any way. There is nothing in the
`
`’532 specification that describes why television imagery is novel in some way
`
`relative to the thousands, if not millions, of images that had been scrolled across
`
`personal computer screens by 2001. In fact none of the television specific aspects
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`of these claims offer anything novel over the following figure of a common
`
`television schedule found in virtually every newspaper of the time. The table at the
`
`bottom shows many sequences of information arranged in perpendicular axes
`
`containing imagery about television broadcasts, channels and times. This was old
`
`technology in 1990.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`28.
`
`In view of this background of the technology for graphical user
`
`interfaces, the purported inventions in the claims of the ’532 patent were not new
`
`or inventive to a person of ordinary skill in the art, which I discuss further below.
`
`VI. THE ’532 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date
`29. The cover of the ’532 patent states it was filed on May 3, 2002, and
`
`claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/315,731 filed August 29,
`
`2001, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/317,612 filed September 6, 2001, and
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/324,997 filed September 26, 2001. I have
`
`been advised to use August 29, 2001 as the “effective” filing date for the purposes
`
`of my analysis of the ’532 patent and assume that the timeframe for the alleged
`
`invention of the ’532 patent is on or around August 29, 2001. However, I have not
`
`analyzed whether the claims of the ’532 patent are supported by the applications
`
`filed on May 3, 2002, August 29, 2001, September 6, 2001, and September 26,
`
`2001, or whether any claim of the ’532 patent is entitled to that priority date.
`
`B. Overview of the ’532 Patent
`30. The ’532 patent discloses a method for navigating a GUI, where a
`
`sequence of cards is stored that represents options in an interactive television
`
`system (ITV). Ex-1001, Abstract, 2:36-40. The GUI visually displays cards from a
`
`horizontal sequence or a vertical sequence, allowing a user to select one of the
`
`cards by horizontally or vertically scrolling cards from either of the sequences into
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`a “focus area.” Id., 4:31-39. For example, as shown in Figure 9 of the ’532 patent,
`
`a user may press a “Left” or “Right” button to move a card in a horizontal
`
`sequence into the focus area for selection. Id., 11:51-54. Or, a user may press an
`
`“Up” or “Down” button to move a card in a vertical sequence into the focus area
`
`for selection. Id., 11:47-51.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand Sony challenges all claims, i.e., claims 1-53, of the ’532
`
`patent here. For convenience, claims 1, 26, 50, and 52 are independent and
`
`reproduced below with an index key (e.g., 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1) for each claim element.
`
`C. Claim 1
`[1.0] A method for navigation of a plurality of
`options within a user interface, the method comprising:
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`[1.1] scrolling only visual cards from a first
`sequence of visual cards representing a first type of
`option through a spatially-fixed focus area of the user
`interface,
`[1.1.1] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a first
`axis;
`
`[1.2] enabling scrolling of a particular visual card
`of the first sequence of visual cards into the focus area;
`and
`
`[1.3] scrolling only visual cards from a second
`sequence of visual cards representing a second type of
`option through the focus area,
`[1.3.1] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`second axis,
`[1.3.2] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`first and second sequences are scrolled into the focus area
`from perpendicular directions,
`[1.3.3] and wherein no visual card of the first
`sequence is also included in the second sequence.
`D. Claim 26
`[26.0] A system for focused navigation of a
`plurality of options within a user interface, the system
`comprising:
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`[26.1] a user input detector configured to detect
`actions of a user; and
`[26.2] a processor configured to scroll only visual
`cards from a first sequence of visual cards through a
`spatially-fixed focus area of the user interface in response
`to a first user command,
`[26.3] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence correspond to a first type of option and are both
`aligned with and scrolled along a first axis,
`[26.4] wherein the processor is further configured
`to enable scrolling by a user of a particular visual card of
`the first sequence of visual cards into the focus area,
`[26.5] wherein the processor is further configured
`to only scroll visual cards from a second sequence of
`visual cards through the focus area in response to a
`second user command,
`[26.6] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence of visual cards correspond to a second type of
`option and are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`second axis,
`[26.7] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`first and second sequences are scrolled in perpendicular
`directions,
`[26.8] and wherein the first and second sequences
`do not have any visual cards in common.
`
`15
`
`Page 20 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`E. Claim 50
`[50.0] A method for navigation of a plurality of
`options within a user interface of an interactive television
`system, the method comprising:
`[50.1] horizontally scrolling a first sequence of
`visual cards through a spatially-fixed focus area of the
`user interface,
`[50.1.1] the visual cards of the first sequence of
`visual cards representing applications within the
`interactive television system,
`[50.1.2] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`horizontal axis intersecting the focus area; and
`[50.2] in response to a user horizontally scrolling a
`particular visual card of the first sequence of visual cards
`corresponding to a television application into the focus
`area, enabling vertically scrolling of a second sequence
`of visual cards through the focus area,
`[50.2.1] the visual cards of the second sequence of
`visual cards representing a television programs,
`[50.2.2] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along
`vertical axis intersecting the focus area, and
`[50.2.3] wherein vertical scrolling of the second
`sequence does not affect visual cards of the first sequence
`outside of the focus area,
`
`16
`
`Page 21 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`[50.2.4] wherein no visual card of the first
`sequence is also included in the second sequence.
`F. Claim 52
`[52.0] A system for focused navigation of a
`plurality of options within a user interface, the system
`comprising:
`[52.1] means for scrolling only visual cards from a
`first sequence of visual cards through a horizontally and
`vertically fixed focus area along a first axis of the user
`interface to which the first sequence of visual cards is
`aligned,
`[52.1.1] each visual card of the first sequence
`corresponding to a first type of option; and
`[52.2] means for scrolling only visual cards from a
`second sequence of visual cards through the focus area
`along a second axis of the user interface to which the
`second sequence of visual cards is aligned,
`[52.2.1] each visual card of the second sequence
`corresponding to a second type of option,
`[52.3] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`first and second sequences are scrolled in perpendicular
`directions,
`[52.4] wherein no visual card of the first sequence
`is also included in the second sequence.
`
`
`17
`
`Page 22 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. LEGAL STANDARDS
`32.
`I understand the following legal principles apply to the analysis of
`
`patentability based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. I also understand that, in an inter
`
`partes review proceeding, a patent claim may be deemed unpatentable if it is
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was anticipated by a prior
`
`art patent or publication under § 102 and/or rendered obvious by one or more prior
`
`art patents or publications under § 103.
`
`A. Anticipation
`33.
`I understand that for a claim to be anticipated under § 102, every
`
`limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`34.
`I understand that under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), “[a] patent may not be
`
`obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth
`
`in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`
`35. When considering the issues of obviousness, I understand that I am to
`
`do the following:
`
`a.
`
`Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`18
`
`Page 23 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`alleged invention. Counsel for Sony instructed me to assume that the alleged
`
`invention date for the Challenged Claims is August 29, 2001.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a reference may be modified or combined with other
`
`references or with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge if the person
`
`would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also been told
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the relevant prior
`
`art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`38.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference could have been
`
`combined with another prior art reference or other information known to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, I understand that the following principles may be
`
`considered:
`
`19
`
`Page 24 of 113
`
`

`

`
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`b. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods in
`
`the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`e. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle;