`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2024-01088
`Patent No. 10,656,758
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 1 of 78
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`
`I.
`
`II. Professional Background ..................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Compensation ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. Legal Consideration ............................................................................................. 8
`
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 8
`
`B. Claim Interpretation ...................................................................................... 9
`
`V. Overview of Task & Basis for Opinions ...........................................................10
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................................11
`
`VII. Overview of the ’758 Patent ........................................................................12
`
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures ..............................................................12
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 16, and 84 ...............................................................18
`
`VIII. Claim Interpretation ....................................................................................20
`
`A. Logic Based Limitations .............................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`“The Duration Of The First Single-Finger Touch Input” ...........................21
`
`C. Touch Continuity between Limitations [1.k] and [1.l] ...............................25
`
`D. User Interface Element ................................................................................27
`
`IX. Overview of the Prior Art ..................................................................................29
`
`i
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 2 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`A. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0252372 to Chaudhri
`
`(“Chaudhri”) .........................................................................................................29
`
`B. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0051726 to Martyn
`
`(“Martyn”) ............................................................................................................31
`
`X. Petitioner fails to properly map “the first application icon.” ............................35
`
`A. Petitioner Fails to Consistently Map “The First Application Icon” ............35
`
`B. Petitioner Fails to Identify Moving “The First Application Icon” Based on
`
`“The First Single-Finger Touch Input” ................................................................38
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Mapping to Determining A Different Touch Input After
`
`“The First Single-Finger Touch Input Concludes” Meets Movement Criteria
`
`Does Not Meet the Claim Language .................................................................38
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Proposes Further Modifying Without a Real Motivation ......40
`
`XI. A POSITA would not have taken Petitioener’s desired calling method for
`
`calling Martyn’s Snapshot .......................................................................................44
`
`A. Petitioner Contorts the References to Reach the Purported Combination ..44
`
`B. A POSITA would not have been motivated to choose a specific method of
`
`calling Martyn’s SnapShot ...................................................................................46
`
`C. Chaudhri Already Discloses A Calling Method for A Context Menu ........53
`
`ii
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 3 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`D. The Long Touch Gesture Is already Assigned to a Different Gesture
`
`Teaches Away From Assigning That Gesture To Calling The App Snapshot ....59
`
`E. Numerous Available User Gestures That Are Consistent, Rather Than
`
`Conflict With Chaudhri and Martyn’s Teachings, Further Teach Away From
`
`Selecting a Gesture That Creates A “Conflict”....................................................60
`
`1.
`
`Consider Martyn’s “press and hold of the select function when an
`
`application name is highlighted” as disclosed avoids conflict ..........................60
`
`2. Martyn’s other methods of calling up the App Snapshot disclose further
`
`options avoiding conflict with Chaudhri ...........................................................63
`
`F. A Self-Induced Conflict is the Only Motivation for Adding Griffin. .........66
`
`XII.
`
`Petitioner fails to properly map the required claim elements in multiple
`
`dependent claims ......................................................................................................67
`
`A.
`
`[21] and [22]: Content Indication ................................................................68
`
`B.
`
`[35]: Multiple Moved Apps .........................................................................70
`
`C.
`
`[47]: Interactive User Element ....................................................................71
`
`D.
`
`[57]: Dynamically Generated Content ........................................................72
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................73
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 4 of 78
`
`
`
`Introduction
`1. My name is Dr. Vijay Madisetti. I have been retained by Smith
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`
`I.
`
`Interface Technologies, LLC as an independent expert consultant in this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”) regarding US Patent No. 10,656,758 (“the ’758 Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`Professional Background
`All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are based on my own
`2.
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, and researching
`
`the technology referenced in this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of my
`
`current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and academic
`
`experience, is being submitted as EX2006. The following provides a brief overview
`
`of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Technology (Honors) in Electronics and
`
`Electrical Communication Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in
`
`Kharagpur, India in 1984. I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science at the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. I received the
`
`1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 5 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of
`
`California, Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`5.
