Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: May 10, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 12, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: May 10, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., D/B/A GWEE,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 12, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ALI R. SHARIFAHMADIAN, ESQ.
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group, P.C.
`2150 N. First Street
`San Jose, CA 95131
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April 12,
`2022, commencing at 9:00 a.m., EDT, by video.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning everyone. This is a
`
`consolidated hearing for IPRs 2021-00335, 336, 337 and 338
`between Petitioner Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics
`America and Patent Owner GUI Global Products. I am Judge
`Medley and with me are Judges Jurgovan and McShane. At this
`time we'd like the parties to please introduce themselves for the
`record beginning with Petitioner, please.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Good morning, Your Honors.
`This is Ali Sharifahmadian representing Petitioner Samsung
`Electronics Company Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you, and you'll be presenting
`
`today?
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Anybody else with you?
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Not officially. There might be
`people observing but not in the hearing room.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And then for Patent
`Owner?
`
`MR. EDMONDS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`John Edmonds.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning. And you'll be
`presenting? Sorry, Mr. Edmonds, I can't hear you. I think you're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`muted.
`(Pause.)
`
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Mr. Edmonds, I think you're muted or
`something's wrong with your audio.
`
`TECHNICAL STAFF: Mr. Edmonds, it looks like you're
`still muted.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Are you able to hear me, Your Honors? This
`is Tarek Fahmi.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`
`MR. FAHMI: Mr. Edmonds and I are in the same room.
`We're here on behalf of Patent Owner GUI Global Products
`Limited.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And who will be
`presenting for you?
`
`MR. FAHMI: I will, Your Honor, Tarek Fahmi.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay, thanks. All right. Thank you. I
`would like to remind the parties that this hearing is open to the
`public and the resulting transcript will be available to the public.
`Each party has 90 minutes total time to present arguments.
`Petitioner, you'll proceed first and you may reserve some of your
`argument time to respond to arguments presented by Patent
`Owner. Thereafter Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's
`presentation and may reserve argument time for surrebuttal.
`Counsel for Petitioner, do you wish to reserve some of your time
`to respond?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor, 30 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thirty minutes. Okay. Thank you.
`
`And Patent Owner, do you wish to reserve time?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes. We'll reserve also 30 minutes please,
`Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. And just one minute.
`I'm going to set my clock. And we'll likely take a break after
`Petitioner presents for their first shot, so Petitioner when you're
`ready you may begin.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. May
`it please the Board. The four patents that are the subject of this
`morning's hearing share a common specification. They each
`have one independent claim and a number of dependent claims
`and the claims share a great deal of a number of common
`elements as well and before getting into the grounds I think it'll
`be useful to explain some key differences between the claims of
`the '020 patent, particularly claim 1 of the '020 patent and I'm
`referring here to slide 7 of Petitioner's presentation and the
`independent claims of the other three patents. For the purposes
`of the discussion I have here on this slide claim 1 of the '020
`patent and claim 1 of the '021 patent and the other two patents,
`the '077 and the '320 their independent claims are similar to the
`'021 patent in a great deal of respects.
`So each of the independent claims is directed to a system
`having a portable switching device and a portable electronic
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`device that are configured to selectively couple to each other.
`Each of the claims recite that the switching device has a first
`case and that the electronic device has a second case. Each of
`the claims recite that the electronic device comprises at least one
`element selected from the group consisting of a number of
`different shapes that are configured to correspond to
`complementary surface elements on the switching device and
`each of the claims recite that the portable switching device is
`configured to activate, deactivate or send into hibernation the
`portable electronic device.
`Where the differences come in is that the claim 1 of the
`'020 patent recites a magnet that's disposed within the switching
`device whereas the other three patents recite a magnet that is
`disposed within the electronic device. A second difference is
`that claim 1 of the '020 patent states that when coupled the
`second case functions to protect the first case. So in claim 1 the
`case of the electronic device functions to protect the case of the
`switching device whereas in the other three -- excuse me, in the
`other three patents when coupled the first case functions to
`protect the second case.
`In other words, the case of the switching device functions
`to protect the case of the electronic device and where this comes
`into play is the manner in which the Kim reference, which is the
`primary reference on which all the grounds are based, maps on to
`the claims and for purposes of reference, and we'll get into this a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`little bit more during the discussion, in the '020 patent Kim's
`main device maps to the electronic device and Kim's sub-device
`maps to the switching device. Whereas, with respect to the other
`three patents, the '021, '320 and '077 Kim's main device maps to
`the switching device and Kim's sub-device maps to the electronic
`device.
