UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYPRESS LAKE SOFTWARE, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 9,423,923
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 1 of 119
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`III.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Education and Experience ...................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Compensation ........................................................................................................ 7
`C.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ....................................................... 7
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................ 8
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 8
`B. Written Description ................................................................................................ 8
`C.
`Benefit of Claimed Priority / Effective Filing Date ............................................... 9
`D.
`Anticipation.......................................................................................................... 10
`E.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................................... 10
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’923 PATENT ............................................................................. 11
`A.
`Summary of the ’923 Patent ................................................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................................. 21
`C.
`Related District Court Litigation ......................................................................... 22
`STATE OF THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’923 PATENT ................................................. 22
`A.
`Task Switching..................................................................................................... 22
`B. Window Layout ................................................................................................... 25
`C.
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art................................................................. 29
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART..................... 31
`VI.
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS........................................................................................... 31
`A.
`“Form of a first input” / “Form of a second input” .............................................. 32
`B.
`“First” / “Second” / “Third” ................................................................................. 36
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘923
`PATENT .......................................................................................................................... 40
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-31 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) For Lack Of
`Written Description .............................................................................................. 40
`1.
`Claims 1-3 ................................................................................................ 40
`2.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 5-31 ............................................................................................... 55
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 2 of 119
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-23 and 25-31 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 In
`View of The Public Use and Sale of Microsoft’s Windows 10 Operating
`System and Devices Running Windows 10 ......................................................... 56
`1.
`Claim 1–3 ................................................................................................. 57
`2.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 66
`3.
`Claim 5-14 and 16-30 .............................................................................. 71
`4.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................... 87
`5.
`Claim 31 ................................................................................................... 89
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 3 of 119
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`1. My name is Loren G. Terveen. I am currently a full Professor of
`
`Computer Science & Engineering at The University of Minnesota, and hold the
`
`title of Distinguished McKnight University Professor.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) in
`
`connection with the Petition for Post-Grant Review (“PGR Petition”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,423,923 (the “’923 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the ’923 patent has been assigned to Cypress Lake
`
`Software, Inc. (“Cypress Lake”).
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`II.
`
`5.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-31 of the ’923 patent are invalid for lack
`
`of written description support under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, as explained to me by
`
`Petitioners’ counsel.
`
`6.
`
`The ’923 patent is directed to techniques for displaying navigation
`
`controls for navigating between applications on a computer in a more convenient
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 4 of 119
`
`

`

`
`manner. The specification describes that existing methods of navigating between
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`applications often requires “interoperating with a standard user interface element
`
`such as a task bar and/or application menu of a desktop that remains in a single
`
`location.” ’923 patent at 1:30-35. The location of such a “task bar or other
`
`standard application navigation user interface may be . . . convenient for some
`
`applications but inconvenient for others.” Id. at 1:39-41. The ’923 patent
`
`describes methods and systems for navigating between applications by presenting
`
`navigation controls integrated with or adjacent to the user interface for a first
`
`application for navigating to other running applications. Id. at 1:62-2:6, Figs. 6a-e.
`
`7.
`
` Claims 1-3 of the ’923 patent each require presenting “a
`
`representation of a second visual component of the second application and a
`
`representation of a third visual component of a third application . . . for navigating
`
`to the second visual component of the second application.” ’923 patent, claims 1-
`
`3. The specification of the ’923 patent only ever describes using a component of a
`
`navigation control (e.g., a menu item) representing a particular application (or one
`
`of the application’s user interface elements) to navigate to that particular
`
`application. E.g., id. at 13:11-14 (“An input received corresponding to a particular
`
`application control may identify a user instruction to navigate to a visual
`
`component of the particular application.”). The specification never describes using
`
`a component of a navigation control representing one application to navigate to an
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 5 of 119
`
`

