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
`26
`27
`28
`
`Sean Cunningham (CA SBN 174931)
`sean.cunningham@us.dlapiper.com
`Richard Mulloy (CA SBN 199278)
`richard.mulloy@us.dlapiper.com
`Robert Williams (CA SBN 246990)
`robert.williams@us.dlapiper.com
`Peter Maggiore (CA SBN 292534)
`peter.maggiore@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`4365 Executive Dr, Suite 1100
`San Diego, California 92121-2133
`Telephone: 858.677.1400
`Facsimile: 858.677.1401
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`[Additional counsel listed on signature
`page]
`
`Brian A. Sun (CA SBN 89410)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`555 South Flower Street
`Forty-First Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 892-9200
`brian.sun@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Brett C. Govett (pro hac vice)
`(TX SBN 08235900)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 855-8000
`brett.govett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Daniel S. Leventhal (pro hac vice)
`(TX SBN 24050923)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Telephone: (713) 651-5151
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff Smith Interface
`Technologies, LLC
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SMITH INTERFACE
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-1187-TWR-BJC
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CHART, WORKSHEET, AND
`HEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4.2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01085 | Smith EX2003 | Page 1 of 23
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order Regulating Discovery and
`Other Pretrial Proceedings in a Patent Case (ECF No. 102) and Patent L.R. 4.2,
`Plaintiff Smith Interface Technologies, LLC (“Smith Interface”) and Defendant
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby file this Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet, and
`Hearing Statement regarding the constructions of identified claim terms in U.S.
`Patent Nos. 10,642,413 (the “’413 Patent”); 10,649,578 (the “’578 Patent”);
`10,649,580 (the “’580 Patent”); 10,656,754 (the “’754 Patent”); 10,656,755 (the
`“’755 Patent”); 10,656,758 (the “’758 Patent”); 10,671,212 (the “’212 Patent”);
`10,725,581 (the “’581 Patent”); 10,936,114 (the “’114 Patent”); and 11,740,727 (the
`“’727 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`PARTIES’ JOINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`I.
`The Parties would like to notify the Court that they have agreed to file an
`Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet, and Hearing Statement given
`that Smith Interface’s October 18, 2024 “claim election of no more than 20 claim per
`patent and no more than 64 total claims” and November 28, 2024 “claim election of
`no more than ten claims per Asserted Patent and no more than 32 claims in total two
`weeks prior to claim construction hearing” (ECF No. 91) is expected to streamline
`and decrease the number of claim terms.
`IDENTIFICATION OF MOST SIGNIFICANT TERMS
`II.
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(a), Smith Interface and Apple identify the
`following 10 terms as most significant to the resolution of the case (in no particular
`order):
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“a reduction in a size [that is/so as to be] inversely related to the duration
`of the gesture” (’114 Patent, claims 27, 30, and 32);
`“performing a [first/second/third] operation” (’413 Patent, claims 1 and
`101) / “performing an operation [in connection with / on] the first
`application icon” (’758 Patent, claims 1 and 124) / “perform an
`operation” (’212 Patent, claims 1 and 16);
`- 1 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`“adjacent” (’413 Patent, claim 7; ’212 Patent, claim 57; ’754 Patent
`claims 29, 193, 205, 206, 208);
`“substantially fills” (’413 Patent, claim 9);
`“action-option- display criteria” (’758 Patent, claims 1 and 124);
`“movement criteria” (’758 Patent, claims 1 and 124);
`“action options” (’758 Patent, claims 1 and 124);
`“evaluating the first single-finger touch input against at least one of a
`plurality of criteria, including evaluating a duration of the first single-
`finger touch input against at least one of: one or more application-launch
`criteria, one or more action-option-display criteria, or one or more
`operation criteria, and further including evaluating a movement of the
`first single-finger touch input against one or more movement
`criteria”(’758 Patent, claims 1, 27);
`“when . . . the duration of the first contact is determined to be greater
`than the second user- configurable predefined duration . . . and the end
`of the first contact is not detected” (’581 Patent, claim 1);
`“distance magnitude [of the gesture]” (’727 Patent, claims 1, 2; ’754
`Patent, claims 27, 32, 38, 75, 76-79, 83, 85, 86, 186, 208, 211, 218, 221).
