Paper 6
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2024-01085
`Patent No. 10,649,580
`______________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’580 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Independent Claims 1, 22, and 58 ......................................................... 2
`B.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 3
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 4
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 4
`A.
`Ramos Paper (EX1004) ......................................................................... 4
`B.
`Ramos Video (EX1005) ........................................................................ 6
`C. Ording (EX1006) ................................................................................... 7
`V. ALL GROUNDS: THE PETITION FAILS TO SHOW
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 22, AND 58 OVER THE
`ALLEGED RAMOS PAPER, RAMOS VIDEO, AND ORDING
`DEVICE (PROD) ............................................................................................ 9
`A.
`[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 ............................................................. 9
`1.
`The Petition fails to address Limitation [1l] with
`particularity ................................................................................ 9
`Petitioner’s mapping fails to address all claim elements ......... 10
`2.
`[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 ..................................................................................................... 11
`1.
`A “touch” is a touch; mere proximity is not a “touch” ........... 12
`2.
`Ramos Paper and Ramos Video display their Vernier in
`response to a hover—not touch................................................. 14
`[1i], [22d], [58c]: at least a portion of the second virtual display
`layer is at least partially translucent .................................................... 15
`1.
`Petitioner’s first mapping relies on a semitransparent
`element that is not in the second virtual display layer ............. 17
`Petitioner’s second mapping fails to show semitransparency
`in a second virtual display layer ............................................... 23
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Shorthand
`Description
`Declaration Declaration of Marc Davis, Ph.D.
`CV
`CV of Marc 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).
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Institution should be denied because the Petition fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Petition fails to address all
`
`claim limitations, neglects the difference between hovering over and actually
`
`touching a screen, and relies on mappings that are internally inconsistent. Each of
`
`these defects are present in all grounds. Institution should therefore be denied.
`
`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.
`
`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. Such
`
`visual cues “refer[] to an effect, manipulation, transformation, animation, or
`
`operation which gives a visual indication of simulated depth. For example, in one
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`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.
`
`Different depth cues may be used for different virtual display layers; depth cues may
`
`also “be used in conjunction with a 3D layered user interface implemented in a
`
`layered display device, to enhance the layered appearance.” EX1001, 68:36–40.
`
`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
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless noted otherwise.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`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].
`
`B. 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. In the Litigation,2 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. Patent Owner does not believe formal
`
`construction to be necessary to deny institution on the following bases.
`
`
`2 Smith Interface Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 3:23-cv-01187 (S.D. Cal., June 27, 2023)
`
`(the “Litigation”). On October 2, 2024, the Court granted in part Petitioner’s request
`
`to stay the Litigation, staying the Litigation “pending the issuance of the last of the
`
`PTAB’s institution decisions on Apple’s pending IPR petitions,” with any “further
`
`stay” to be addressed after those decisions. EX2004.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s
`
`proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is
`
`necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Ramos Paper (EX1004)
`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. Ramos Paper “present[s] the Zlider (Figure 1), a
`
`widget that instantiates the Zliding concept.” EX1004, Abstract.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`As an interactive widget, Zlider offers high precision parameter manipulation
`
`and immediate feedback for continuous, rather than discrete, parameter adjustments.
`
`EX1004, 1. 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.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`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)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`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. This region allows them to perform micro
`
`parameter adjustments without the need to reacquire a precision level as well as to
`
`reposition the cursor as needed. The hover region of the input device also allows
`
`users to reach arbitrarily high precision levels. Users do this by repeatedly
`
`alternating between increasing pressure and lifting the stylus while remaining in
`
`tracking distance. By leaving and re-entering the Zlider’s working area while in the
`
`hover region, users can also decrease the widget’s precision.” EX1005, 2:00-2:45.
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`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].
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`V. ALL GROUNDS: THE PETITION FAILS TO SHOW OBVIOUSNESS
`OF CLAIMS 1, 22, AND 58 OVER THE ALLEGED RAMOS PAPER,
`RAMOS VIDEO, AND ORDING DEVICE (PROD)
`[1l], [22g], and [58f]–[58g]: the at least portion of the second virtual
`A.
