Paper 16
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`______________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’580 PATENT ............................................................ 2
`A.
`Independent Claims 1, 22, and 58 ......................................................... 3
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 4
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 5
`A.
`Ramos Paper (EX1004) ......................................................................... 5
`B.
`Ramos Video (EX1005) ........................................................................ 7
`C. Ording (EX1006) ................................................................................... 8
`VI. GROUND 1A: THE PETITION FAILS TO RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 17, 19, 22, 24, 36, 41, 58, 60, 77, 82, 83 OVER THE
`RAMOS PAPER, RAMOS VIDEO, AND ORDING DEVICE ................... 10
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Support Its Purported Combination of the
`Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording ............................................ 10
`1.
`Statements and motivations unrelated to semitransparency .... 10
`2.
`The single purported motivation related to semitransparency . 12
`Limitations[1h], [1i], [1k], [1l], 3, 17, 19, [22d], [22f], [22g],
`24, 36, 41, [58c], [58e], [58f], [58g], 60, 77, 82, 83: second
`virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the
`first virtual display layer ..................................................................... 21
`1.
`Petitioner fails to show that the Ramos Paper and Ramos
`Video would suggest a second virtual display layer at a
`lesser depth ............................................................................... 22
`Petitioner fails to show that the RROD Combination would
`suggest a second virtual display layer at a lesser depth .......... 26
`Limitations [1i], [1l], [22d], [22g], [58c], [58g]: at least [a]
`portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially
`translucent ........................................................................................... 26
`1.
`Petitioner’s first mapping relies on a semitransparent
`element that is not in the second virtual display layer ............. 27
`Petitioner’s second mapping fails to show semitransparency
`in a second virtual display layer ............................................... 33
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`- i -
`
`C.
`
`

`

`D.
`
`E.
`
`3.
`
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`Limitations 1[l], 22[g], 58[f], 82 and 83: perform a zoom
`operation on the at least portion of the contents of the first
`virtual display layer without performing [the]/[any] zoom
`operation on the plurality of markings in the second virtual
`display layer ........................................................................................ 35
`Limitations [1h], [22d], [58c]: [when/in response to] an aspect
`of the touch [is/being] detected to surpass a threshold,
`display[ing], via the touch screen, a plurality of markings in a
`second virtual display layer ................................................................. 39
`1.
`A “touch” is a touch; hovering is not a “touch” ..................... 40
`2.
`Ramos Paper and Ramos Video display their Vernier in
`response to a hover—not touch................................................. 42
`The Board overlooked that the Petition relies exclusively on
`Ramos’ hover threshold to meet the claimed threshold............ 43
`Limitations [1l], [22g], and [58f]–[58g]: the at least portion of
`the second virtual display layer is at least partially translucent
`so that a result of the zoom operation on the at least portion of
`the contents of the first virtual display layer is visible through
`the at least portion of the second virtual display layer ........................ 44
`1.
`The Petition fails to address Limitation [1l] with
`particularity .............................................................................. 44
`Petitioner’s mapping fails to address all claim elements ......... 46
`2.
`Claims 29, 65: wherein the touch and the another touch are
`detected to be part of a single continuous gesture with constant
`contact with the electronic device ....................................................... 48
`Claims 9, 32, 69: the aspect of the touch includes a duration
`aspect and the threshold includes a duration magnitude
`threshold .............................................................................................. 52
`VII. GROUND 1B: THE RAMOS PAPER-RAMOS VIDEO-ORDING-
`HAYWARD COMBINATION DOES NOT RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIM 48 ..................................................................................................... 54
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`H.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`Zoom
`Definition
`Transparent
`Definition
`’918
`Provisional
`Mahon
`
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Shorthand
`Description
`Davis
`Declaration of Marc Davis, Ph.D.
`Declaration
`Davis CV CV of Mark Davis, Ph.D.
