Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 31
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 11, 2025
`
`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 B1
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 14, 2025
`
`
`
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`MIRIAM QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JENNIFER HUANG, ESQ.
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`(202) 783-5070
`jhuang@fr.com
`renner@fr.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`EAGLE ROBINSON, ESQ.
`CHAD WALLIS, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard
`Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 474-5201
`eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`chad.wallis@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on November 14, 2025,
`commencing at 10:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`3
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S 1
`- - - - - 2
`JUDGE QUINN: Welcome everybody to the Texas Regional 3
`Office. I'm going to start an introduction to this morning session. This is 4
`the hearing for Apple Inc. versus Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, IPR 5
`number 2024-01085. I am Judge Miriam Quinn presiding from the Texas 6
`Regional Office hearing room. With me remotely are my colleagues, 7
`Jameson Lee and Jeffrey Smith. 8
`My colleagues are in the hearing room in Alexandria. But because 9
`they are appearing remotely in this courtroom, I'm going to ask you to please 10
`be mindful of speaking into the microphone when it is green, so they can 11
`hear it. And the court reporter is also located today in the hearing room in 12
`the Madison Building. 13
`As always, please refer to the evidence by page number and exhibit 14
`number so we can follow along. As always, I always say no objections are 15
`allowed. If you have any to either the demonstratives or to your opponent's 16
`argument, please make that objection and -- on the record and on your own 17
`time. Today, we have each party having 60 minutes for each side. I'm going 18
`to ask you in a minute whether how much time you want for rebuttal. 19
`Let's see, I didn't see any other things that we needed to clear up 20
`for the record. I'd like to take appearances now for the record. Petitioner. 21
`MS. HUANG: Good morning, Your Honor. Jennifer Huang for 22
`Petitioner. 23
`MR. RENNER: And Walter Renner. Thank you. 24
`MR. ROBINSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Robinson and 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`4
`
`Chad Wallis with Patent Owner Smith Interface Technologies. 1
`JUDGE QUINN: Mm-hm. Any other statements from the parties' 2
`appearances? No? Okay. All right, Petitioner, you have the floor here to 3
`open our hearing today. I'll put 60 minutes on the clock. How many 4
`minutes would you like for rebuttal? 5
`MS. HUANG: Twenty minutes for rebuttal, Your Honor. 6
`JUDGE QUINN: And if I can ask the Patent Owner; do you know, 7
`Counsel, how many minutes would you like for rebuttal, so I can set it up 8
`now? 9
`MR. ROBINSON: Twenty minutes, Your Honor. 10
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. All right. You can start when 11
`you're ready. 12
`MS. HUANG: Good morning. Thank you, Your Honors. May it 13
`please the Board. My name is Jenny Huang and I represent Petitioner. And 14
`I'm joined today by my colleague, Karl Renner and David Holt and also 15
`joined by representative of Apple, Stepan Starchenko. And I'll begin our 16
`presentation, but you'll you might hear from Karl as well. 17
`So if you turn to Slide 2, Slide 2 shows the organization of issues 18
`and our presentation materials and largely attracts briefs. But in our limited 19
`time together, we plan to focus on Issues 1 to 3. Issue 4 deals with a few 20
`disputes about dependent claims, which we plan to leave to the papers, 21
`absent questions from you. And for convenient reference, Slide 4 offers a 22
`table of the Grounds advanced in our petition. 23
`But I'll begin my presentation with Slide 6. So on Slide 6, we see 24
`excerpts from the '580 Patent. At upper right in column 67, lines 45 to 51, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`5
`
`the '580 Patent describes the display of a user interface that has two virtual 1
`display layers. 2
`And in this example, as shown in Figure 22 at left, an object, 2206, 3