`JUDGE MCSHANE: Counsel, and I apologize for jumping
`into the merits early, but I couldn't find a better place in your
`slide deck for this question. But in Kim, okay, as to the first
`case, okay, and let's assume that the mapping is going to be --
`the first case is going to be the main device, right, and so let's
`assume that mapping. So, there the first case in Kim would be
`the covering I think is what you say, but the first case would be
`the covering of 100a and 100b, I'm breaking up (indiscernible),
`thank you.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Any time, Your Honor, please.
`So as I say Kim is the primary reference on which all of the
`grounds are based and Kim is directed to a mobile terminal
`which is comprised of a main device and a sub- device and Kim
`describes various physical embodiments of how -- of the forms
`that the main device and the sub-device can take as well as
`discusses in great detail how the two devices function, how they
`interrelate to each other, how one may influence the state and
`operation of the other and with reference to slide 10 Kim
`discloses five main physical embodiments of its mobile terminal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`Particularly there is a folder-type embodiment, a slide-type
`embodiment, a bar-type embodiment, a swivel-type embodiment
`and a watch-type embodiment.
`Now, the grounds that Petitioners have presented focus on
`the watch-type embodiment, what Kim discloses about that
`embodiment as well as what would have been obvious to a
`POSITA, modifications that would have been obvious to a
`POSITA to make to the watch-type embodiment in view of Kim's
`other disclosures, particularly with respect to the folder type
`embodiment shown in figures 11B and 11E.
`I'm on slide 16 now but before I get to what's shown in
`slide 16 itself I wanted to describe briefly what Kim says about
`the watch-type embodiment. Particularly in paragraph 256 of
`Kim which is Exhibit 1010, Kim describes a watch-type
`embodiment that is comprised in part of a first body 100a, a
`second body 100b and these two bodies are connected to each
`other via hinge 100d in a manner so that they can be opened and
`closed in a folding type relationship to each other.
`Kim also describes that a third body which it refers to as a
`sub-device can be selectively coupled or decoupled to the watch-
`type embodiment, the main device of the watch- type embodiment
`and particularly it has a very broad disclosure of how this
`coupling can occur and that's in paragraph 260 of Kim which is
`on slide 16 here and it states specifically,
`"A method of coupling the third body, (i.e., the sub-device)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`is coupled to one of the first and second bodies in a state that the
`first and second bodies are coupled will now be described."
`And I apologize, Your Honors, I forgot to ask. Would you
`like me to share the slides on the screen with you or prefer to
`follow along?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: This is fine as long as you just keep
`mentioning for the record which slide you're on, so when we go
`back to the transcript we can see the slide corresponding to the
`transcription.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Okay. I'll put them up just in
`case but I'll be sure to mention the slide that I'm on as we go
`along. Okay. So returning to paragraph 260. The disclosure is
`very broad. Kim explicitly states that the first -- that the sub-
`device can be coupled to either the first or the second body.
`Now, Kim doesn't show what -- in the figures doesn't show every
`permutation of what it explicitly describes in the specification
`and what Petitioner's figure A is is an illustration in schematic
`form of what Kim describes in words in paragraph 260, and that's
`what's shown here in slide 16. So that the sub-device is shown
`collectively coupled to the interior of the second body of Kim's
`main device watch-type embodiment main device. Now, again,
`this is an illustration, a schematic illustration of using Kim's own
`figures, particularly figure 15A of what Kim describes in words.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So I have a question, a couple of
`questions here on this figure. It seems to me that in the petition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`the argument is that Kim describes this figure A, right? And, to
`the extent that it doesn't, it would have been obvious based on
`the folder-type device embodiments. So getting to the first
`position it seems like there's a lot of arguments back and forth
`between the parties as to what figure 15B shows in Kim with
`respect to your position that the sub-device 300 is underneath the
`portion 100b whereas Patent Owner argues that it can only be on
`top of 100b. Is this sounding familiar?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Yes, Your Honor, it is.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I think that the reason that
`you interpret your figure A this way comes down to paragraph
`261 in Kim which says, and we don't have a figure -- we don't
`have 15B I don't believe in your slide set -- but it's a little
`ambiguous because 15B shows 100a and then it shows the sub-
`device on top of 100a even though it says, hey, this is an
`embodiment where we're putting the sub-device on the second
`body; correct?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: There's arguably a little bit of
`ambiguity in that regard, Your Honor, but we submit that a
`person of ordinary skill reviewing Kim in its entirety, particular
`figure 15B, would recognize that the intent of figure 15B was to
`actually illustrate the coupling mechanisms that could be used to
`couple the sub-device to the main device, particularly the
`coupling mechanisms 510 as distinguished, for example, from the
`other type of coupling mechanisms, the etch-type device or the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`other things shown in 15C or D.