`Smith Interface’s Statement
`A.
`In agreeing to the above terms as the ten most significant, Smith Interface does
`not agree with Apple that eight of those terms, none of which Apple identified in its
`IPRs as indefinite, are indefinite. Rather, Smith Interface only agrees that a finding
`of indefiniteness would be dispositive of claims including those terms. Further,
`Smith Interface does not agree that the two remaining terms for which Apple
`apparently believes a construction would lead to noninfringement would, in fact, lead
`to noninfringement.
`Smith Interface objects to Apple’s identification of “a reduction in a size [that
`is/so as to be] inversely related to the duration of the gesture” as limited to Claims
`
`- 2 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`27, 30, and 32 of the ’114 Patent. Apple failed to explain during the meet and confer
`process why the similar language of Claim 1 of the ’114 Patent (“a reduction in a size
`such that the size is inversely related to the magnitude of the duration of the gesture”)
`would not be subject to the same construction.
`B.
`Apple’s Statement
`Apple’s position is that the four “criteria” terms in claims 1 and 124 of the
`’758 Patent (i.e., “application-launch criteria,” “action-option-display criteria,”
`“operation criteria,” and “movement criteria”) and the two “action option” terms in
`claims 1 and 124 of the ’758 Patent (i.e., “action options” and “action option objects”)
`should each be treated and briefed, respectively, as a single term for each group. The
`claim construction issues to be briefed and decided amongst these terms in each
`respective grouping are virtually identical to each other. The parties met and
`conferred on this position, but could not reach agreement. Therefore, for purposes
`of the top 10 terms above, Apple has selected representative terms from both the
`“criteria” and “action option” groups, but intends to brief and seek a claim
`construction ruling on each of the “criteria” and “action option” group terms.
`In response to Smith’s statement above with respect to the “a reduction in a
`size [that is/so as to be] inversely related to the duration of the gesture” term, Apple
`did explain during the meet and confer process why this construction is limited
`to Claims 27, 30, and 32 of the ’114 Patent but, regardless, this Hearing Statement is
`not the proper filing for substantive arguments about the merits and applicability of
`proposed claim constructions.
`III.
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(b), Smith Interface’s and Apple’s proposed
`construction of each disputed claim term, along with each party’s identification of
`supporting evidence, is attached as Exhibit A. For each disputed claim term, phrase,
`or clause, Exhibit A further includes each party’s identification of the impact of the
`proposed constructions on the merits of the case.
`- 3 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`IV.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(c), attached as Exhibit B is the Joint Claim
`Construction Worksheet, which includes Smith Interface’s and Apple’s disputed and
`agreed upon constructions.
`V.
`ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(d)(1), Smith Interface and Apple anticipate the
`length of time necessary for the Claim Construction hearing is approximately four
`(4) hours, and respectfully propose that each side be allocated approximately equal
`amounts of time to present their positions. If the Court requests a technology tutorial,
`the parties will meet and confer on the technology tutorial and its estimated length at
`that time.
`VI. WITNESSES FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(d)(2), Smith Interface and Apple do not expect to
`present live testimony of witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing. The parties
`respectfully propose that expert testimony be submitted via declaration along with
`the claim construction briefing. Given that Smith Interface is expected to narrow its
`elected claims to no more than 20 per patent and 64 total claims by October 18, 2024,
`which Smith Interface believes will render moot the need for the parties to brief and
`the Court to construe certain disputed claim terms, the parties have agreed to the
`following schedule for exchange of expert declarations:
`October 22, 2024 – Apple serves Declaration of Dr. Bajaj
`•
`October 29, 2024 – Smith Interface serves Responsive Declaration of
`•
`Dr. Mahon
`The parties will also jointly seek a ten day extension of the claim construction
`discovery deadline (from October 29, 2024 to November 8, 2024) in order to allow
`for depositions of Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Mahon, if necessary.