`JCC
`Excerpt of Joint Claim Construction Chart Exhibit B
`Stay Order October 2, 2024 Order Granting in Part Apple’s
`Motion to Stay in Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple Inc., 3-23-cv-01187, S.D. Cal. (Dkt. No. 127)
`Licygiewicz Declaration of Art Licygiewicz ISO PHV Motion
`Mahon CV CV of Mark P. Mahon, Ph.D.
`Cockburn-1 April 16, 2025 Transcript of the Deposition of Andrew
`Cockburn, Ph. D.
`Cockburn-2 April 17, 2025 Transcript of the Deposition of Andrew
`Cockburn, PhD.
`Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Definition for “zoom”
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Definition for
`“transparent”
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/581,918
`
`Declaration of Mark P. Mahon, Ph.D.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’580 Patent discloses inventive techniques for performing zoom
`
`operations on elements in a user interface featuring multiple virtual display layers.
`
`As explained below, the Petition fails to show that any of the Challenged
`
`Claims were obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. Petitioner’s proposed
`
`grounds fail to disclose several Limitations, including that a second virtual displayer
`
`layer appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer, performing a
`
`zoom operation on at least a portion of the contents without performing a zoom
`
`operation on the plurality of marking, and Limitations involving touch because the
`
`Petitioner neglects the difference between hovering and touching a screen.
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness arguments rely on conclusory and legally insufficient
`
`assertions, plainly guided by hindsight reasoning. For example, Petitioner overlooks
`
`that the Ramos Paper, Ramos Video and Ording (collectively, the “RROD
`
`combination”) fails to suggest making the Ramos Zlider semitransparent as
`
`Petitioner asserts. Nor does Petitioner provide any motivation for doing so.
`
`Ultimately, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine these references
`
`to arrive at the particular combinations of claimed features in the ’580 Patent because
`
`a POSITA would never have looked at Hayward or Ording to improve high precision
`
`parameter manipulation techniques.
`
`The Board should therefore affirm patentability of all Challenged Claims.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’580 PATENT
`The ’580 Patent “generally relate[s] to touch screens.” EX1001, 1:36–37.
`
`Specifically, the ’580 Patent features a camera on a mobile device, zooming
`
`functionality, various virtual display layers, implementation of translucency, and a
`
`display of a plurality of markings in response to a touch exceeding a threshold. See
`
`EX1001, Claims 1, 22, and 58. The ’580 Patent explains that “[i]n various
`
`embodiments, a 3D layered user interface may make use of multiple virtual display
`
`layers,” and “[i]n the context of the present description, a virtual display layer refers
`
`to a collection of display elements which have all been assigned the same apparent
`
`depth within the 3D layered user interface.” EX1001, 68:6–11; EX2011, [00793].
`
`The ’580 Patent further states that “virtual display layers may be given the
`
`appearance of depth through the use of 3D depth cues.” EX1001, 68:25–27;
`
`EX2011, [00795]. Such visual cues “refer[] to an effect, manipulation,
`
`transformation, animation, or operation which gives a visual indication of simulated
`
`depth. For example, in one embodiment, a 3D depth cue may be a blur operation,
`
`such that layers located at successively greater depths may appear blurrier than those
`
`closer to the user. In various embodiments, one or more 3D depth cues may be used
`
`to give the appearance of depth to one or more virtual display layers.” EX1001,
`
`68:27–35; EX2011 [00795]. Different depth cues may be used for different virtual
`
`display layers; depth cues may also “be used in conjunction with a 3D layered user
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`interface implemented in a layered display device, to enhance the layered
`
`appearance.” EX1001, 68:36–40; EX2011 [00795].
`
`Independent Claims 1, 22, and 58
`A.
`Independent claims 1, 22, and 58 of the ’580 Patent are directed to an
`
`electronic device programmed to perform certain functions. See generally EX1001.