`The point (audio interference) understood by a POSITA is
`not to limit where the sub-device is coupled so much as to
`demonstrate and provide additional detail regarding coupling
`mechanisms 510 and that Kim explicitly says that, again back in
`paragraph 260 which says,
`"The method of coupling the sub-device in an overlapping
`manner to the second body will now be described for the sake of
`brevity."
`So in the first sentence of paragraph 260, Kim explicitly
`states that the sub-device can be coupled to either the first body
`or the second body and it's not limiting in any way in terms of
`which side of the second body. Obviously as to the first body it
`would be the top of the first body, but as to the second body it's
`not limiting as to which side of the second body it would be
`coupled to.
`It goes on for the sake of brevity to describe the coupling
`mechanisms with respect to the figure 15B but what would e
`understood is that it's not then showing it in every permutation
`because it shows the coupling mechanism that could be used to
`couple the sub-device to any of those bodies in any manner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So, it's shown in 15B when it
`says, “the method of coupling the sub-device in an overlapping
`manner to the second body will now be described,” and then
`continues on, “as shown in figure 15B a coupling member for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`fixing the sub-device is provided on at least one side of the
`second body of the main device and the sub-device.” So, it says,
`“as shown in 15B a coupling member is provided –."
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Right.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- “on the second body,” but I don't see
`the second body.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: I understand, Your Honor, and
`I think there is a little bit of -- it does say second body even
`though it only shows 100a. But again, we submit that the focus
`of a POSITA when reading that, what the POSITA would take
`away from that discussion is not necessarily whether it's the first
`body or 100a that is there, but the coupling member and how you
`would use the coupling members to couple the sub-device to one
`of the bodies. It is not intended to further limit the very broad
`disclosure of paragraph 260 that the sub-device can be coupled to
`any of the first or the second bodies and paragraph 261 itself
`also says it can be coupled to at least one of the sides
`(indiscernible) --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, you're -- I understand your position
`is that then it could be on either side of the second body. Could
`you -- do you understand what Patent Owner's position is with
`respect to that? That's your argument in your reply, then they
`just say as far as I understand that no, that's not right, but I don't
`understand why it's not right. Do you understand what their
`argument is?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Well, I can try and state as
`best how I interpret Patent Owner's arguments and I think it is
`part of a theme that runs through their entire set of arguments
`with respect to what a POSITA would understand about Kim
`which is anything that is not explicitly shown is not disclosed or
`would not be understood.
`Now, there is a bit of ambiguity in Patent Owner's own
`arguments because they say that what is shown in 15B is
`necessarily that the sub-device is coupled to the top of the main
`device, to the top of the second body of the main device and
`that's all that it could possibly be. As you very well note, Your
`Honor, there is no mention -- there is no labeling of 100b in that
`figure. It only shows 100a, and in addition it doesn't show, for
`example, the hinge in a closed manner. You would expect to see
`part of the hinge in figure 15B which you don't see.
`So Patent Owner, at least my understanding, is taking a
`very literal and very myopic view of what is disclosed in Kim
`and particularly what is disclosed in figure 15B of Kim, that it
`can only be on top of the second body and our position obviously
`is that's not how a POSITA would understand Kim. Kim's
`disclosure is much broader and I would submit that Patent Owner
`has, in any of its briefing, has not come to terms with paragraph
`260 of Kim and that broad disclosure that it can be -- that the
`sub-device can be coupled to any of the first and the second
`bodies.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And then just as a
`follow-up. So, if we agree with you that Kim describes exactly
`what's shown in this figure A then it seems to me that most of
`the other arguments of theirs go away because it doesn't matter if
`it, you know, wouldn't close or some of these other things that
`they argue because it is what it is. If it describes it, it describes
`it.