`
`I am now a tenured Full Professor in the Colleges of Computing and
`
`Engineering at Georgia Tech and serve as its representative to the European
`
`Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI). I am knowledgeable and familiar
`
`with topics including software engineering, web applications, cloud computing, user
`
`interface design, data analytics, wireless communications, messaging protocols,
`
`microprocessor architecture, hardware, RF, cellular networks, computer
`
`engineering, digital signal processing, and associated software and firmware
`
`design—including
`
`software
`
`and
`
`firmware
`
`design
`
`for wireless
`
`and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations in general and ETSI/3GPP/3GPP2
`
`standards based cellular architecture and infrastructure in particular. I have created
`
`and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in hardware and software design for
`
`computer science and engineering applications at Georgia Tech for the past thirty
`
`years. I have been the principal investigator (“PI”) or co‐PI in several active research
`
`programs in these areas, including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of Application
`
`Specific Signal Processors, the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw Initiative, the United
`
`States Army’s Federated Sensors Laboratory Program, and the United States Air
`
`Force Electronics Parts Obsolescence Initiative. I have received an IBM Faculty
`
`Award and NSF’s Research Initiation Award.
`
`2
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 6 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`6.
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks such as wireless
`
`audio/video processing and messaging/protocol processing for portable platforms,
`
`such as cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants. I also developed UIs for tools
`
`for electronic design automation of complex chipsets and their reverse engineering
`
`processes for the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin and Boeing in the late 1990s
`
`and early 2000s. I have worked on designing systems that are efficient from
`
`performance, size, weight, area, and thermal considerations. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design were developed under the sponsorship of the
`
`United States Department of Defense in the late 1990s and have been used by several
`
`U.S. and international universities as part of their course work. I graduated more
`
`than 20 Ph.D. students that now work as professors or in technical positions around
`
`the world.
`
`7.
`
`Over the years, I have been an active consultant to industry and various
`
`research laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Labs
`
`and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). As part of that
`
`involvement in the industry, I have been actively involved in product development.
`
`For example, in the early 2000‐2001 timeframe I designed three GSM multiband
`
`mobile phones for a leading telecom equipment manufacturer in Asia, and in the
`
`3
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 7 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`2002-2007 timeframe, I developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software
`
`and assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo‐cancellation and for another in the
`
`optimization of their 3G software stack. My work in this regard included creation of
`
`software code, and analysis and revision of existing software code.
`
`8.
`
`I have also founded three companies in the areas of embedded software,
`
`military chipsets involving imaging technology, and wireless communications. The
`
`first of these companies, VP Technologies, offers computing systems for helicopter
`
`imaging systems for the United States Air Force. The second of these companies,
`
`Soft Networks, LLC, offers software for multimedia and wireless computing
`
`platforms, including the development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-
`
`2 video streams and imaging codes for multimedia phones. The third of these
`
`companies, Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding to capture
`
`high quality video at low bit rates, with primary application for wireless video
`
`systems. I also have extensive experience developing user interfaces for products.
`
`Recent examples of such work include my work developing a crypto exchange
`
`prototype, and my work on a web-based document management environment, called
`
`CatchUp, which is now commercialized as CatchUp Cloud (https://catchup.cloud).
`
`9.
`
`I have authored more than 110 refereed journal publications and around
`
`forty peer-reviewed conference publications. I have served as associate editor or on
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 8 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`the editorial board for technical journals, including IEEE Transactions on Circuits
`
`& Systems II, International Journal in Computer Simulation, and International
`
`Journal in VLSI Signal Processing. I have also authored or co‐authored several
`
`books, including VLSI Digital Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital
`
`Signal Processing Handbook (CRC Press, 1998, 2010). I also co‐authored Quick‐
`
`Turnaround ASIC Design in VHDL (Kluwer Academic Press 1996) and Platform‐
`
`Centric Approach to System‐on‐Chip (SoC) Design (Springer 2004). I am also the
`
`editor of several books, including the three‐volume DSP Handbook set: Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals, Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards, and Volume 3: Wireless, Networking,
`
`Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing, published in
`
`2010 by CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. More recently I have authored Cloud
`
`Computing (2014, CreateSpace Press), and Internet of Things (2014, CreateSpace),
`
`and the book, Cloud Computing, was nominated as a Notable Book of 2014 by the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) in July 2015.
`
`10.
`
`I have worked in the area of user interfaces over the past twenty years
`
`as part of my extensive development in mobile and portable applications for mobile
`
`phones and portable devices since the early 2000 timeframe. I developed commercial
`
`products for leading companies, and was part of the team that developed the user
`
`interfaces for a Soft Switch, called SNX 8500, that provides voice and VOIP services
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 9 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`for enterprises. In addition to authoring textbooks and research papers in the area of
`
`wireless messaging interfaces, I have developed web-based document management
`
`systems and web-based fintech applications. I have submitted approximately 100
`
`invention disclosures and provisional patents over the past ten years. I am listed as
`
`a first inventor on over thirty issued US patents, and am listed as an inventor on
`
`several patents related to wireless messaging. Many of my patents also disclose
`
`techniques for efficient user interface design including use of multilevel hierarchies
`
`and other UI innovations in the area of user interfaces for work environments.