`is a stick figure exists in a front layer; while another object, 2208, another 4
`stick figure exists in the back would be colored a deep purple. The '580 5
`Patent further explains at column 68, lines 25 to 40, that the virtual display 6
`layers can be given the appearance of depth through the use of 3D depth 7
`cues, to quote, "give a visual indication of simulated depth." 8
`And as we've illustrated on this slide with color, the back layer is 9
`shown in a deep purple, while the front layer is shown in white, such that 10
`since the purple layer is behind the white layer, the overlapping layer is 11
`shown in a light purple, which illustrates, for example, that the front layer be 12
`semitranslucent or semitransparent. 13
`If you turn to Slide 7, you'll see at the upper left, we provide a clip 14
`from column 17, lines 22 to 32 of the '580 Patent, which explains that 15
`contact pressure levels can be represented by what it calls touch states. 16
`These touch states include from the lowest pressure level, no touch, to the 17
`highest pressure level, heavy touch. 18
`The '580 Patent at column 52 lines 57 to 63 additionally explain 19
`that touch events are determined based on measurable aspects of user 20
`interaction and that can include the touch state or contact pressure level or 21
`any other measurable aspect of user interaction. So what is a measurable 22
`aspect of user interaction? 23
`Well, for a capacitive touch sensor, which may be a touch screen, 24
`many of touchscreens are -- and the '580 Patent explains at column 36, lines 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`6
`
`31 to 38 that the capacitive touch sensor works by detecting a change in the 1
`capacitance and a current that passes between conducting lines in a 2
`touchscreen. And that current can be used to sense touch or proximity of an 3
`interaction with a touch sensitive surface. 4
`If we turn to Slide 8, please. For convenient reference, we show 5
`here exemplary Claim 1. And the two other independent claims are Method 6
`Claim 29 and CRM Claim 58, which largely follow the language of Claim 1. 7
`We just show Claim 1 for exemplary purposes. And as we dig into the 8
`issues, we'll highlight relevant aspects from this representative claim. But 9
`for now, I'll simply offer that on this slide, the text that's highlighted green 10
`relates to Issue 1, the text that's highlighted cyan relates to Issue 2, and the 11
`text highlighted magenta relates to Issue 3. 12
`Slide 9, please. And here, again, just for convenient reference, we 13
`reproduce that language with those highlighted excerpts from before. But 14
`with that, we've also added the Board's claim limitation indicators added in 15
`gray text. 16
`Slide 10, please. Here, we turn to the prior art. So as to the prior 17
`art, the Ramos Paper describes something it calls a Zlider widget and that's 18
`mentioned in the text box at the bottom left and it's illustrated in Figure 1, 19
`which is shown on top of slide. 20
`As you can see, the Zlider widget includes multiple components. 21
`It includes a pressure cursor. You can see that that's the wedge-shaped 22
`pointer that's identified using red arrow annotations. It also includes a 23
`working area that's shown as that rectangular area of the Zlider and also a 24
`Vernier. And that Vernier is annotated in Figure 2 on the Zlider shown on 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`7
`
`the -- or sorry, Figure 1 in the bottom Zlider. And it comprises the series of 1
`hash marks or grid lines along the Zlider. 2
`So what we see here is a Zlider that includes a plurality of 3
`markings in the form of the Vernier. And we also have the Ramos Paper 4
`explaining in the text box at the middle right that that Vernier of the Zlider is 5
`adapting its grid spacing depending on the widgets current scale factor. 6
`Slide 11, please. So on Slide 11, we turn to another reference. 7
`JUDGE QUINN: I do have a question for you, Counsel, about the 8
`Vernier. 9
`MS. HUANG: Yes. 10
`JUDGE QUINN: So as the Vernier is being adjusted for the scale, 11
`we can see that not only the spacing of the lines gets wider but also the lines 12
`appear longer. 13
`MS. HUANG: Yes. 14
`JUDGE QUINN: So is that a combination of the visual cue that 15
`there is a change in the scale? 16
`MS. HUANG: I believe so, yes. 17
`JUDGE QUINN: Does the width of the Vernier also change? 18
`MS. HUANG: The lines -- the width of some or -- I guess, 19