`
`Specifically, claims 1, 22, and 58 include “when” or “in response to” “an aspect of
`
`the touch being detected to surpass a threshold,1 displaying, via the touch screen, a
`
`plurality of markings in a second virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser
`
`depth than the first virtual display layer, where at least a portion of the second
`
`virtual display layer is at least partially translucent so that at least a portion of the
`
`contents of the first virtual display layer is visible through the at least portion of the
`
`second virtual display layer.” See Limitations [1h], [22d], [58c]. Additionally, “the
`
`at least portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially translucent so
`
`that a result of the zoom operation on the at least portion of the contents of the first
`
`virtual display layer is visible through the at least portion of the second virtual
`
`display layer.” See Limitations [1l], [22g], [58g].
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless noted otherwise.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`At the time of the invention of the ’580 Patent, a POSITA would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant
`
`work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs)
`
`or equivalents thereof. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level
`
`of education and vice versa. EX2012, ¶35. Dr. Cockburn’s definition of a POSITA
`
`is overbroad to the extent it includes work experience in the design and development
`
`of human-computer interfaces. EX2012, ¶36.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The claims are construed “in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100; Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner “submits that no claim terms need
`
`to be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. (Paper
`
`2), 2. Patent Owner likewise agrees that no formal constructions of any claim terms
`
`are necessary. In the Litigation, however, Apple and Smith Interface agreed to
`
`construe “virtual display layer” to mean “one or more display elements that appear
`
`at the same apparent depth of display.” EX2003, 9–10.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Ramos Paper (EX1004)
`The Ramos Paper is titled “Zliding: Fluid Zooming and Sliding for High
`
`Precision Parameter Manipulation,” and “introduces the notion of Zoom Sliding, or
`
`Zliding, for fluid integrated manipulation of scale (zooming) via pressure input while
`
`parameter manipulation within that scale is achieved via x-y cursor movement
`
`(sliding).” EX1004, Abstract. The Ramos Paper “present[s] the Zlider (Figure 1),
`
`a widget that instantiates the Zliding concept.” EX1004, Abstract.
`
`As an interactive widget, Zlider offers high precision parameter manipulation
`
`and immediate feedback for continuous, rather than discrete, parameter adjustments.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`EX1004, 1. The Ramos Paper evaluates “three different input techniques for cursor
`
`position,” but ultimately elects the “stylus with integrated isometric pressure sensing
`
`tip” as the favored choice. EX1004, Abstract. “The scale factor of the Zlider is
`
`adjusted by changes in pressure at the stylus’ tip, and the stylus’ x-y position enables
`
`sliding of the parameter’s value.” EX1004, 3.
`
`The Zlider also features “a clutching mechanism that enables users to
`
`completely stabilize pressure and hence lock the zoom level while sliding.”
`
`EX1004, 3. Clutching is activated “by sliding the cursor away from the Zlider’s
`
`working rectangle,” and declutching occurs by “[r]entering the working rectangle.”
`
`EX1004, 3. “While clutched, users can still slide outside the working rectangle []
`
`but the widget maintains its scale at the last reported value regardless of pressure
`
`variations.” EX1004, 3.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`B. Ramos Video (EX1005)
`The Ramos Video illustrates the use and functionality of the Zlider described
`
`in the Ramos Paper. The Zlider “behaves like a regular selector with the difference
`
`that users can, while dragging or sliding, explicitly adjust the precision they wish to
`
`interact at or zoom by changing the amount of pressure they apply with an input
`
`device.” EX1005, 0:14–0:27. The Zlider uses a pressure cursor that “provides users
`
`with a real-time visual indicator of the pressure they are applying with the input
`
`device. As the user slides across the working area, a red needle indicates the
`
`parameter’s magnitude relative to its minimum and maximum values at the extremes
`
`of the widget. The Zlider also displays a Vernier, which adapts its grid spacing
`
`depending on the widget’s current precision.” EX1005, 0:27-0:59.