`
`11. Additionally, I have extensive experience analyzing, designing, and
`
`testing systems based on 3GPP Technical Specifications, including specifications
`
`describing WCDMA and HSDPA technologies. I have been active in the area of
`
`location‐based services and wireless localization techniques since the mid‐1990s,
`
`and have authored several papers on location‐based services, including, Vijay K.
`
`Madisetti et al., Mobile Fleet Application Using SOAP and System on Devices
`
`(SyD) Middleware Technologies, Communications, Internet, and Information
`
`Technology (2002) at 426‐31.
`
`12.
`
`I have been extensively involved in the activities of one of the premier
`
`standard setting organizations in the world, the IEEE, since the 1980s, and was a
`
`member of the IEEE Press Board from 1995-1997. I was the Technical Program
`
`Chair of IEEE ICASSP in 1996. I was also the Associate Editor of IEEE
`
`6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 10 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`Transactions on Circuits & Systems II from 1994 to 1997. I am also the director of
`
`the IEEE Atlanta Chapter, and the author of several drafts of IETF proposals in the
`
`area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming over the internet. I have been elected a
`
`Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest grade of membership of the IEEE, a
`
`world professional body consisting of over 300,000 electrical and electronics
`
`engineers, with only one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the IEEE membership being
`
`elected to the Fellow grade each year. Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast
`
`by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded VHDL International Best Ph.D. Dissertation
`
`Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF RI Award in 1990. I was Technical Program
`
`Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and the IEEE Workshop on Parallel
`
`and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989, I was recognized with the Ira Kay
`
`IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper presented at the IEEE Annual
`
`Simulation Symposium.
`
`III. Compensation
`14. My work on this matter is being billed at my customary rate of $700 an
`
`hour. Also, I am being reimbursed for reasonable expenses I incur in relation to my
`
`7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 11 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`services. I have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I
`
`understand I will be paid regardless of the outcome of any proceeding in which my
`
`work is used.
`
`IV. Legal Consideration
`I am not an attorney. My understanding of the law is based on
`15.
`
`information provided by counsel for Smith Interface Technologies, LLC.
`
`A. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is obvious and, therefore, not
`16.
`
`patentable if the subject matter claimed would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention of the ’758 Patent (a
`
`“POSITA”), which I have been asked to treat as August 5, 2011.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in view of a single prior art
`
`reference (e.g., via modification of that prior art reference) or multiple prior art
`
`references (e.g., via a combination of two or more prior art references), if such a
`
`modification or combination was within the skill of a POSITA. I understand that
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`a conclusion of obviousness. I also understand that to establish a finding of
`
`obviousness one must show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`motivation to combine the prior art references to produce the claimed invention and
`
`a reasonable expectation that the combination would be successful.
`
`8
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 12 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
` I further understand that exemplary rationales that may support a
`
`18.
`
`conclusion of obviousness include: (1) simply arranging old elements in a way in
`
`which each element performs the same function it was known to perform, and the
`
`arrangement yields expected results, (2) merely substituting one element for another
`
`known element in the field, if the substitution yields no more than a predictable
`
`result, (3) combining elements in a way that was “obvious to try” because of a design
`
`need or market pressure, where there was a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, (4) that design incentives or other market forces in a field would have
`
`prompted variations in a work that were predictable to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (5) that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led a POSITA to modify or combine prior art references to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`I understand that a claim term is interpreted according to its ordinary
`19.
`
`and customary meaning as a POSITA would have understood the term in light of the
`
`surrounding claim language, other claims, the specification, and the patent’s
`
`prosecution history, which are referred to as intrinsic evidence. I also understand
`
`that prior art references cited in the patent’s prosecution history are considered
`
`intrinsic evidence. I further understand that evidence outside the patent and its
`
`prosecution history (e.g., dictionaries and technical articles), may inform the context
`
`9
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 13 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`in which a POSITA would have understood the claims of a patent. I understand this
`
`ordinary and customary meaning applies absent unique circumstances, such as
`
`where a patent clearly expresses an intent to set forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`V. Overview of Task & Basis for Opinions
`I have been asked to review the ’758 Patent. I have been asked to
`20.