`

`
`entirely different application. There is no support in the specification for the
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`requirement in claims 1-3 of presenting “a representation of a third visual
`
`component of a third application . . . for navigating to the second visual
`
`component of the second application.” ’923 patent, claims 1-3. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading the ’923 specification would not have
`
`understood the named inventor to have been in possession of an invention
`
`involving the functionality described in these limitations. Therefore, it is my
`
`opinion that claims 1-3 of the ’923 patent are invalid for lack of written description
`
`support under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4 of the ’923 patent requires displaying “a menu in a first
`
`location with respect to a location of the first window, if the first user input takes
`
`the form of a first input” and displaying “the menu in a second location with
`
`respect to a location of the first window, if the first user input takes the form of a
`
`second input.” ’923 patent, claim 4. The specification of the ’923 patent only
`
`describes displaying a menu in a fixed location relative to an application window
`
`(e.g., adjacent to a window, embedded within a window’s menu bar). Even for
`
`non-menu navigation controls, the ’923 patent only describes displaying such
`
`controls in a fixed location relative to an application user interface component or
`
`based on a location corresponding to a user input (e.g., “a pop-up or context
`
`pane”). The specification of the ’923 patent never describes displaying a menu in
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 3 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 6 of 119
`
`

`

`
`different locations based on the form of user input — i.e., the kind or type of user
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`input. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading the ’923
`
`specification would not have understood the named inventor to have been in
`
`possession of an invention involving the functionality described in this limitation.
`
`Therefore, it is my opinion that claim 4 of the ’923 patent is invalid for lack of
`
`written description support under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 5-31 depend on claim 4 of the ’923 patent and share the same
`
`requirement of presenting a menu of applications in two different locations based
`
`on the form of user input. None of those dependent claims rectify the lack of
`
`written description support in the independent claim. Therefore, it is my opinion
`
`that the dependent claims 5-31 are each also invalid for lack of written description
`
`support under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`10. Finally, because the claims of the ’923 patent lack written description
`
`support from either the ’923 specification or the applications to which it claims
`
`priority, I understand that the claims of the ’923 patent are not entitled to the
`
`benefit of an earlier filing date. I understand that Cypress Lake has filed an action
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas and alleges that devices running Windows 10
`
`infringe the ’923 patent. I have reviewed the claim charts that Cypress Lake has
`
`provided in that litigation, which allege that devices running Windows 10 satisfy
`
`each and every of one of the limitations in claims 1-23 and 25-31. I further
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 4 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 7 of 119
`
`

`

`
`understand that the accused Windows 10 functionality that Cypress Lake alleges to
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`infringe was in public use, on sale and publically known at the time of the
`
`invention. Ex 1009 (“Sundelin Dec.”) ¶¶ 19-26. Because the use that Cypress
`
`Lake alleges to infringe actually pre-dates the effective filing date of the ’923
`
`patent, it is my opinion that the asserted claims of the ’923 patent would be
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious under Cypress Lake’s interpretation of the claims.
`
`11. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my
`
`qualifications and experience and then describe the details of my analysis and
`
`observations regarding the ’923 patent.
`
`A. Education and Experience
`
`12.
`
`I received a B.A. in Computer Science, Mathematics, and History
`
`from the University of South Dakota in 1984, a M.S. in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Texas in 1988, and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in
`
`Computer Science in 1991.
`
`13.
`
`I am a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
`
`the oldest, largest, and most prestigious computing society in the world. I am the
`
`President of ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction, one
`
`of its largest and most active special interest groups. I also am a member of the
`
`ACM Council, the highest governing body of the ACM. I received the ACM for
`
`Distinguished Scientist Award in 2009.
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 5 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 8 of 119
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`14. My research and teaching focus on human-computer interaction, user
`
`
`
`interface design, and social computing. I have several decades of experience in
`
`these specialties of computer science in both industry and academia. I worked for
`
`AT&T Laboratories from 1991 through 2002, during which time I conducted
`
`research and developed systems that solved problems in software engineering, web
`
`information seeking and organization, and recommender systems. In all my
`
`research, I designed, implemented, and tested graphical user interfaces. I have been
`
`employed full-time as a professor at the University of Minnesota since 2002,
`
`during which time I have taught classes in computer science, human-computer
`
`interaction and social computing, and have conducted, supervised, and published
`
`research in the field. My research has been published in numerous journal and
`
`conference papers, as well as in a book I co-authored entitled “Foundational Issues
`
`in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science: Impasse and Solution.” I have
`
`served on the editorial board of ACM’s Transactions on Human-Computer
`
`Interaction and the Communications of the ACM, and have served as a reviewer
`
`for numerous journals, including ACM Computing Surveys, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Data and Knowledge Engineering, the International Journal of Human-Computer
`
`Studies, and the Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.
`
`15.
`
`I am a listed inventor on nine patents, including those related to the
`
`computer graphical environment (U.S. Patent No. 5,680,530).
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 6 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 9 of 119
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`16.
`
`I have consulted on over 10 intellectual property cases that have dealt
`
`
`
`with topics in user interface design, recommender systems, web information
`
`systems, and set top boxes. During these cases, I have testified before judges, been
`
`deposed, and written multiple expert reports.
`
`17. A more complete recitation of my qualifications, background and
`
`experience, including a list of my publications and matters on which I have worked
`
`as an expert, are set forth in my curriculum vitae, attached to my declaration as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`18.
`
`I am being compensated by Microsoft for my work in connection with
`
`this declaration. The compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the
`
`outcome of this post-grant review or any other proceeding, or any issues involved
`
`in or related to the post-grant review.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`19. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on documents and
`
`materials identified in this declaration, including the ’923 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, the background materials discussed in this declaration, and
`
`any other references specifically identified in this declaration. I have considered
`
`these materials in their entirety, even if only portions are discussed here.
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 7 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 10 of 119
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`20.
`
`I have also relied on my own experience and expertise in human-
`
`
`
`computer interaction and user interface research and design.
`
`21. All exhibit numbers used in this declaration refer to the Exhibits to
`
`Petitioners’ PGR Petition for the ’923 patent.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`22. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent, a claim subject to post-grant review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” Petitioners’ counsel has further informed me that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`language, and that any term that lacks a definition in the specification is also given
`
`a broad interpretation.
`
`B. Written Description
`
`23. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), a
`
`patent’s written description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. To satisfy § 112(a), the
`
`disclosures in the patent application, as filed, must describe the full scope of the
`
`claimed invention and do so in sufficient detail that a POSITA would clearly
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 8 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 11 of 119
`
`