`
`red needle
`
`EX1005, 0:50 (Zlider) (annotated)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`In addition to the clutching mechanism described above in the Ramos Paper,
`
`the Ramos Video explains that “[u]sers can also hold the slider’s current scale by
`
`using the hover region of the input device,” which “allows them to perform micro
`
`parameter adjustments without the need to reacquire a precision level as well as to
`
`reposition the cursor as needed.” EX1005, 2:00-2:45. “The hover region of the
`
`input device also allows users to reach arbitrarily high precision levels. … by
`
`repeatedly alternating between increasing pressure and lifting the stylus while
`
`remaining in tracking distance.” Id. “By leaving and re-entering the Zlider’s
`
`working area while in the hover region, users can also decrease … precision.” Id.
`
`hovering
`
`contacting
`
`EX1005, 2:08 (annotated) (hovering)
`
`EX1005, 2:09 (annotated) (contacting)
`
`
`
`C. Ording (EX1006)
`Ording is titled “Methods For Determining A Cursor Position From A Finger
`
`Contact With A Touch Screen Display,” and relates “to portable devices that
`
`adaptively determine a cursor position from a finger contact with a touch screen
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`display and then perform operations according to the cursor position.” EX1006,
`
`[0003]. Ording developed its methods to address the difficulty in navigating
`
`compact mobile devices forced to support increasing functionality but armed with
`
`outdated user interfaces such as physical pushbuttons. EX1006, [0004]–[0007].
`
`Specifically, it addresses challenges in accurately identifying and responding to user
`
`input on a compact screen, which is essential for improving usability on
`
`multifunctional mobile devices. EX1006, [0004], [0006].
`
`The invention includes a method where the device identifies the contact area
`
`of a user’s finger on the touch screen and determines a cursor position based partially
`
`on this contact area. EX1006, [0009]. Other factors influencing cursor positioning
`
`include distances to nearby user interface elements and specific “activation
`
`susceptibility” values for each element, which improve the precision and accuracy
`
`of the touch input. EX1006, [0009]. This method allows for dynamic adaptation to
`
`different user interactions, improving the user experience by reducing accidental
`
`selections and enhancing ease of use. See EX1006, [0007]. The patent further
`
`covers the application of this cursor positioning method to various device functions,
`
`such as “telephoning, video conferencing, e-mailing, instant messaging, blogging,
`
`digital photographing, digital videoing, web browsing, digital music playing, and/or
`
`digital video playing.” EX1006, [0008].
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`VI. GROUND 1A: THE PETITION FAILS TO RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 17, 19, 22, 24, 36, 41, 58, 60, 77, 82, 83 OVER THE RAMOS
`PAPER, RAMOS VIDEO, AND ORDING DEVICE
`Petitioner Fails to Support Its Purported Combination of the
`A.
`Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording
`Statements and motivations unrelated to semitransparency
`1.
`Petitioner’s obviousness theory depends not just on combining the Zlider of
`
`the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video with the device of Ording, but on doing so in
`
`such a way that most of the Zlider is transparent as shown on page 59 of the Petition:
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`Without this particular combination of the references, all grounds fail because, as
`
`explained below and recognized in the Institution Decision, the Ramos Paper and
`
`Ramos Video fail to meet the requirements of Limitations [1h] and [1i] of a second
`
`virtual display both (i) at a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer with the
`
`contents and (ii) at least a portion of which is at least partially translucent.
`
`Petitioner’s proffered obviousness rationale fails to support an RROD
`
`combination in which the Ramos Zlider is semitransparent or overlies the image.
`
`EX2012, ¶46. Petitioner offers three purported reasons to combine the Ramos Zlider
`
`with Ording, each of which fails to support the above-depicted combination.
`
`To begin, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would have naturally looked to
`
`prior art references, such as Ording, that also are directed to touch screen devices
`
`with user interfaces for user interaction and that have applications that necessitate
`
`precise parameter manipulation, as Ording provides.” Pet. 30 –31 (citing APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶61). Even accepting this for the sake of argument, this does not suggest any
`
`benefit to making Ramos’s Zlider semitransparent. EX2012, ¶47.