`
`provide opinions related to certain issues from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill, having knowledge of the relevant art, as of August 5, 2011, and—except where
`
`otherwise noted—the opinions stated in this declaration are from that perspective.
`
`The qualifications and abilities of such a person are described in Section VI below.
`
`21. More particularly, I have been informed that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “Board”) will decide whether the Petition establishes by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that at least one claim of the ’758 Patent is invalid. I
`
`have been asked to focus my analysis on the Petition’s proposed invalidity theories
`
`related to the challenged claims of the ’758 Patent.
`
`22. My opinions are based on my education, training, and experience as
`
`well as items that I reviewed to prepare my opinions, including the Petition, the
`
`documents listed in the Exhibit List included with the Petition, the deposition of Dr.
`
`Cockburn, Dr. Cockburn, and any other items that I reference in my below analysis.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that other issues may arise that require further explanation,
`
`and I will provide that explanation if appropriate. As a result, I respectfully reserve
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 14 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`the right to update and supplement this declaration and the information and opinions
`
`provided herein.
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that a patent must be analyzed from the perspective of a
`24.
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the time of invention of the
`
`patent, which is typically considered to be the patent’s earliest filing date.
`
`25.
`
`I agree with the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted by the Board
`
`for the purposes of the Institution Decision. See Paper 7, 8-9. Specifically, a
`
`POSITA:
`
`“would have had ‘a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional
`experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for
`computers.’”
`Id., 8.
`
`26.
`
`I also agree with the Board’s rejection of two other parts of the
`
`Petition’s level of ordinary skill. First, the phrase “[a]dditional years of experience
`
`could substitute for an advanced-level degree (and vice versa)” (Pet., 7) is
`
`inapplicable where the base degree is a bachelor’s degree as here and was likely a
`
`simple copy and paste error. Dr. Cockburn confirmed that deleting “additional years
`
`of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree” from his definition
`
`cited in the Petition and would make “more sense.” See EX2007, 9:16-23 (“[Q.]
`
`Would you agree that the same is true here that, the definition you’ve given in
`
`11
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 15 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`[EX1003, ¶39] makes more sense if we delete the end of the last sentence which is
`
`and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced level degree?
`
`A. I think that’s fair. We could terminate the sentence at that final comma.”).
`
`27. Second, I agree with the Board that Petitioner’s additional statement
`
`that a POSITA “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and
`
`understanding of the pertinent technologies” listing specific areas (Pet., 7) should
`
`not be adopted. See Paper 7, 9. This additional requirement is either redundant with
`
`the level of ordinary skill articulated above, or inconsistent to the extent it seeks to
`
`impose a level of ordinary skill beyond “a bachelor’s degree … and at least two years
`
`of professional experience.” The background knowledge and understanding of touch
`
`screen mobile devices, menus in computer graphical user interfaces, and duration-
`
`based touch gestures technologies would be a part of the bachelor’s degree and at
`
`least two years of experience considering the course work required by those degrees
`
`and the exposure to those features while in the industry.
`
`VII. Overview of the ’758 Patent
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures
`28. At the time of the ’758 Patent’s December 2011 priority date, touch
`
`screen mobile devices were becoming increasingly capable of more complex tasks
`
`that required more control than possible with traditional, basic input methods. As
`
`12
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 16 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`more capable and precise sensors were being placed in mobile devices, the
`
`corresponding options for designers were increasing.
`
`29. Additionally, advancements in cellular connectivity speed enabled
`
`more complex tasks on touch screen mobile devices such as gaming and more
`
`detailed remote office tasks. The introduction of 4G networks offered up to ten times
`
`faster speeds. Greater cellular speeds not only enabled enhanced multi-player
`
`gaming but also enabled users on the go to more readily access games, which in turn
`
`increased demand for mobile games. In person interactions with mobile phone users
`
`partly drove this demand. For example, when a user would show another user a game
`
`they had found, the second person would desire immediate access on their own
`
`mobile device. This immediate access was facilitated by greater cellular speeds
`
`leading to higher adoption rates. Remote office work performed on mobile devices
`
`also increased with increasing cellular speeds. Increased cellular speeds enabled
`
`easier document access (e.g. presentations) on mobile devices. This in turn increased
`
`demand for modifying those documents on the go. The spread of mobile gaming and
`
`games as well as increased out of office work possibilities led to increasing
`
`capabilities for more complex tasks that required advancements over basic input
`
`methods.
`
`30. Further, limited screen real estate meant that input and output
`
`techniques used for more complex tasks on desktop computers could not be used.