`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
`Limitation [1l] recites “perform 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 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
`
`second virtual display layer.” Pet., vii. Limitations [22g] and [58g] recite similar
`
`features. See Pet., x, xiii. Institution should be denied because the Petition fails to
`
`explain with particularity how Limitations [1l], [22g], and [58f]–[58g] are met.
`
`The Petition fails to address Limitation [1l] with particularity
`1.
`The Petition does not include a section explicitly addressed to Limitation [1l].
`
`Compare Pet., vi–vii (Limitations [1pre], [1a]–[1l]) with Pet., 34 (Limitation [1pre]),
`
`35 (Limitation [1a], 36 (Limitation [1b]), 37 (Limitations [1c], [1d]), 39 (Limitation
`
`[1e]), 41 (Limitation [1f]), 43 (Limitation [1g]), 49 (Limitation [1h]), 59 (Limitation
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`[1i]), 62 (Limitation [1j]), 68 (Limitation [1k]), 72 (Limitation [2]), 68–72 (no
`
`apparent Limitation [1l]). Thus, the Petition includes a heading for each limitation
`
`in claim 1 except for Limitation [1l]), forcing Patent Owner and the Board to
`
`determine what, if anything, in Petitioner’s mapping is intended to read on
`
`Limitation [1l].
`
`And that infects Petitioner’s grounds for all challenged claims because the
`
`mapping of Limitations [22g] and [58g]—which recite features similar to those of
`
`Limitation [1l]—simply reference Limitation [1k]. See Pet., 89 (for Limitation
`
`[22g], solely referencing Limitation [1k]), 92 (for Limitation [58g], solely
`
`referencing Limitation [1k]). Thus, Petitioner’s mapping of Limitations [22g] and
`
`[58g] is even worse in that it references Limitation [1k], which does not include
`
`similar features to Limitations [22g] and [58g]. Likewise, and deepening the morass,
`
`Petitioner’s mapping of Limitation [58f] references Limitation [1j], which does not
`
`include similar features to Limitation [58f]. See Pet., 92 (for Limitation [58f], solely
`
`referencing Limitation [1j]).
`
`This defect therefore infects all grounds for all challenged claims, and is—
`
`alone—sufficient reason to deny institution.
`
`Petitioner’s mapping fails to address all claim elements
`2.
`Even giving Petitioner the benefit of the doubt, Petitioner’s mapping cannot
`
`be reconciled with the claims. For example, the beginning of Petitioner’s mapping
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`to Limitation [1k] appears to have been intended to address Limitation [1l]. See Pet.,
`
`68 (addressing “movement of the plurality of markings” based on the zoom scale
`
`factor). Likewise, latter parts of Petitioner’s mapping to Limitation [1k] appear to
`
`have been intended to address parts of Limitation [1l]. See, Pet., 68–69 (addressing
`
`a “magnification function,” “zoom operation applied to the content is not applied to
`
`the Vernier”); see also, 68–72.
`
`However, nowhere does Petitioner’s mapping to Limitation [1k] address the
`
`second half of Limitation [1l]: “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.” Compare Pet., vii (Limitation [1l])
`
`with Pet., 68–72. Similar features are found in Limitations [1l], [22g], and [58g]
`
`and, as noted above, Petitioner’s mappings for Limitations [22g] and [58g] both rely
`
`on the mapping for Limitation [1k], meaning the failure to address this feature
`
`renders all grounds deficient on their face for this additional reason.
`
`B.
`
`[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
`Limitation [1h] recites: “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
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`display layer . . . .” Limitations [22d] and [58c] similarly recite: “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 . . . .” For claim 1,
`
`“the touch” finds its antecedent in Limitation [1g]: “detect, via the touch screen, at
`
`least a portion of touch on the least one user interface element.” See also Limitations
`
`[22c], [58b].