`
`Petitioner next contends that “[t]he combined disclosures of the Ramos Paper,
`
`Ramos Video, and Ording would have amply motivated a POSITA to
`
`implementation of a widget in a ‘multifunctional device,’ e.g., the device taught in
`
`Ording, which includes various software and hardware components and additionally
`
`provides semitransparent user input control devices, resulting in the Ramos Paper-
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`Ramos Video-Ording device (‘RROD’).” Pet., 31 (citing APPLE-1003, ¶63).
`
`Again, even accepting this for the sake of argument, this does not suggest any benefit
`
`to making Ramos’s Zlider semitransparent. EX2012, ¶48.
`
`Notably, the critical RROD combination shown above is not included in this
`
`section of the Petition or otherwise tied to the three purported motivations. Pet., 31.
`
`First, Petitioner asserts that “Ording offers foundational hardware (including
`
`processor and memory) for implementing a widget, . . . .” Pet., 31–32. This says
`
`nothing about semitransparency, and on its face would therefore not motivate the
`
`modification of Ramos Zlider to be semitransparent. EX2012, ¶49.
`
`Second, Petitioner asserts that “Ording teaches the use of various applications
`
`configured to use a widget in the RROD,” and “that any one of these applications
`
`would benefit from the resulting widget.” Pet., 32. Yet again, this says nothing
`
`about semitransparency, and on its face would therefore not motivate the
`
`modification of Ramos Zlider to be semitransparent. EX2012, ¶51.
`
`The single purported motivation related to semitransparency
`2.
`Third, and most pertinently, Petitioner points out that “Ording further
`
`explicitly teaches providing ‘user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent,’ such
`
`as a ‘virtual click wheel’ that can be a ‘semitransparent object.’” Pet., 32–33 (citing
`
`APPLE-1006, [0028], [0045]; APPLE-1003, ¶66). From that, Petitioner asserts that
`
`“[a] POSITA would have recognized the benefits of transparent or semitransparent
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`UI objects that are minimally intrusive to the user.” Pet., 33 (citing APPLE-1003,
`
`¶ 66). As the only purported reason to modify the Zlider to be semitransparent, the
`
`RROD combination cannot survive without this “motivation.” But this “motivation”
`
`cannot survive basic scrutiny.
`
`To start, Petitioner’s and its expert’s attempt to conflate Ording’s use of
`
`“transparent” and “semitransparent” to divine some greater desire for optical
`
`transparency is blatantly misleading. Ording’s phrase about “user interfaces that are
`
`intuitive and transparent” is plainly not referring to transparency in an optical sense
`
`(i.e., making something appear see-through). EX2012, ¶53. Instead, “intuitive and
`
`transparent” uses “transparent” in the sense of the user interface being readily
`
`understandable (consistent with its paring with “intuitive”). EX2012, ¶54; see also
`
`EX2010, 1 (“readily understood”). Ording’s paragraph [0028] is not concerned with
`
`optical transparency, but with increasing user satisfaction with portable devices by
`
`offering multifunctional operations on user interfaces based on finger input.
`
`EX2012, ¶54; EX1006 at [0028]. The passage in Ording from which Petitioner
`
`selectively quotes reads:
`
`The various applications that may be executed on the device may use
`at least one common physical user-interface device, such as the touch
`screen. One or more functions of the touch screen as well as
`corresponding information displayed on the device may be adjusted
`and/or varied from one application to the next and/or within a respective
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`application. In this way, a common physical architecture (such as the
`touch screen) of the device may support the variety of applications
`with user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent.
`
`EX1006, [0028]. There is no mention of optical transparency, rather, Ording is
`
`addressing user interfaces that are user-friendly and intuitive to navigate and operate.
`
`EX2012, ¶55. The rest of Petitioner’s obviousness rationale fares no better.