`

`
`conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`filing date.
`
`24. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that it is not enough to show that a
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious to a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification. I have also been informed that, to satisfy § 112(a), it is not enough
`
`to point to language in the written description covering separate, individual
`
`limitations. For a claim to satisfy § 112(a), the patent’s specification must
`
`demonstrate to those a POSITA that the inventor had actual possession of the
`
`complete and final invention with all its claimed limitations.
`
`C. Benefit of Claimed Priority / Effective Filing Date
`
`25. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that the effective filing date for a
`
`patent claim is generally the actual filing date of the patent, unless the patent
`
`claims priority to an earlier application and the claim in question is fully supported
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosures in the earlier filed application. If the
`
`earlier application does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a
`
`POSITA would conclude that the inventor was in “possession” of the claimed
`
`invention as of the filing date of that earlier application, the claim does not receive
`
`the benefit of its earlier filing date.
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 9 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 12 of 119
`
`

`

`
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`26. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be
`
`valid, the claimed invention must be novel. Petitioners’ counsel has further
`
`advised that, if the ’923 patent is not entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier
`
`priority date, the novelty of its claims will determined by AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`27. Petitioner’s counsel has advised that, under AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a)(1), if a prior art system in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
`
`public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention satisfies every
`
`element of a claim, the claim is anticipated and is not patentable. AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) provides certain exceptions to § 102(a) — for example, where the public
`
`use, sale, or public availability of the prior art system was from one of the patent’s
`
`named inventors or where the prior art system was developed pursuant to a joint
`
`research agreement.
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`28. Petitioner’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 is a basis for invalidity for patents filed after March 16, 2013, that
`
`are not entitled to the benefit of an earlier effective filing date. I understand that if
`
`a piece of prior art does not disclose all of the limitations of a given patent claim,
`
`that patent claim is nonetheless invalid if the differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 10 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 13 of 119
`
`