`
`13
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 17 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`The ’758 Patent addresses this shortcoming by enabling users to operate these new
`
`powerful mobile devices, which had less real estate, and their feature-rich
`
`applications through implementation of multi-part gestures where users can take
`
`successive actions and receive feedback at each stage.
`
`31. The ’758 Patent describes these multi-part, multi-action gestures as
`
`“pattern-based gestures” that “may be recognized in the form of an ordered
`
`sequence” by, for example, “using a decision tree.” EX1001, 75:37-39; EX2008,
`
`[00581]. The “pattern-based gesture” may be defined as “a path through a phase
`
`space of one or more dimensions.” EX1001, 73:39-41; EX2008, [00564]. Exemplary
`
`“pattern-based gesture[s] 2302” are “described by a phase space path which
`
`represents the time evolution of the touch state associated with a contact point” on
`
`the touch screen. EX1001, 73:53-56; EX2008, [00566].
`
`EX1001, FIG. 23; EX2008, FIG. 28. Each state, and transitions between states, may
`
`be defined by factors including “contact point changes” and “the time spent on each
`
`leg of the path through phase space.” EX1001, 73:59-74:19; EX2008, [00567]-
`
`
`
`14
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 18 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`[00570]. Consistent with the “decision tree” aspect of these pattern-based gestures,
`
`multiple patterns may share the same starting (and intermediate) points. EX1001,
`
`75:37-39; EX2008, [00581]. Consistent internal device logic is important to keep a
`
`user engaged and appropriately aware of the response for a desired task. A user
`
`wishing to execute a final action contingent on a previous device state would be
`
`unsuccessful if the device did not predictably follow a decision tree. Predictability
`
`in starting and intermediate points is enabled by decision tree logic.
`
`32. To detect these pattern-based gestures, the ’918 Provisional, which the
`
`’758 Patent incorporates by reference (EX1001, 1:24-26), discloses techniques for
`
`“gesture differentiation,” which is distinguished from simply detecting a “basic user
`
`interaction (i.e., button press, basic application interaction, etc.).” EX2008, [00498],
`
`[00502]. The process begins by “determine[ing] whether there is any meaningful
`
`user input,” including applying a “threshold above which user interaction may rise
`
`before it may be deemed meaningful.” Id., [00501]-[00502]. Detecting the gesture
`
`may involve “gesture subject matter context,” including “objects displayed at or near
`
`the location of the gesture.” Id., [00512]. For example, the starting point may be the
`
`beginning of a touch contact at a particular location of a specific object on the touch
`
`screen. Id. A touch-capable device offers a user the ability to input at a desired
`
`location on the touch screen. The ability for a user to pick from a variety of locations
`
`on a touch-capable device requires device logic to start a decision tree with a
`
`15
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 19 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`detected user touch contact at a specific location. This location often corresponds to
`
`a desired object like an application. This location could also refer to other objects
`
`that a user would recognize that interacting with could lead to a desired result.
`
`
`
`EX2007, FIG. 24.
`
`33. Again, as indicated by the flow chart, multiple complete full patterns
`
`may share the same starting (and intermediate) points. From the flow chart, the start
`
`of a pattern begins with gathering input at block 2402. Further blocks, for example
`
`block 2406, describe gesture notation, components, and attributes. This reveals that
`
`the input gathering at one location could be at the same location based on later
`
`16
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01088 | Smith EX2005 | Page 20 of 78
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01088
`Patent 10,656,758
`defined features of that input. Furthermore, the steps of the flow chart illustrate that
`
`a gesture pattern involves multiple steps that may share the same starting point as
`
`well as intermediate points. For example, a different gestures or input type at the
`
`same location would thus share the same starting point. Other examples consistent
`
`with the ’758 patent could include a common starting point in a pressure level. In
`
`both instances, the logic of the device analyzes a parameter associated with user
`
`contact. The same pressure level again could be the same starting point. Consistent
`
`with the multi-part nature, the device may perform “intermediate operations
`
`associated with the identified gesture.” Id., [00521]. “[E]ach execution of
`
`intermediate gesture operations may trigger a display update (i.e. rendering, etc.).”
`
`Id., [00524]. One purpose of these intermediate gestures is so “a user may receive
`
`feedback on their gesture before terminating the interaction.” Id., [00522].
`
`34. A “gesture may be ended by ending one or more user inputs” or “by
`
`performing a different gesture” at which time “the final operations associated with
`
`the identi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
