Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1013

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Declaration Of Karl Kramer In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #3 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 1, #4 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 2, #5 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 3, #6 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 4, #7 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 5, #8 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 6, #9 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 7, #10 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 8, #11 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 9, #12 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 10, #13 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 11, #14 Declaration Of Michel Maharbiz, Ph.D. In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #15 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. A, #16 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. B, #17 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. E, #18 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. F)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

Exhibit 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Defendants.

EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN GRAY
REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,844,915 AND 7,864,163

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

operation results in a scroll operation, and nowhere limits the scroll operation to a single input

 point, the claims are indefinite. In other words, the meaning of the claims language is unclear in
 light of the Specification. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
 according to the Specification a gesture operation could, in at least one embodiment, initiate a






scroll operation. The same person of ordinary skill could not reconcile this understanding with the
language of the claims, which call for distinguishing between gesture operations and scroll
operations. The Specification describes that a scroll operation is a type of gesture operation.
266.

All of the asserted Claims of the '915 Patent are also indefinite for another reason.

 Each of the independent claims recites "the event object invokes a . . . operation." In my 35 years
 of systems experience, I have never observed a system where an event object invoked a method.
 Therefore, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill would not understand that an event object
















invokes a method in Claims 1, 8 and 15, rendering these claims (and all dependent claims) invalid
as indefinite. Additionally, one of the inventors of the '915 Patent, Mr. Platzer, agreed with me at
his deposition:
Q. Okay. Turning back to the claim, the claim states, Determining
whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation. And
my question is what does it mean to invoke a scroll or gesture
operation?
A. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not comfortable in defining "invoke" as
far as the patent is concerned. I don't recall. But in UIKit, as well as
what we would say "invoke" would mean, call a particular function
or a set of code that, you know, is executed when the user scrolls or
does a gesture.
Q. And at the time you filed this patent application in 2007, did you
have an understanding of what "invoke" meant as you used it here in
the claims?
A. I'm not a -- a lawyer, so I'm not comfortable defining "invoke" in
the patent. But as an example, in Objective-C or in many other
languages, "invoke" is often used as a synonym for calling a
function.


-75-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1


(October 18, 2011 Platzer Tr. Pgs. 80-81.)
267.

In my opinion, dependent Claims 3, 10, and 17 are also indefinite. These claims

 recite "attaching scroll indicators to a content edge of the window." While the Specification
 describes attaching "a scroll indicator to a . . . window edge" or "attaching scroll indicators a
 content edge of a display" (Col. 11, ll. 16-20 and 63-64) (emphasis added), the Specification





distinguishes a "content edge" from a "window edge" on two separate occasions (Col. 6, ll. 64-67;
Col. 6 l. 67 – Col. 7 l. 3). In other words, while the Specification describes attaching scroll
indicators to a "window edge" or a "content edge", the meaning of "content edge of the window"

 is unclear in light of the Specification. I also note that Claims 4, 11, and 18 are directed to
 "attaching scroll indicators to the window edge." It is unclear to me what the terms mean. Thus,
 in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the difference between a
 "content edge of the window" and "a window edge"—and the Specification does not anywhere






define "content edge of the window." Therefore, the same person of ordinary skill could not
reconcile the differentiation of the terms "content edge" and "window edge" with the phrase
"content edge of the window" in Claims 3, 10, and 17, rendering these claims invalid as indefinite.
268.

Additionally, claims 15-18 and 20 are indefinite for failing to disclose the

 corresponding structure for several means-plus-function limitations.







269.

It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand this

proposed construction to disclose a structure. Apple has not identified the particular structure or
algorithm used to perform the claimed functions, and I believe one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand the necessary structure or algorithm from reading the Patent specification.
It is my opinion that claims 15-18 and 20 are therefore invalid for indefiniteness.




-76-