`
`a) Ording’s semitransparency is specific to Ording’s click
`wheel; semitransparency would hurt Ramos’ Zlider
`However, that a click wheel might be semitransparent does not suggest that
`
`Ramos’ precision Zlider should be semitransparent. EX2012, ¶56. Ording’s
`
`discussion is not even so broad as to refer to all click wheels; rather, Ording
`
`addresses a click wheel that appears when used over a screen full of icons (see
`
`Ording’s FIG. 4B, inset below), and disappears when not in use. See EX1006,
`
`[0045] (“For a virtual click wheel, the click wheel may be either an opaque or
`
`semitransparent object that appears and disappears on the touch screen display in
`
`response to user interaction with the device.”); EX2012, ¶56. Given that Ording’s
`
`virtual click wheel appears temporarily and, by necessity, over an already crowded
`
`environment, it makes sense that Ording might make it semitransparent. EX2012,
`
`¶57. Otherwise, Ording’s click wheel could obscure the very icons it is designed to
`
`permit a user to navigate. EX2012, ¶57; EX1006, [0045] (“A user may navigate
`
`among and interact with one or more graphical objects (henceforth referred to as
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`icons) displayed in the touch screen 112 by rotating the click wheel or by moving a
`
`point of contact with the click wheel (e.g., where the amount of movement of the
`
`point of contact is measured by its angular displacement with respect to a center
`
`point of the click wheel).”).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`In contrast, a POSITA would have understood that Ramos colors his Zlider’s
`
`working to contrast with the markings to ensure that the markings are readily visible
`
`to a user. EX2012, ¶58. If instead those markings were not readily visible, there
`
`would be no need for the markings at all. EX2012, ¶58; see also EX1005, 0:55 –
`
`1:00 (“the Vernier adapts its grid spacing depending on the widget’s current
`
`precision”). A POSITA would thus have viewed this contrast as a necessary
`
`component of the Zlider, without which contrast it would be impossible for a user to
`
`gauge the degree of precision—i.e., the purpose—of the Zlider. EX2012, ¶59.
`
`b)
`
`Petitioner’s purported motivation is not specific to
`Ramos Zlider, and would impermissibly render the
`Zlider unsuitable for its purpose
`Despite these differences between Ording’s teachings and Ramos’ context,
`
`Petitioner marches ahead with a purported motivational statement, i.e., that “[a]
`
`POSITA would have recognized the benefits of transparent or semitransparent UI
`
`objects that are minimally intrusive to the user.” Pet., 33 (citing APPLE-1003, ¶ 66).
`
`At the outset, this does not explain what the purported benefits are—instead merely
`
`contending that a POSITA would have recognized benefits. That is, on its face,
`
`conclusory and should accordingly be given no weight. See Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide, November 2019, 40–41 (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`
`127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or
`
`Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`of an expert witness”).2 Nor does Petitioner explain why this would have motivated
`
`a POSITA to modify Ramos’ Zlider. Even if Ramos’ Zlider were implemented in
`
`Ording’s device just as Ramos did in the Ramos Video, it would remain true that
`
`semitransparency could be beneficial to Ording’s click wheel. EX2012, ¶57.
`
`Petitioner’s assertions therefore present neither benefit to be achieved nor conflict to
`
`be resolved by modifying Ramos’ Zlider to be semitransparent. Indeed, the Ramos
`
`Paper contemplates and the Ramos Video shows the Zlider implemented on a touch
`
`screen with an application allowing for image manipulation. EX2012, ¶62. Yet
`
`neither the Petition nor Petitioner’s expert offer any explanation as to why the
`
`semitransparent Zlider as Petitioner envisions in the RROD combination would be
`
`less intrusive than the Zlider is in Ramos itself. EX2012, ¶62. Nor would it. Id.
`
`Instead, in the RROD combination, the Zlider is noticeably more intrusive
`
`than in its original implementation in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video. EX2012,
`
`¶63. Specifically, in the RROD combination (inset below), the Zlider is pushed
`
`inward from the edge of the screen such that the Zlider overlaps—and directly
`
`interferes with the user’s perception of—the image itself. EX2012, ¶63.