`depends on what dimension you're talking about. But the length of the lines, 20
`some of them extend longer. Ramos doesn't say exactly why it does that, but 21
`it does -- he does explain that the grid lines change their spacing for the 22
`purpose of indicating the precision level. 23
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you. 24
`MS. HUANG: Of course. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`8
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Counsel -- 1
`MS. HUANG: On Slide 11, we turn to the Ramos Video. 2
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, it's Judge Lee. But Judge Miriam was 3
`asking, does the entire width of the Vernier change? I don't think you 4
`answered that. 5
`MS. HUANG: Oh, okay. So I want to make sure I understand that 6
`question, Your Honor. Are you speaking about the entirety of all the lines 7
`grouped together with the space that they -- 8
`JUDGE LEE: Right. The entire Vernier, like -- 9
`MS. HUANG: Yes. It does not change, no. I guess, the real estate 10
`that the lines of the Vernier take up do not change their overall size. Again, 11
`you're not speaking of the individual lines but the entirety of the line area. 12
`That does not change in size, no. 13
`JUDGE LEE: And just the spacing between the lines, right? 14
`MS. HUANG: Yes. What Ramos says is that the Vernier adapts 15
`the grid spacing responsive to the precision level or the scale factor of the -- 16
`JUDGE LEE: And the number of lines doesn't change either? 17
`MS. HUANG: It appears that, potentially, the number of lines may 18
`be changing it. It seems like when the grid lines change their spacing at 19
`times, then additional lines suddenly appear between the lines. 20
`JUDGE LEE: I see. 21
`MS. HUANG: Yes. Does that -- 22
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. 23
`MS. HUANG: Oh, of course. 24
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`9
`
`MS. HUANG: So if we turn back to Slide 11, we turn to the 1
`Ramos Video. And this is a video that Dr. Gonzalo Ramos, who's the author 2
`of the Ramos Paper, uploaded to YouTube back in 2007. That video 3
`discusses the same Zlider from the Ramos Paper, and it demonstrates its use. 4
`Dr. Ramos testified to this in his declaration, that's Exhibit 1022, which is 5
`referenced in the petition at pages 4 to 5 and 11 and it's uncontested. 6
`The two screen captures on Slide 7 show the Zlider being used on 7
`that image content. The bottom image clearly shows that the Zliders 8
`pressure cursor, which is again that wedge-shaped object that's part of the 9
`Zlider, overlays the image below. So with the Ramos Video, we confirm 10
`that the at least part of the Zlider, that pressure cursor, is at least partially 11
`translucent. And we know that because we can see through the pressure 12
`cursor to the underlying image contents below it. 13
`And if you turn to Slide 12 -- 14
`JUDGE QUINN: Counsel, I want to ask you about the pressure, 15
`are you -- what are you mapping the pressure cursor to? 16
`MS. HUANG: We map the pressure cursor to -- or specific 17
`features of the pressure cursor to the partial translucency requirement of the 18
`independent claims. 19
`JUDGE QUINN: The partial translucency, which is part of the 20
`second virtual display layer. 21
`MS. HUANG: Correct. 22
`JUDGE QUINN: So the pressure cursor is also part of second 23
`virtual display layer. 24
`MS. HUANG: Correct. So the elements of the second virtual 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`10
`
`display layer are the elements of the Zlider. The Zlider as a whole, a 1
`POSITA would understand that all the components of the second virtual 2
`display layer -- or excuse me, a POSITA would understand that all the 3
`components of the Zlider, which is an altogether one widget, would be 4
`considered to be in the same virtual display layer that being here the second 5
`virtual display layer so the pressure cursor offers the translucency and as the 6
`claim requires, the ability to see through that partially translucent layer to the 7
`underlying content. 8
`JUDGE QUINN: How do you know that the pressure cursor is on 9
`the same display layer as the Zlider? 10
`MS. HUANG: Well, the Ramos Paper -- and we'll go back to that. 11
`I'll start with one -- there's one very important reason. And if you turn to 12
`Slide 23 of our presentation, I'll start with that the experts agree. So both 13