`
`A “touch” is a touch; mere proximity is not a “touch”
`1.
`For Limitation [1g], Petitioner assumes there is no difference between a stylus
`
`not touching (hovering within a threshold distance of) and touching (actually
`
`contacting) the screen. First, Petitioner asserts that the “[t]he Ramos Video further
`
`shows several examples of the device detecting at least a portion of a touch on the
`
`working area (at least one user interface element) displayed on the touch screen, as
`
`evidenced by the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the displays, shown below.” Pet., 43 (citing
`
`EX1005). The Petition then shows a number of screenshots from the Ramos Video,
`
`without addressing the fact that “after” display of the Vernier is responsive to the
`
`stylus hovering within a threshold distance of the screen, not to the stylus actually
`
`touching the screen. The Petition next asserts—without explanation—that a
`
`“POSITA would have understood that a touch in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video
`
`includes both contact with the touch screen and meeting a threshold proximity
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`[without contact] between the stylus and the touch screen.” Pet., 47 (citing EX1003,
`
`¶80). But that makes no sense. EX2001, ¶50.
`
`The only support Petitioner cites for the conclusion that merely getting close
`
`could be a “touch” is a (misquoted) passage in the ’580 Patent. Petitioner contends
`
`that “the ’580 Patent explains that ‘contact pressure level may be represented by a
`
`touch state,’ which ‘refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact
`
`pressures,’ where the ‘lowest touch state may require some form of proximity,’” and
`
`therefore the “PROD teaches and/or renders obvious detecting at least a portion of a
`
`touch (e.g., proximity).” Pet., 47–48 (quoting EX1001, 17:22–36).
`
`But Petitioner overlooks the most important piece of that passage—i.e., that
`
`the “lowest touch state” is not a little touch; it is explicitly “no touch.” EX1001,
`
`17:25–29.3 Stated another way, the cited passage of the ’580 Patent suggests that
`
`some proximity is required before even registering the “no touch” touch state (which
`
`is logical, as movements farther away may not be indicative that a touch is likely).
`
`Thus, the passage Petitioner cites to suggests that an absence of touch might still be
`
`a touch, shows exactly the opposite—that proximity is only relevant when there is
`
`“no touch.” EX1001, 17:22–36. As such, Petitioner’s attempt to treat “no touch” as
`
`a “touch” is wholly unsupported.
`
`
`3 Aspects of a touch are not limited to the touch states defined in the specification.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`Further, interpreting “touch” to include a lack of touch (i.e., “proximity”)
`
`would not make sense in the context of the challenged claims (and those that depend
`
`therefrom), which recite: “detect[ing], via the touch screen, at least a portion of touch
`
`on the least one user interface element.” EX1001, Claim 1. The ’580 Patent makes
`
`clear that “a touch event refers to an event in which an implement of interaction
`
`comes into contact with an interaction surface.” EX1001, 52:48–50.
`
`2.
`
`Ramos Paper and Ramos Video display their Vernier in
`response to a hover—not touch
`For Limitation [1h], the Petition contends that “display[ing], via the touch
`
`screen, a plurality of markings in a second virtual display layer” is met by Ramos
`
`Paper and Ramos Video’s display of their Vernier. Pet., 50 (“in response to
`
`determining that an aspect of the touch (e.g., a duration or distance of a touch on
`
`Ording’s touch screen) surpasses a threshold (e.g., a time or distance threshold,
`
`taught or suggested by Ording), the Vernier of the Zlider, as taught by Ramos Paper
`
`and Ramos Video, is displayed on the touch screen.”). But Petitioner glosses over
`
`the fact that Ramos Paper and Ramos Video do not display their Vernier in response
`
`to a touch, and fails to articulate any motivation to change that foundation.