`

`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA. Obviousness can be based on a single
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`piece of prior art or a combination that either expressly or inherently disclose all
`
`limitations of the claimed invention.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’923 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’923 Patent
`
`29. The ’923 patent discloses methods and systems for “navigating
`
`between visual components” of various applications on a computer desktop. ’923
`
`patent at 1:48-40. The Background section states that “[c]luttered desktops on
`
`desktop, notebook, and handheld devices are common,” and that navigating
`
`between various applications typically requires “interoperating with a standard user
`
`interface element such as a task bar and/or application menu of a desktop that
`
`remains in a single location.” Id. at 1:30-35. The patent states that a problem with
`
`these task bar and application menu interfaces is that they “ may be located in a
`
`location that is convenient for some applications but inconvenient for others,”
`
`which “creates a lot of input overhead in cases where switching between
`
`applications is frequent.” Id. at 1:39-44.
`
`30. The ’923 patent proposes methods and systems for generating “a
`
`navigation control” of currently-operating applications and displaying it in a
`
`location based on the location of an open application window or other application
`
`user interface element. Id. at 12:59-65, 13:2-5. However, the ’923 patent
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 11 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 14 of 119
`
`

`

`
`describes its functionality — i.e., what is displayed, how it is displayed, and for
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`what result — using highly generic, almost meaningless terminology. The
`
`terminology of the written description appears to be intentionally vague and
`
`generic, lacking any meaningful detail.
`
`31. For example, the ’923 describes its invention as techniques for
`
`“navigating between visual components” of applications. E.g., ’923 patent at 1:62-
`
`63. The patent never provides a precise meaning of “navigation.” It uses the term
`
`“visual component” interchangeably with similarly-generic terms such as “visual
`
`representation” and “visual interface element” (id. at 9:51-53), all of which could
`
`apparently refer to any visual element of an application user interface. Id. at 9:39-
`
`41 (“More specifically, visual components of a user interface are referred to herein
`
`as visual interface elements.”). For this purpose of “navigating” between “visual
`
`components” of different applications, the patent discloses using a “navigation
`
`control” displayed in a “navigation region.” Id. at 12:61-62. The patent defines a
`
`“navigation control” circularly as a “user interface element for navigating between
`
`and/or among user interface elements of respective operating applications.” Id. at
`
`13:3-5. It describes that a navigation control may include “an application control
`
`representing a particular application,” which may in turn include “a visual
`
`component control representing a particular visual component in the application
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 12 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 15 of 119
`
`

`

`
`represented by the application control.” Id. at 13:6-11. The specification lacks any
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`meaningful detail in its description and appears intentionally vague and obfuscated.
`
`32. The ’923 patent’s description of its system for “navigating between
`
`visual components” is also vague and unhelpful. The system includes four
`
`elements. Id., Fig. 3. First, a “presentation space monitor” detects “a first visual
`
`component of a first operating application in a plurality of operating applications.”
`
`Id. at 11:29-31. Second, an “application navigator” presents a “navigation control
`
`. . . for navigating to a second visual component, of a second application in the
`
`plurality [of operating applications].” Id. at 12:60-64. Third, “navigation element
`
`handler” detects “a user input corresponding to the . . . navigation control.” Id. at
`
`14:34-36. Finally, in response to detecting this user input, a “navigation director”
`
`sends “navigation information to navigate to the second visual component.” Id. at
`
`16:5-8. Figures 2 and 3 of the ’923 patent depict the disclosed method and
`
`corresponding system (id. at 2:19-25):
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 13 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 16 of 119
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`
`
`
`
`33. The only “navigation controls” that are concretely disclosed are
`
`depicted in Figures 6a-6e. In each of these examples, the navigation control is
`
`displayed in a location (a “navigation region”) “determined based on” the “visual
`
`components” of an application, id. at 14:7-28, and contains “application controls”
`
`corresponding to different applications, id. at 13:20-24. Each of these Figures 6a-
`
`6e depicts a navigation control displayed in a particular configuration relative to an
`
`open application window.
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 14 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 17 of 119
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`34. Figure 6a discloses a “navigation control” 614-2a that is
`
`
`
`“automatically presented with” an application user interface 604-2a and provides
`
`additional individual “application controls” 616-1a, 616-2a, and 616-3a
`
`(essentially, buttons) corresponding to different applications. Id. at 13:30-35;
`
`14:12-15; 15:35-38; id., Figure 6a (with “application control” elements
`
`highlighted):
`
`
`
`35. Figure 6b discloses a “navigation control” 614-2a that is “presented as
`
`a menu.” Id. 15:38-42. The menu includes a “first application control,” “second
`
`application control,” and “third application control” corresponding to different
`
`applications as “menu items and/or submenus.” Id. The menu is displayed
`
`“adjacent to the application region of the first app[lication] visual component” in a
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 15 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 18 of 119
`
`