`Smith's expert and Apple's expert agree that the Zlider widget includes a 14
`number of components. And when Dr. Mahon was asked about those 15
`components, he said the Zlider has several components. And he went on to 16
`acknowledge that the Ramos Zlider provides a designation of a Vernier, a 17
`needle, and a pressure cursor that are included in the Zlider. And that's in 18
`his testimony at -- its Exhibit 1033, column -- page 52, lines 10 through 18. 19
`JUDGE QUINN: Yeah. But there's -- one thing to say that the 20
`product, the Zlider, has all of those components. It's a completely different 21
`issue here about which display layer these components are being displayed 22
`at. 23
`MS. HUANG: Sure. We also have further testimony from Dr. 24
`Cockburn. So if you turn to Slide 29 -- and this is in the papers as well, but 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`11
`
`we just wanted to highlight it. So in Slide 29, we have testimony from Dr. 1
`Cockburn. So he testifies that a POSITA would have understood all these 2
`components of the Zlider widget to be in the same virtual display layer. 3
`And in support of that, he also cites to a number of well-known 4
`widgets. He cites to the idea of scroll bars. We all know about scroll bars, 5
`which have been known since the 1980s. And these include many 6
`subcomponents, much like the Zlider widget. They include subcomponents 7
`like a scroll-trough, a scroll knob, and scroll arrows. 8
`And a POSITA would have understood that a scroll knob has to be 9
`in that scroll-trough in order to even operate a scroll bar. Right. And a 10
`POSITA would have understood these are all parts of a scroll bar. Even if 11
`we have some overlaying of components, a POSITA would say, that's all 12
`one cohesive unit, these are parts that act together. 13
`And if you turn to Ramos itself -- Ramos Paper, excuse me, on 14
`Slide 22. We know that the Zlider includes a pressure cursor. So if you 15
`look at the text on the bottom right with the header pressure cursor, we see 16
`that the -- that Ramos says, though not integral to the Zlider design, we use a 17
`pressure cursor across the implementations instead of a default cursor found 18
`in many GUIs. Our pressure cursor provides a means for real time 19
`indication of a pressure that they're applying to the input transducer. 20
`So he's saying that, okay, so not every implementation of the 21
`Zlider requires a pressure cursor. But my implementations do use it. And 22
`they provide this additional benefit of offering real time feedback as to the 23
`current pressure that's being applied using the pressure cursor, which is tied 24
`to the rest of the Zlider of course. Because if you apply more pressure to the 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`12
`
`pressure cursor of the Zlider, then a zoom action happens. Does that address 1
`your question? 2
`JUDGE QUINN: Yeah. A follow-up here, are you contending 3
`that the working area is translucent? 4
`MS. HUANG: No. 5
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you. 6
`MS. HUANG: Not as taught by Ramos, no. 7
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, this is Judge Lee. I have two questions. 8
`The first one is, what's happening when the user drags the cursor across the 9
`working area? What parameter is being changed? And the second one is, 10
`why does the Vernier move? What's the significance of the Vernier's 11
`movement as one move the cursor across the working area? 12
`MS. HUANG: So with the Verniers -- I want to make sure, there's 13
`a lot of components here. So if a user is dragging the cursor across the 14
`working area, what is the effect in the Ramos Paper -- 15
`JUDGE QUINN: Yeah. What parameter is being changed? 16
`MS. HUANG: Yeah. It really depends on the particular 17
`application. He has applications where simply dragging the pressure cursor 18
`across the working area might just pan the image. And if you're also 19
`increasing the pressure, then you're also zooming in as well. And that's the 20
`example that we show in the Ramos Video - that Ramos shows in his video 21
`from 3:10 to 3:16 in the video. 22
`JUDGE LEE: So by panning you mean just moving the 23
`underlying image? 24
`MS. HUANG: Yes. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`13
`
`JUDGE LEE: It's what it claims? 1
`MS. HUANG: Yes. Because Ramos explains that the Zlider tool 2
`can be used for both panning and zooming. So if you're moving the plurality 3