`VII. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.2(d)(3), Smith Interface and Apple anticipate
`- 4 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`presenting the claim-construction issues term by term.
`Smith Interface and Apple propose that, on terms for which Apple contends
`are indefinite and on which Apple bears the burden of persuasion, that Apple present
`first followed by Smith Interface, or at the Court’s discretion.
`For all other terms, Apple proposes that the parties alternate who presents first,
`or at the Court’s discretion, and Smith Interface proposes that for these terms the
`party to speak first will be at the Court’s discretion.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`Dated: October 1, 2024
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel Leventhal
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`
`Brian A. Sun
`(CA SBN 89410)
`555 South Flower Street
`Forty-First Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 892-9222
`brian.sun@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Brett C. Govett (pro hac vice)
`(TX SBN 08235900)
`Vlada A. Wendel (pro hac vice)
`(TX SBN 24131751)
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 855-8000
`brett.govett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`vlada.wendel@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Daniel S. Leventhal (pro hac vice)
`(TX SBN 24050923)
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010-3095
`Telephone: (713) 651-5151
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`John Poulos (pro hac vice)
`(IL SBN 6324517)
`1045 W. Fulton Market, Suite 1200
`Chicago, Illinois 60607
`Telephone: (312) 964-7766
`john.poulos@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff Smith
`Interface Technologies, LLC
`
`/s/ Peter Maggiore
`
`Sean C. Cunningham
`Richard Mulloy
`Robert Williams
`Peter Maggiore
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 677-1400
`Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
`
`Brent K. Yamashita
`Peiyao Zhang
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`Telephone: (650) 833-2000
`Facsimile: (650) 833-2001
`
`Jessica Hannah
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 836-2500
`Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
`
`Zachary Loney (pro hac vice)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 457-7000
`Facsimile: (512) 457-7001
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`- 6 -
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, WORKSHEET, AND HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`“one or more
`display elements
`that appear at the
`same apparent
`depth of display”
`
`indicia after the first
`duration of the
`touch is detected
`without the ceasing,
`change at least one
`aspect of the display
`of the at least one
`menu.
`Term: “virtual display
`layer”
`
`’413 Patent:
`Claims 1 and 101
`
`1. An electronic device,
`comprising:
`a display;
`a touch interface;
`one or more
`processors;
`memory; and
`one or more programs,
`wherein the one or
`more programs are
`stored in the memory
`
`- B43 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`more second menu
`items, and
`in response to the
`selection contact being
`detected on the at least
`one of the one or more
`second menu items,
`performing a third
`operation;
`wherein the electronic
`device is configured
`such that the graphical
`user interface is
`displayed in at least
`one virtual display
`layer, and at least one
`of the first menu or the
`second menu is
`displayed in at least
`one other virtual
`display layer.
`
`’580 Patent:
`Claims 1, 22, 23, 48, and
`58
`
`- B53 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`1. An apparatus,
`comprising:
`at least one non-
`transitory memory;
`a touch screen;
`a camera; and
`one or more processors
`in communication with
`the at least one non-
`transitory memory, the
`touch screen, and the
`camera, wherein the
`one or more processors
`execute instructions
`stored in the non-
`transitory memory to
`cause the apparatus to:
`display, via the touch
`screen, a first virtual
`display layer including
`contents;
`display, via the touch
`screen, at least one user
`interface element;
`
`
`
`
`
`- B54 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`detect, via the touch
`screen, at least a
`portion of touch on the
`least one user interface
`element;
`when an aspect of the
`touch is detected to
`surpass a threshold,
`display, 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
`
`- B55 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`second virtual display
`layer;
`detect, via the touch
`screen, a touch
`movement on at least
`one of the plurality of
`marking; and
`during detection of the
`touch movement on the
`at least one of the
`plurality of marking in
`the second virtual
`display layer that
`appears to have the
`lesser depth than the
`first virtual display
`layer, display, via the
`touch screen, a
`movement of the
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer
`as a function of the
`touch movement; and
`perform a zoom
`operation on the at least
`
`- B56 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`portion of the contents
`of the first virtual
`display layer without
`performing the zoom
`operation on the
`plurality of markings in
`the second virtual
`display layer, where
`the zoom operation
`correlates with the
`movement of the
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer,
`and 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
`
`- B57 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`
`
`second virtual display
`layer.