`
`
`2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf?
`
`MURL=TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`
`
`This overlap is wholly unnecessary. Id. As shown in the Ramos Video (inset
`
`below), disposing the Zlider at the edge of the display avoids overlap and maximizes
`
`the uninterrupted area in which to display the image. Id.
`
`EX1005, 3:16.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`But it gets worse still; the RROD combination doesn’t just unnecessarily make
`
`the Zlider more intrusive, it also makes the Zlider unusable. EX2012, ¶65.
`
`Specifically, by making the Zlider semitransparent, the contrast between markings
`
`and background depends on the image and part thereof that happens to be displayed.
`
`EX2012, ¶65. As a result, while the Zlider may be visible on the sand in Petitioner’s
`
`illustration of the RROD combination, zooming in such that the mountains are under
`
`the Zlider would make it difficult (if not impossible) to see the markings. EX2012,
`
`¶66. The below images illustrate the difficulty where the image underlying the
`
`Zlider is almost the same color, making it impossible to see the markings or perceive
`
`the scale they serve to indicate. EX2012, ¶67.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`
`
`At base, Ramos makes clear that its Vernier is an integral component of its Zlider
`
`that provides immediate feedback to users when granularity is adjusted. See
`
`EX1004, 1, 3. Yet Petition’s modification would obscure the Vernier and thereby
`
`hamper a user’s ability to view this immediate feedback and conduct high precision
`
`selection tasks. EX2012, ¶68.
`
`In sum, Petitioner fails to offer a motivation to modify Ramos’ Zlider in
`
`Ording such that the Zlider is semitransparent as shown on page 59 of the Petition.
`
`EX2012, ¶69. Not only would none of Petitioner’s proffered motivations have lead
`
`a POSITA to that result, but Petitioner fails to show even that its RROD combination
`
`would have made the Zlider less intrusive than it is in the Ramos Video itself.
`
`EX2012, ¶70. Further, a POSITA instead would have not made the combination as
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`asserted because it both would have needlessly interfered with a user’s perception
`
`of the underlying image—making the Zlider more intrusive than it is in the Ramos
`
`Video—but also would have needlessly interfered with the usability and function of
`
`the Zlider itself. EX2012, ¶71.
`
`B.
`
`Limitations[1h], [1i], [1k], [1l], 3, 17, 19, [22d], [22f], [22g], 24, 36,
`41, [58c], [58e], [58f], [58g], 60, 77, 82, 83: second virtual display
`layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual
`display layer
`The Petition fails to show that its RROD combination would render obvious
`
`a “second virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual
`
`display layer.” Each of Limitations [1h], [1i], [1k], [1l], [22d], [22f], [22g], [58c],
`
`[58e], [58f], and [58g] and claims 3, 17, 19, 24, 36, 41, 60, 77, 82, and 83 recite
`
`“[a]/[the] second virtual display layer . . . .” Pet., vi–xvi. Petitioner’s mapping fails
`
`with respect to each of these. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
`
`The challenged claims recite “a first virtual display layer including contents”
`
`and “a second virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first
`
`virtual display layer . . . .” E.g., EX1001, Claim 1. The ’580 Patent explains that
`
`“virtual display layers [like the second virtual display layer] may be given the
`
`appearance of depth through the use of 3D depth cues. In the context of the present
`
`description, a 3D depth cue can be an effect, manipulation, transformation,
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`animation, or operation which gives a visual indication of simulated depth.”
`
`EX1001, 68:25–30; EX2011, [00795].
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner fails to show that the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video
`would suggest a second virtual display layer at a lesser depth
`Petitioner claims that the “first virtual display layer” in the Ramos Paper and
`
`Ramos Video is the image “contents,” while the “second virtual display layer”
`
`c