`of markings across the working area, then you can pan across the image in 4
`that example of the application of the Zlider. 5
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. I understand. But why -- I suppose that 6
`would mean the location of the image is a high precision parameter? 7
`MS. HUANG: Correct. 8
`JUDGE LEE: What is and what is not a high precision parameter? 9
`MS. HUANG: It really depends on the particular application. 10
`Because Ramos contemplates the idea of a Zlider and gives various 11
`examples of using that Zlider and also examples of how that Zlider can be 12
`applied to various other uses. He has another example where a high 13
`precision parameter is just moving through time during a video. So you can 14
`do it very, very slowly to go in slow motion versus going very fast. But the 15
`examples that we've relied on here, it includes both the level of zoom that's 16
`being applied and the amount of panning that's being applied. 17
`JUDGE LEE: Does that parameter have to be visible? In other 18
`words, as you drag the cursor across the working area, do you have to 19
`actually perceive the change in the parameter by looking at the underlying 20
`image data? 21
`MS. HUANG: Ramos doesn't say whether or not you have to be 22
`able to perceive it, though, is certainly a visual application. So there's 23
`certainly a suggestion that the idea is, when you change the parameters, 24
`you're changing what you see. Now, if the level of granularity is so small, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`14
`
`maybe your eyes can't resolve that. But the idea is that you're making some 1
`visual change that may or may not be visible to a user's eye and -- 2
`JUDGE LEE: Well, Claim 48, Patent Owner is saying, well, 3
`image filtering is not the type of parameter that Ramos contemplates. I don't 4
`know, can you actually perceive image filtering that's recited in Claim 48 5
`when you change it? Can you -- 6
`MS. HUANG: Sure, yes. 7
`JUDGE LEE: Go ahead. 8
`MS. HUANG: Yeah. Can we turn to Slide 69 so that we're all on 9
`the same language of Claim 48? So Claim 48 says that a lighting operation 10
`is performed on at least a portion of the contents of the first virtual layer. So 11
`something is being affected so that the lighting of that underlying content is 12
`being changed. And for Claim 48, the petition turns to a secondary 13
`reference to Hayward, which teaches the use of not a Zlider but a logical 14
`Zlider, which is element 1004, that a user can use to adjust the level of 15
`contrast. And a level of contrast of a scene is a change in the brightness or 16
`in the lighting of a particular image. 17
`So as illustrated on Slide 70 and in Figure 10 of Hayward, 10A of 18
`Hayward, and as described in paragraph 67 of Hayward, a user initiates a 19
`touch gesture on the left hand side of that logical Zlider on the screen and 20
`begins to drag her finger across the length of the screen. And then and you 21
`can see this in Figure 10B, when her fingers moved about halfway across the 22
`screen, the scene now has a higher level of contrast. You've changed the 23
`lighting here. 24
`So to answer your question, Judge Lee, you can certainly see this 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`15
`
`adjustment of this parameter of the contrast that the logical Zlider is 1
`providing in Hayward. And when she's moved her finger all the way across 2
`the screen to the right hand side, in Figure 10C, you see that the maximum 3
`allowable amount of contrast has been applied. And that's shown again in 4
`Figure 10C. So -- 5
`JUDGE LEE: I see. Strictly again, so that would be a high 6
`precision parameter that Ramos' Zlider would be a good use for is the 7
`position. 8
`MS. HUANG: Correct. That is our position, that's correct. So -- 9
`JUDGE LEE: But in a nutshell, why is that a high precision 10
`parameter and not a non-high precision parameter? What's the difference? 11
`MS. HUANG: I think the idea with Ramos' Zlider is to allow for 12
`high precision applications. So as long as the Ramos Zlider is being applied 13
`to a particular parameter, the idea is that by using a Zlider, you can allow a 14
`user to make high precision adjustments to whatever the parameter that a 15
`user may wish for a particular application to be adjusted. So in the 16
`combination that we're putting forth in the petition, we're taking the 17