`
`
`22. A method,
`comprising:
`at a device with at least
`one non-transitory
`memory, a touch
`screen, a camera, and
`one or more processors
`in communication with
`the at least one non-
`transitory memory, the
`touch screen, and the
`camera:
`displaying, via the
`touch screen, a first
`virtual display layer
`including contents;
`detecting, via the touch
`screen, at least a
`portion of touch;
`in response to an aspect
`of the touch being
`detected to surpass a
`
`
`
`
`
`- B58 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`threshold, 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;
`detecting, via the touch
`screen, another touch
`on at least one of the
`plurality of marking;
`and
`
`- B59 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`in response to detection
`of the another touch on
`the at least one of the
`plurality of marking in
`the second virtual
`display layer that
`appears to have the
`lesser depth than the
`first virtual display
`layer, displaying, via
`the touch screen, a
`movement of one or
`more of the plurality of
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer;
`and
`performing a zoom
`operation on the at least
`portion of the contents
`of the first virtual
`display layer without
`performing the zoom
`operation on the
`plurality of markings in
`the second virtual
`
`- B60 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`display layer, where
`the zoom operation is
`performed based on the
`movement of the one or
`more of the plurality of
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer,
`and 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.
`
`23. The method of claim
`22, wherein the contents
`of the first virtual
`display layer include
`
`- B61 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`
`
`input detected by the
`camera.
`
`48. The method of claim
`23, wherein a lighting
`operation is performed
`on the at least portion of
`the contents of the first
`virtual display layer,
`where the lighting
`operation is performed
`based on a movement of
`one or more of a
`plurality of different
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer,
`and the at least portion
`of the second virtual
`display layer is at least
`partially translucent so
`that a result of the
`lighting operation on the
`at least portion of the
`contents of the first
`virtual display layer is
`
`
`
`
`
`- B62 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`visible through the at
`least portion of the
`second virtual display
`layer.
`
`58. A non-transitory
`computer readable
`storage medium storing
`one or more programs,
`the one or more
`programs comprising
`instructions, which when
`executed by an
`electronic device with at
`least one non-transitory
`memory, a touch screen,
`a camera, and one or
`more processors, cause
`the electronic device to:
`display, via the touch
`screen, a first virtual
`display layer including
`contents;
`
`
`
`
`
`- B63 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 20 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`detect, via the touch
`screen, at least a
`portion of touch;
`in response to an aspect
`of the touch being
`detected to surpass a
`threshold, display, 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;
`
`- B64 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`detect, via the touch
`screen, another touch
`on at least one of the
`plurality of marking;
`and
`in response to detection
`of the another touch on
`the at least one of the
`plurality of marking in
`the second virtual
`display layer that
`appears to have the
`lesser depth than the
`first virtual display
`layer, display, via the
`touch screen, a
`movement of one or
`more of the plurality of
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer;
`and
`perform a zoom
`operation on the at least
`portion of the contents
`of the first virtual
`
`- B65 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 22 of 23
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Court’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Claim
`
`Agreed Proposed
`Construction
`
`display layer without
`performing the zoom
`operation on the
`plurality of markings in
`the second virtual
`display layer, where
`the zoom operation is
`performed based on the
`movement of the one or
`more of the plurality of
`markings in the second
`virtual display layer,
`and 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.
`
`- B66 -
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJC
`
`Page 23 of 23
`
`