`
`First, Petitioner recognizes that “Ramos Paper and Ramos Video similarly
`
`teach or suggest the use of a threshold associated with a detected aspect of a touch:
`
`when an aspect of the touch is detected to surpass a threshold (i.e., the signals
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`associated with the hover threshold described further below) when using the Zlider,
`
`the Vernier is displayed on the touchscreen.” Pet., 50 (citing EX1003, ¶85; EX1005,
`
`0:14, 3:10–3:11). Petitioner’s expert agrees. EX1003, ¶85 (citing EX1004, FIG. 5)
`
`(“POSITA would have understood or found obvious that the tracking state is
`
`activated when signals from the stylus exceed a threshold (i.e., the stylus is close
`
`enough to the touch surface to be registered as movement near the surface)”).
`
`Thus, Ramos Paper and Ramos Video display their Vernier in response to the stylus
`
`coming near the display, not in response to the stylus actually touching the display.
`
`Second, despite arguing generally that it would have been obvious in view of
`
`Ording to add a duration threshold to the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video, Petitioner
`
`never articulates any theory (much less motivation) to modify the Ramos references
`
`to display the Vernier in response to touch rather than mere proximity. See Pet., 49–
`
`50. Thus, even if the Ramos Paper and/or Ramos Video were modified to include a
`
`duration threshold (purportedly to avoid inadvertent activations), Ramos would still
`
`display the Vernier in response to a hover, not “when [in response to] an aspect of
`
`the touch is [being] detected to surpass a threshold.”
`
`C.
`
`[1i], [22d], [58c]: at least a portion of the second virtual display
`layer is at least partially translucent
`Limitations [1h], [1i], [22d], and [58c] recite “a plurality of markings in a
`
`second virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`display layer, where at least a portion of the second virtual display layer is at least
`
`partially translucent.” Limitations [1i], [22g], and [58g] recite the latter part,
`
`specifically “at least [a] portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially
`
`translucent.” Petitioner, however, fails to establish obviousness as to these
`
`limitations.
`
`Petitioner maps to the subject image as the “contents” in the alleged first
`
`virtual display layer. See, e.g., Pet., 39.
`
`And Petitioner contends that the “contents” are behind the “working area” of the
`
`Zlider next to the image (Pet., 39), such that “the plurality of markings are displayed
`
`on a second virtual layer.” Pet., 51; see also Pet., 54 (citing EX1005, 3:11).
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`Limitations [1i], [1l], [22d], [22g], [58c], and [58g] also require that at least a
`
`portion of the second virtual display layer is partially translucent. See Pet., vi, vii,
`
`x, xii, xiii. Petitioner offers two mappings to meet these limitations, both of which
`
`are internally inconsistent and fail to meet the recited combination of these claim
`
`
`
`limitations.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s first mapping relies on a semitransparent element
`that is not in the second virtual display layer
`Petitioner’s first mapping fails to show a partially translucent second virtual
`
`display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer.
`
`EX2001, ¶ 66. In addition to the “plurality of markings in a second virtual display
`
`layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer,”
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`Limitations [1l], [22g], and [58g] also require that “at least [a] portion of the second
`
`virtual display layer is at least partially translucent.”
`
`For the “at least partially translucent” feature, Petitioner points to the “semi-
`
`translucent” aspect of the pressure cursor in the Ramos Paper as meeting the
`
`“partially translucent” element in Limitations [1i], [1l], [22d], [22g], [58c], and
`
`[58g]. Pet., 55. Specifically, the Petition points to Figure 6 (inset below, as
`
`excerpted and annotated by Petitioner) of the Ramos Paper showing the “pressure
`
`cursor” as “semi-translucent, as evidenced by the grid lines visible through the
`
`cursor.” Pet., 55–56. Petitioner then cites to Figure 6 (inset below) of the Ramos
`
`Paper for support that “the ‘pressure cursor’ of the Zlider is displayed in a second
`
`layer.” Pet., 56.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`However, the translucency of the pressure cursor cannot meet the requirement
`
`that “at least a portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially
`
`translucent” because the pressure cursor is plainly shown to be above the Zlider.