`
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: That's exactly right, Your
`Honor. Those arguments do go away and I don't think those
`arguments withstand scrutiny. There is two main arguments that
`Patent Owner makes in terms of why Kim can't disclose figure A
`or figure A, and the first is that if you couple the sub-device in
`the manner shown in figure A, that the main device would not be
`able to close and that argument rests entirely on the assumption
`that Kim's figure 15A which is what figure A is based on is
`limited to the hinge that is shown in that figure. That the only
`manner that Kim discloses implementing the watch-type
`embodiment of figure A is using the very exact and specific type
`of hinge that is shown in figure 15A, and of course a POSITA
`would not understand that to be the case. Kim is not limiting in
`any way in its description of what the hinge is.
`In paragraph 256 again, Kim states that there is a hinge that
`is used to couple the first body and the second body on the side
`so that they can open and close. That's the only description of
`the hinge and a POSITA would understand that the figure is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`illustrative. In fact, Kim explicitly states that figures 15 are
`illustrative. They're not detailed mechanical drawings. So in
`that sense the hinge -- Kim is not limiting in the manner in which
`its hinge can be implemented in figure 15A and again, that's
`what figure A of Petitioner's is based on.
`The second argument they make in terms of why you
`wouldn't be able to couple the sub- device in the manner shown in
`figure A is that figure 15A, and accordingly as a result figure A,
`are limited to an embodiment in which the watch-type device is
`implemented using two screens where one of the screens is a
`TOLED, a see through LED device, and again that is incorrect
`and a POSITA would not understand figure 15A or figure A to be
`so limited.
`Going back to the description of Kim in paragraph 256,
`Kim says that the first body 100a may be a display but it doesn't
`require that it be a display device and again, in paragraph 257
`(audio interference) type device can be implemented as a dual
`screen implementation -- or, excuse me, it says may, it doesn't
`say can -- it says may be implemented as a dual screen
`implementation but it doesn't require it. So a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, again, would understand that the watch- type
`embodiment of figure 15A is not limited to a dual screen device
`or to a device that necessarily has a TOLED and as Your Honor
`notes, once you understand what Kim is disclosing in its figure
`15A which is what figure A is based on, then all of those
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`arguments do fall away.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, those TOLED arguments, those
`come out though with respect to Patent Owner's challenge
`against the obviousness. That is when you're blending Kim's
`figure 11B embodiments with the watch-type device; is that
`correct?
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: I have not understood their
`arguments to be limited in that way, Your Honor. I have
`understood their arguments to say that figure 15A can't or figure
`A can't be implemented or Kim does not describe figure A
`because it would interfere with the TOLED (audio interference)
`for the watch- type embodiment. So I agree with you that they
`certainly raised those arguments in terms of -- in response to our
`obviousness arguments but at least I have understood them to
`also raise them to whether Kim actually discloses figure A.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to
`get clear in my head what's what. It just seems to me that, for
`example, if you have a prior art reference that anticipates then it
`doesn't matter if it doesn't look pretty or those sorts of things. It
`is what it is. If it's described, it's described.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: That's exactly our position,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for
`explaining. You can continue.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: So, again, the Board noted in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`its Institution decisions that Kim describes an embodiment that a
`POSITA would have understood to resemble Petitioner's figure A
`and as Your Honor noted, we also have an obviousness argument.
`That even if for the sake of argument one assumes that Kim does
`not describe in words what Petitioners have shown illustrated in
`figure A, that it would have been obvious to implement figure A
`using the teachings of Kim particularly what Kim describes with
`respect to the folder-type embodiment in figures 11B and 11E
`and a POSITA recognizing that what it teaches with respect to
`those embodiments are applicable to the watch- type embodiment
`and Kim of course itself states in paragraph 179 that its various
`embodiments can be used singly and/or by being combined
`together.
`Now, Patent Owner takes issue with that and says that that
`statement is limited only to the control embodiments and we
`submit, Your Honor, that that's not how a POSITA would
`understand it, not the least of which is that immediately after
`that paragraph and that sentence (audio interference) proceeds to
`discuss for the next 88 paragraphs the physical aspects of the
`various embodiments and not the control methods. But in any
`event, even if paragraph 179 was not in Kim, Kim could still be
`used for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`and Dr. Kiaei, Petitioner's expert, explained in great detail why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`teachings with respect to the folder type embodiment were
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`applicable and could inform a person of ordinary skills in the art
`a POSITA's understanding and implementation of the watch- type
`embodiment and I'm referring now to slide 23 of the
`presentation.
