UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2024-01089
`Patent No. 10,671,212
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01089 | Smith EX2005 | Page 1 of 82
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`IPR2024-01089
`Patent No. 10,671,212
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY MADISETTI
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC
`IPR2024-01089 | Smith EX2005 | Page 1 of 82
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`I.
`
`II. Professional Background ..................................................................................... 9
`
`III. Compensation ....................................................................................................15
`
`IV. Legal Consideration ...........................................................................................15
`
`A. Obviousness .................................................................................................15
`
`B. Claim Interpretation ....................................................................................17
`
`V. Overview of Task & Basis for Opinions ...........................................................17
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................................18
`
`VII.
`
`Overview of the ’212 Patent ........................................................................20
`
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures ..............................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 16, and 84 ...............................................................23
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................25
`
`IX. Overview of the Prior Art ..................................................................................27
`
`A. Hotelling ......................................................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Figure 18: “an exemplary GUI for a main menu” ..................................28
`
`Figure 11: “an exemplary GUI for a media player” ...............................29
`
`B. Martyn .........................................................................................................33
`
`Page 2 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`X. Petitioner’s Proposed Modifications of Hotelling’s Main Menu GUI to Add the
`
`Actions Recited in Limitations [1.c-d], [16.h-f], and [84.d-e] Do Not Meet the
`
`Requirement to Perform Those Actions “When” / “Based On” The Recited
`
`Condition ..................................................................................................................36
`
`A. Limitations [1.c], [16.h], [84.d]: “[when] / [based on] a second duration of
`
`the touch . . . [is] / [being] detected . . . output feedback that is perceptible by
`
`touch” ...................................................................................................................36
`
`1.
`
`Applying Hotelling’s Disclosure of Haptics to Simulate Physical Button
`
`Presses Does Not Result in the Claims ..............................................................38
`
`2.
`
`Applying Hotelling’s Disclosure of Haptics as Alert Indicators Does Not
`
`Result in the Claims ...........................................................................................41
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s “Obviousness” Theory Relies on Hindsight .......................44
`
`B. Limitations [1.d], [16.i], [84.e] “[when] / [based on] the second duration of
`
`the touch … [is] / [being] detected … display at least one menu including a
`
`plurality of particular actions” .............................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`Hotelling does not teach the combination of its music player touch
`
`vocabulary with its main menu GUI..................................................................47
`
`2.
`
`The Petition does not provide a reasoned analysis to support its
`
`particular combination. ......................................................................................51
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Hotelling’s music player
`
`3.
`
`touch vocabulary with its main menu GUI. .......................................................53
`
`4.
`
`If a POSITA tried to apply Figure 27A to a main menu, it would be
`
`applied to Figure 9. ............................................................................................59
`
`XI. Petitioner Does Not Provide a Reasoned Explanation for How Any of the Cited
`
`Disclosures Would Result in a Modification that Matches the Action and Condition
`
`of Limitations [1.f], [16.k], [84.g] ...........................................................................65
`
`A. Limitations [1.f], [16.k], [84.g]: “[when] / [based on] a slide or swipe
`
`gesture … [is] / [being] detected after the second duration … [change] /
`
`[changing] at least one aspect of the display of the at least one menu” ..............65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`First Theory: Martyn and Hotelling ........................................................66
`
`Second Theory: Cho ...............................................................................70
`
`XII.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate Multiple Dependent Claims .....................75
`
`A. Limitation 14: “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13,
`
`further including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
`
`cause the mobile device to operate such that the slide or swipe gesture is capable
`
`of being part of the same gesture.” ......................................................................75
`
`B. Limitation 15: “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1,
`
`further including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`cause the mobile device to operate such that the at least one aspect of the display
`
`of the at least one menu is changed by ceasing display of the at least one menu.”
`
`
`
`78
`
`C. Limitation 61: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu includes a visibility of the at least one menu.” ..........................................78
`
`D. Limitation 62: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu includes a highlighting on the at least one menu.” ....................................79
`
`E. Limitation 63: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu is changed by moving the at least one menu.” ...........................................80
`
`F. Limitation 64: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu is changed by ceasing display of the at least one menu.” ..........................80
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................81
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`II. Professional Background ..................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`III. Compensation ....................................................................................................15
`
`IV. Legal Consideration ...........................................................................................15
`
`A. Obviousness .................................................................................................15
`
`B. Claim Interpretation ....................................................................................17
`
`V. Overview of Task & Basis for Opinions ...........................................................17
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................................18
`
`VII. Overview of the ’212 Patent ........................................................................20
`
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures ..............................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 16, and 84 ...............................................................23
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ......................................................................................25
`
`IX. Overview of the Prior Art ..................................................................................27
`
`A. Hotelling ......................................................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Figure 18: “an exemplary GUI for a main menu” ..................................28
`
`Figure 11: “an exemplary GUI for a media player” ...............................29
`
`B. Martyn .........................................................................................................33
`
`X. Petitioner’s Proposed Modifications of Hotelling’s Main Menu GUI to Add the
`
`Actions Recited in Limitations [1.c-d], [16.h-f], and [84.d-e] Do Not Meet the
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`Requirement to Perform Those Actions “When” / “Based On” The Recited
`
`Condition ..................................................................................................................36
`
`A. Limitations [1.c], [16.h], [84.d]: “[when] / [based on] a second duration of
`
`the touch . . . [is] / [being] detected . . . output feedback that is perceptible by
`
`touch” ...................................................................................................................36
`
`1.