`
`EX2001, ¶70; see also Pet., 56 (“[the pressure cursor] is always above, for example,
`
`the image being displayed and manipulated by the Zlider) along with other
`
`components of the Zlider (e.g., working area of the Vernier)”). Specifically, the
`
`translucency of the pressure cursor changes the appearance of both the alleged
`
`content (which Petitioner identifies as being in a first virtual display layer) and the
`
`Zlider widget (which Petitioner identifies as being in a second virtual display layer).
`
`EX2001, ¶71.
`
`EX1004, Fig. 5 (excerpt).
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`The same can be seen in the Ramos Video, in which the pressure cursor
`
`plainly casts a shadow over both the Zlider and the adjacent area just before the
`
`stylus contacts the screen. EX2001, ¶72; EX1005, 0:14 (cited at Pet., 16).
`
`The same is true once the stylus contacts the screen, as can be seen in another
`
`part of the Ramos Video inset below. EX2001, ¶73.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`
`
`
`EX1005, 3:19 (cited at Pet., 20). As shown—and consistent with Figure 6 of the
`
`Ramos Paper—the translucency of parts of the pressure cursor changes the
`
`appearance of both the markings of the Vernier and the underlying content—plainly
`
`indicating that the pressure cursor is in a different virtual display layer above the
`
`markings. EX2001, ¶74.
`
`Thus, the pressure cursor is above or at a lesser depth than the markings of the
`
`Vernier. EX2001, ¶75. Stated another way, the Ramos Paper and the Ramos Video
`
`illustrate the pressure cursor in a different virtual display layer than the alleged
`
`markings (i.e., Vernier) of the Zlider widget. EX2001, ¶75; see also EX1001, 68:7–
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`11 (“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”).4
`
`Thus, if the alleged markings5 are in the second virtual layer, then the pressure
`
`cursor is not in the second virtual display layer, and Petitioner’s mapping fails to
`
`show “at least a portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially
`
`translucent.” EX2001, ¶76. If instead the pressure cursor is in the second virtual
`
`display layer, then the alleged markings are not, meaning Petitioner’s mapping fails
`
`to show “at least a portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially
`
`translucent.” EX2001, ¶77. Put simply, Limitations as [1h]–[1i], [22d], and [58c]
`
`
`4 Petitioner also identifies an aspect of a different, color-picker widget in the Ramos
`
`Video as showing alleged translucency above the content. Pet., 56–57. However,
`
`the Petition fails to explain any reason it would have been obvious to include that in
`
`Ramos’ Zlider, much less in a way that would position that alleged translucency in
`
`a second virtual display layer as required by Limitations [1i], [22d], and [58c].
`
`5 Petitioner implies, without directly alleging, that the Ramos Video displays the
`
`Vernier’s extended markings in a “semi-transparent manner.” Pet., 26. But the
`
`Ramos Video does no such thing; the extended markings are shown as opaque.
`
`EX2001, n.3; see also Pet., 29 (depicting EX1005, 3:19). Further, Petitioner’s actual
`
`mapping does not point to these extended markings. See Pet., 55-58.
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`each require the markings and the translucency to both be in the same virtual display
`
`layer, and Petitioner’s first mapping simply does not disclose or suggest this.
`
`EX2001, ¶78.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s second mapping fails to show semitransparency in
`a second virtual display layer
`Petitioner’s second mapping also fails to show a partially translucent second
`
`virtual display layer at a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer. EX2001, ¶
`
`79. Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious for a POSITA to modify the
`
`Zlider in the Ramos Paper and the Ramos Video with the “semitransparent object”
`
`in Ording and shows a modified version of Ording with
`
`the alleged
`
`“semitransparent” version of Ramos’ Zlider (inset below). Pet., 57–59.
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580
`But Petitioner fails to show—much less assert—that the alleged markings
`
`(i.e., Ramos’ Vernier) in this combination, would have been in a second virtual
`
`display
`
`layer.
`
`