`Dr. Kiaei spends eight pages of testimony describing the
`similarities between the folder type embodiment and the watch-
`type embodiment including that they both have a first body 100a
`and a second body 100b, that they both can be connected -- those
`bodies in both embodiments can be connected using a hinge so
`that they can open or close in a folding manner. They use many
`of the same reference numbers across the two embodiments.
`They use nearly identical description of the coupling members
`that are used to couple the sub-device to the either the folder-
`type main device or the watch- type main device. They both
`allow for a permutation where one of the first or second bodies
`can actually be replaced. So instead of having a third body that
`is a sub-device, it's just a first body and a sub-device that can be
`coupled or decoupled from each other and they both describe that
`the sub-device can be coupled to the first or the second body.
`So, all of these similarities between the two embodiments,
`as Dr. Kiaei testified, would inform a POSITA's understanding
`and would make the POSITA recognize that the teachings with
`respect to figure 11B and 11E could be applied to the watch- type
`embodiment.
`Now, and recognizing that similarity it solves -- it would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`solve the alleged problem that Patent Owner has identified which
`is you couldn't get a sub-device to be sandwiched between the
`first and second bodies because the first and second bodies could
`not then close.
`As Patent Owners have admitted, and I'm referring to
`paragraph 24 of the presentation here, the folder type device of
`figure 11B can accommodate the placement of sub-device 300
`between the first and the second bodies. So that's an admission
`that it is actually possible to design a folder-type embodiment
`that can accommodate the sub-device between the two bodies and
`still close, close when it's actually there and close when it's not
`there.
`So, what do they argue in terms of why the teachings of
`11B are not relevant or couldn't be applied to the watch-type
`embodiment of 15A? Well, they raise a number of arguments.
`The first is that the teachings of 11B is not combinable. So B,
`the folder-type device cannot fully open. It can't open to 180
`degrees.
`First of all, that's a red herring argument because there is
`nothing in Kim's disclosure with respect to the watch-type
`embodiment that requires the watch-type embodiment to open to
`180 degrees. All Kim says is that there is a hinge that allows the
`first and the second bodies to open or close. It doesn't place any
`restriction on how much it must open or how much, you know, in
`terms of upper bound or lower bound. It just needs to open and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`close, and in any event on cross-examination, Dr. Horenstein,
`which is Patent Owner's expert actually admitted that the
`embodiments in figure 11B can fully open to 180 degrees. So to
`that extent that that argument is even relevant, their own expert
`has repudiated it and recognized that figure 11B can open fully.
`The second argument that they raised is that the hinge
`(phonetic)structure that is shown in 11B dual display
`implementation of a folding-type device. Now again, that's an
`irrelevant argument because as for the reasons that we discussed,
`the watch-type embodiment of Kim is not limited to a dual
`display implementation. It does not require dual displays. It
`does not require a TOLED. So that argument is irrelevant on its
`own terms.
`But in any event, Patent Owner in its own briefing
`recognizes that figure 5 shows an implementation of a dual
`screen device that has a hinge structure that is basically the same
`as the hinge structure of figure 11 -- embodiment of 11B. So
`again, I would submit that the argument is irrelevant in the first
`instance. But in any event, factually incorrect that the hinge
`structure of 11B is incompatible with a dual screen structure
`because figure 5B shows that it can be used to implement exactly
`such a structure.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a few questions on the hinge
`arguments, if you will --
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Sure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00335 (Patent 10,259,020 B2)
`IPR2021-00336 (Patent 10,259,021 B2)
`IPR2021-00337 (Patent 10,562,077 B2)
`IPR2021-00338 (Patent 10,589,320 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- entertain those. I believe that Patent
`Owner's position is that your figure A that you've arrived at is
`based on what you're saying, “hey, we could arrive at this figure
`if you combine embodiments” and so they're really honing in on,
`hey, you picked the hinge, that's the hinge you picked, that hinge
`is no good and here are all the reasons why, and then your
`response is, “well, hey, even Dr. Horenstein confirmed that an
`individual choosing the hinge for a design project would apply,”
`and I'm quoting "common sense as to what type of hinge would
`work and which would not," and then in your reply you say, “a
`POSITA would have been able to use routine design skills to
`select an appropriate hinge.” Patent Owner comes in and says,
`hey, that's all new, that wasn't in your petition. I just wanted to
`get your response on that, all of that.
`MR. SHARIFAHMADIAN: Of course, Your Honor, and
`what I would say is that Patent Owner's premise that we picked a
`hinge is incorrect. We didn't limit the embodim
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