`
`Applying Hotelling’s Disclosure of Haptics to Simulate Physical Button
`
`Presses Does Not Result in the Claims ..............................................................38
`
`2.
`
`Applying Hotelling’s Disclosure of Haptics as Alert Indicators Does Not
`
`Result in the Claims ...........................................................................................41
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s “Obviousness” Theory Relies on Hindsight .......................44
`
`B. Limitations [1.d], [16.i], [84.e] “[when] / [based on] the second duration of
`
`the touch … [is] / [being] detected … display at least one menu including a
`
`plurality of particular actions” .............................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`Hotelling does not teach the combination of its music player touch
`
`vocabulary with its main menu GUI..................................................................47
`
`2.
`
`The Petition does not provide a reasoned analysis to support its
`
`particular combination. ......................................................................................51
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Hotelling’s music player
`
`touch vocabulary with its main menu GUI. .......................................................53
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`If a POSITA tried to apply Figure 27A to a main menu, it would be
`
`4.
`
`applied to Figure 9. ............................................................................................59
`
`XI. Petitioner Does Not Provide a Reasoned Explanation for How Any of the Cited
`
`Disclosures Would Result in a Modification that Matches the Action and Condition
`
`of Limitations [1.f], [16.k], [84.g] ...........................................................................65
`
`A. Limitations [1.f], [16.k], [84.g]: “[when] / [based on] a slide or swipe
`
`gesture … [is] / [being] detected after the second duration … [change] /
`
`[changing] at least one aspect of the display of the at least one menu” ..............65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`First Theory: Martyn and Hotelling ........................................................66
`
`Second Theory: Cho ...............................................................................70
`
`XII.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate Multiple Dependent Claims .....................75
`
`A. Limitation 14: “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13,
`
`further including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
`
`cause the mobile device to operate such that the slide or swipe gesture is capable
`
`of being part of the same gesture.” ......................................................................75
`
`B. Limitation 15: “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1,
`
`further including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,
`
`cause the mobile device to operate such that the at least one aspect of the display
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`of the at least one menu is changed by ceasing display of the at least one menu.”
`
`
`
`78
`
`C. Limitation 61: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu includes a visibility of the at least one menu.” ..........................................78
`
`D. Limitation 62: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu includes a highlighting on the at least one menu.” ....................................79
`
`E. Limitation 63: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu is changed by moving the at least one menu.” ...........................................80
`
`F. Limitation 64: “The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the mobile device
`
`is configured such that the at least one aspect of the display of the at least one
`
`menu is changed by ceasing display of the at least one menu.” ..........................80
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 82
`
`
`
`Introduction
`1. My name is Dr. Vijay Madisetti. I have been retained by Smith
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`
`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. 10,671,212 (“the ’212 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 EX2008. 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
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`the Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University
`
`of California at Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in
`
`1989. 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, wireless networks, 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. 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.
`
`5.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks such as wireless
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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 2000s, I designed three GSM multiband mobile phones for
`
`a leading telecom equipment manufacturer in Asia, and in the mid 2000s, I
`
`developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software and assembly code for a
`
`leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on efficient realization of
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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.
`
`7.
`
`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).
`
`8.
`
`I have authored more than 110 refereed journal publications and around
`
`forty peer-reviewed conference publications. I have served as associate editor or on
`
`the editorial board for technical journals, including IEEE Transactions on Circuits
`
`& Systems II, International Journal in Computer Simulation, and International
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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 for enterprises. In addition to authoring textbooks and research papers in
`
`the area of wireless messaging interfaces, I have developed web-based document
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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. Many of my
`
`patents 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.
`
`10.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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.
`
`III. Compensation
`12. 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
`
`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
`13.
`
`information provided by counsel for Smith Interface Technologies, LLC.
`
`A. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is obvious and, therefore, not
`14.
`
`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 ’212 Patent (a
`
`“POSITA”), which I have been asked to treat as August 5, 2011.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in view of a single prior art
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
` I further understand that exemplary rationales that may support a
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`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
`17.
`
`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
`
`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 ’212 Patent. I have been asked to
`18.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`19. 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 ’212 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 ’212 Patent.
`
`20. 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
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cockburn, and any other items that I reference in my below
`
`analysis.
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`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
`22.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`I agree with the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted by the Board
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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., 6) 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 striking “additional years
`
`of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree” from his definition
`
`cited in the Petition would still leave a “complete definition.” See EX2006, 12:15-
`
`21.
`
`25. 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., 6) 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
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`impose a level of ordinary skill beyond “a bachelor’s degree … and at least two years
`
`of professional experience.”
`
`VII. Overview of the ’212 Patent
`A. Multi-Part Pattern-Based Gestures
`26. At the time of the ’212 Patent’s 2011 priority date, touch screen mobile
`
`devices were becoming increasingly capable of more complex tasks that required
`
`control beyond what was possible with the basic input methods known in the art.
`
`Further, limited screen real estate meant that input and output techniques used for
`
`more complex tasks on desktop computers could not be used. The ’212 Patent
`
`addresses this shortcoming by enabling users to operate these new, powerful mobile
`
`devices and their feature-rich applications through multi-part gestures where users
`
`can take successive actions and receive feedback at each stage.
`
`27. The ’212 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, 74:24-26; EX2007,
`
`[00581]. The “pattern-based gesture” may be defined as “a path through a phase
`
`space of one or more dimensions.” EX1001, 72:27-29; EX2007, [00564].
`
`Exemplary “pattern-based gesture 2302” is “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, 72:41-46; EX2007, [00566].
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 82
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-01089
`Patent 10,671,212
`
`
`
`EX1001,
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