`

`
`“region determined based on the top, right corner” of that component. Id. at 14:15-
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`18, 19:44-46. The menu is “presented in response to a navigation-activate input
`
`received from a user via an input device,” such as through “a hotkey, a touch in a
`
`designated location of a touch screen, and/or a mouse gesture.” Id. at 13:44-46,
`
`13:51-54; id., Figure 6b (with navigation control 614-1b highlighted):
`
`
`
`36. Figure 6c discloses a “navigation control” 614-2a that is presented as
`
`a “tree view.” Id. at 15:42-48. The “tree view” includes “application controls”
`
`616-1c, 616-2c, and 616-3c “as first level nodes” and “visual component controls
`
`618-1c, 618-2c, and 618-3c as child nodes of second application control 616-2c.”
`
`Id. The tree view navigation control is displayed next to the “left border of the
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 16 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 19 of 119
`
`

`

`
`application region.” Id. at 14:18-21, id., Figure 6c (with navigation control 614-1c
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`highlighted).
`
`
`
`37. Figure 6d discloses a “navigation control” 614-2a that is a “tree view
`
`context user interface control.” Id. at 15:51-52 (emphasis added). The control is a
`
`“pop-up or context pane” that is displayed at “a location corresponding to an input
`
`detected in the application region.” Id. at 14:21-25; id., Figure 6d (with navigation
`
`control 614-2d highlighted):
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 17 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 20 of 119
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`
`
`38. Figure 6e discloses a “navigation control” 614-2a that is a menu, as
`
`with Figure 6b. Id. at 15:54-60. Unlike in Figure 6b, the menu in Figure 6e is
`
`“bound to a menu bar” of the application itself, id. at 14:25-28; id. at 19:48-51, and
`
`does not include a menu item for the first application, id. at 15:54-55; id., Figure 6e
`
`(with navigation control 614-2e highlighted):
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 18 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 21 of 119
`
`

`

`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`
`
`39. As described above, the patent discloses that “[a] navigation control
`
`may include one or more application controls corresponding to one or more
`
`respective applications.” Id. at 14:64-66. Each “application control identifies an
`
`application.” Id. at 15:3-4. “Detecting a user input . . . may include detecting the
`
`user input corresponding to an application control” in a navigation control. Id. at
`
`14:61-64.
`
`40. The patent discloses that an input on an application control causes the
`
`user to navigate to the application corresponding to that control. “An input
`
`received corresponding to a particular application control may identify a user
`
`instruction to navigate to a visual component of the particular application.” Id. at
`
`13:11-14 (emphasis added); see also id. at 15:3-4 (“The application control
`
`identifies an application”). For example, with respect to Figure 6a, if “[a]n input
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 19 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002
`Page 22 of 119
`
`

`

`
`corresponding to second application control 616-2a [is] detected,” the “second
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOREN G. TERVEEN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`application may receive the navigation information and determine that the
`
`navigation information identifies the second application.” Id. at 16:46-48, 58-61.
`
`The second application may then perform some action in response to this
`
`navigation information. Id. at 16:60-63 (“The second application may update
`
`second app 604-2a visual component, for example, so that it is presented on top of
`
`first app 604-1a visual component as shown in FIG. 6a.”)
`
`41. Thus, the ’923 patent discloses various configurations of navigation
`
`controls. In each of these configuration, the navigation control is made up of
`
`visual elements, each corresponding to a specific application (i.e., first, second, and
`
`third application controls in Figure 6a identify corresponding first, second, and
`
`third applications.) When the system detects user input selecting one of the
`
`“application control” elements, the system sends information for navigating to the
`
`application corresponding to that particular navigation control element.
`
`42.
`
`In each of these configuration, the location of the navigation control is
`
`tied to an open application window. The only configurations that involved
`
`“menus” describe those menus in a fixed location relative to an application
`
`window (i.e., bound to the top-right corner of the window in Figure. 6b, integrated
`
`into an existing menu bar in Figure. 6e). Even for those configurations with non-
`
`menu navigation controls, the ’923 patent only describes displaying the navigation
`
`LEGAL135643290.2
`
`- 20 -
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. EX. 1002