`teachings of the Zlider and applying it, as Ramos suggests, in different 18
`graphical applications to Hayward's use of adjusting specifically contrast of 19
`an image. 20
`JUDGE LEE: Well, in a nutshell, can you just say in very concise 21
`terms, why is this parameter a high precision parameter that Hayward is 22
`adjusting? 23
`MS. HUANG: The reason why it would be a high precision 24
`parameter that Hayward is adjusting is because the Zlider is being used to 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`16
`
`adjust it. The Zlider offers high precision adjustments of parameters, period. 1
`So if the Zlider is there, then you have a high parameter -- you're affording 2
`the opportunity for a user to use the Zlider to make high precision -- 3
`JUDGE LEE: I see. To make fine adjustments. 4
`MS. HUANG: Yes. 5
`JUDGE LEE: Because you are using the Zlider, you can make 6
`fine tuning and that makes it a high precision parameter. 7
`MS. HUANG: That's correct, yup. There's features of Zlider that 8
`we're not pointing to for purposes of the petition that allow a user to lock the 9
`current level, to do various mechanisms in and out of the working area of the 10
`Zlider, to change the level at whatever high precision amount that user might 11
`want to, which is why the Zlider is so useful. And so what parameters could 12
`you apply it to? The answer is maybe whatever you want as long as it's a 13
`visual application or a graphical application, which is certainly something 14
`that Ramos contemplates on. 15
`JUDGE LEE: Okay. Thank you. Now, the second question, why 16
`does the Vernier move? What's the significance of the markings moving 17
`across the working area as the cursor goes across? 18
`MS. HUANG: I think the Vernier is moving maybe as a visual. 19
`And I don't know that Ramos says that specifically. But just using my eyes, 20
`the Vernier moves when the panning happens in that example from 3:10 to 21
`3:16 in the Ramos Video. So the Vernier and the pole moving up and down 22
`perhaps is representative of the panning of the image, whereas the adaptation 23
`of the adapting of the grid line spacing is showing that the scaling factor of 24
`the zoom is changing. So -- 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`17
`
`JUDGE LEE: I understand that. But it really doesn't have to 1
`move, right? It can stay still and all the functions will still be there. 2
`MS. HUANG: I think that's fair. Yeah. 3
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. 4
`MS. HUANG: So returning back to -- 5
`JUDGE QUINN: I'd like to hear from you, since you're not 6
`contending that the working area is translucent and neither is the Vernier, the 7
`combinations that you're making with Ording to put that working area, as 8
`you suggest, on the Ording device, can you turn to that? 9
`MS. HUANG: Sure. And I'll start with one thing, which is to say 10
`that the claims of the '580 Patent don't dictate that the entirety of the Zlider 11
`be transparent. It doesn't say that the working area has to be transparent, it 12
`doesn't -- well, it clearly doesn't say the working area. But what it doesn't 13
`say is that the entirety of the second virtual display layer is translucent. 14
`JUDGE QUINN: But in your combination, you have contended 15
`that you would, that someone of ordinary skill in the art would make the 16
`working area translucent, right? 17
`MS. HUANG: Yes. That's correct, Your Honor. That's what 18
`makes it translucent. 19
` JUDGE QUINN: That's what -- I want to know what your 20
`arguments are on that. 21
`MS. HUANG: Sure. So as a starting point, we have already in 22
`Ramos' teaching that the pressure cursor itself is partially translucent. And I 23
`should say that the partial translucency of this -- of the pressure cursor 24
`provides the requisite partial translucency of the claim requirement that 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`18
`
`there's partial translucency in the second virtual display layer. But it's not -- 1
`JUDGE QUINN: But there's a possibility to use the Zlider and the 2
`cursor to never leave the working area. So you would say -- what would you 3
`say-- that because sometimes you do leave the working area that there is 4
`translucency? 5
`MS. HUANG: I'd say Ramos Video clearly shows that there is 6
`translucency. So it's -- maybe you never see it in an actual application, but 7
`the Ramos Video itself shows the translucency. And it shows the 8
`translucency as it overlaps the underlying image content. 9
`JUDGE SMITH: This is Judge Smith. Let's say we agree with 10
`you that the cursor part of Ramos is transparent over the image, so the cursor 11
`is on a second layer and it's partially translucent. But the claim calls for a 12
`plurality of markings that are on the second layer. I mean, you only have 13
`one marking, which is the cursor that's on the second layer. 14
`MS. HUANG: Oh. And I should clarify them, Your Honor. The 15
`plurality of markings isn't -- is not mapped to the pressure cursor. The 16
`plurality of markings is mapped to the grid lines or the hash marks that are in 17
`Vernier. So Petitioner -- 18
`JUDGE SMITH: But they're not -- the Vernier is not on the 19
`second layer. The Vernier is on the same layer as the image. 20
`MS. HUANG: Yeah. So I should again clarify. So Petitioner's 21
`position as presented in the petition is that there is a first display layer and 22
`that includes the underlying image content. And above that is the second 23
`display layer. And that second display layer, second virtual display layer, 24
`includes the Zlider. The Zlider includes many components. The 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`19
`
`components include -- 1
`JUDGE SMITH: But it doesn't appear -- I mean, I'm looking at 2
`your Slide 44 that the Zlider on the right hand side, it doesn't appear to be 3
`overlapping the image. It appears to be to the right side of the image. The 4
`only part that appears to be over the image is the cursor. How do we know 5
`that the Zlider is over a portion of the image? 6
`MS. HUANG: So Your Honor, the Petitioner's position is that we 7
`know that the Zlider is over the image -- at least over some of it, because the 8
`pressure cursor is part of the Zlider and because the pressure cursor -- 9
`JUDGE SMITH: The pressure cursor, I agree with you. But the 10
`rest of it isn't on the second layer. It's only the pressure cursor that is on the 11
`second layer. Do you understand what I'm asking you? 12
`MS. HUANG: Yes, I understand. I understand what you're 13
`asking. So if there is an issue with that -- and I will say just again for the 14
`record that Petitioner's position is that all of the components of the Zlider are 15
`on the second display layer. But if we are not to accept that, then what the 16
`petition does instead is to turn to Ording. And so what we have with Ording 17
`is again, like Ramos, a reference that teaches the use of translucency in its 18
`widgets. 19
`So Ramos, if you turn to Slide 35, again, clearly shows that time 20
`3:16, that at least part of the Zlider, the pressure cursor, is at least partially 21
`translucent. And Ording teaches, at paragraph 45, the use of a virtual click 22
`wheel as an input control wheel and that that virtual click wheel can be a 23
`semitransparent object. And the idea of doing this, this is not revolutionary. 24
`So if you turn to Slide 36, we show various corroborating 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA (404) 684-6008 www.jps-online.com
`IPR2024-01085
`Patent 10,649,580 B1
`20
`
`references that our expert pointed to in support of his position that it would 1
`have been obvious, very well known, to make user interface objects 2
`translucent. And Hotelling, for example, on the right explains that at 3
`paragraph 153 that making a GUI elements -- excuse me, semitransparent 4
`allows the graphical image disposed below the GUI element to be seen, 5
`thereby eliminating and minimizing shifting. So this is a well-known thing 6
`to make them translucent. 7
`JUDGE QUINN: So I read your paragraphs 65 and 66, which is of 8
`the expert, Dr. Cockburn, and I don't see how you tie the use of the click 9
`wheel in Ording to all the operations that you would use the click wheel for, 10
`including operating the camera, the zoom, and/or even photos. So can you 11
`walk me through what is the logic of using a click wheel in Ording, which 12
`Ording describes as using to navigate between icons and then suddenly take 13
`that functionality and apply it to controlling a very specific use of an 14
`application or a device within the Ording common use for the tablet or 15
`whatever. 16
`MS. HUANG: Yes. Yeah. So I should clarify. So the reliance on 17
`Ording is not specifically for the specific functionality of the click wheel of 18
`Ording. But rather we use Ording because Ording teach