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

Filing 1024

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Declaration Of Dr. Karan Singh, Ph.D. In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #3 Singh Decl. Ex. 1, #4 Singh Decl. Ex. 2, #5 Singh Decl. Ex. 3, #6 Singh Decl. Ex. 4, #7 Singh Decl. Ex. 5, #8 Singh Decl. Ex. 6, #9 Singh Decl. Ex. 7, #10 Singh Decl. Ex. 8, #11 Singh Decl. Ex. 9, #12 Singh Decl. Ex. 10, #13 Declaration Of Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph.D. In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #14 Balakrishnan Decl. Ex. 1, #15 Balakrishnan Decl. Ex. 2, #16 Balakrishnan Decl. Ex. 3)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
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

DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN
SINGH, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

20
21
22

**CONFIDENTIAL – CONTAINS MATERIAL DESIGNATED AS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT
TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER**
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION

23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

I, KARAN SINGH, do hereby declare as follows:

2
3

1.

I have personal knowledge of, and am competent to testify to, the facts and

opinions set forth herein.

4

2.

I have been asked by counsel for Apple to provide an expert declaration in the

5

above-captioned case. I submit this Declaration in support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s

6

Motion for Summary Judgment. I have been asked by counsel to review and respond to the

7

opinions and assertions made in the Declaration of Stephen Gray in Support of Samsung’s

8

Motion for Summary Judgment.

9

3.

I reserve the right to supplement this Declaration if additional data or other

10

information that affects my opinions becomes available or to respond to any additional matters

11

that may addressed by any witness testifying on behalf of Samsung, if asked to do so.

12

4.

I am being compensated at my standard hourly consulting rate of $450 and my

13

compensation is in no way dependent upon the opinions I offer or upon the outcome of the

14

litigation between Apple and Samsung.

15

II.

16

QUALIFICATIONS
5.

I am the same Dr. Karan Singh who submitted an opening expert report regarding

17

Samsung’s infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,864,163 (the “’163 patent”), 7,844,915 (the “’915

18

patent”) and 7,853,891 (“Infringement Report”), and a rebuttal expert report regarding the

19

validity of those patents (“Validity Report”). The portions of my Infringement Report relating to

20

the ’915 patent are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The portions of my Validity Report relating to

21

the ’915 patent and the ’163 patent, including the LaunchTile reference, are attached hereto as

22

Exhibit 2.

23

6.

Here, I provide a brief summary of my qualifications. My qualifications and

24

experience are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae, which includes a list of all my honours,

25

patents, presentations, grants, and publications from the last five years, and is attached to this

26

Declaration as Exhibit 3.

27
28

7.

I received my Bachelor of Technology degree in Computer Science from the

Indian Institute of Technology in 1991. I was awarded a Master of Science degree in 1992, and a
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

1

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

Ph.D. in 1995, both in Computer and Information Science, from Ohio State University. I can read

2

and program fluently in object-oriented programming languages, such as C++ and Java.

3

8.

In 1994, I was invited to conduct research at the Advanced Telecommunications

4

Research laboratory in Kyoto, Japan. During this time I researched virtual reality technology,

5

specifically designing graphical environments in which human characters could interact with

6

computing systems.

7
8
9

9.

My Ph.D. dissertation, which I presented in 1995, was on creating representations

of humans which could interact in graphical environments.
10.

In 1995, I joined Alias Wavefront in Toronto, Canada. While there I designed

10

character animation and facial modeling tools for the first release of Maya, which is a software

11

system for computer graphical modeling, animation, and rendering which won a technical Oscar

12

in 2003, one of only 38 such awards since 1930. This software, which I worked on for more than

13

two years, is still the premiere software package today for these functions. I worked at Alias

14

Wavefront until 1999.

15

11.

I have worked with Chris Landreth, a director of animated films, since I started

16

with Alias Wavefront in 1995. Chris and I worked together on the design of Maya, and have

17

subsequently worked on a number of film projects. Notable among these projects is the short film

18

“Ryan,” which won an Oscar for Best Animated Short in 2005.

19

12.

Later in 1999, I joined a start-up company in California called Paraform Inc.

20

While there I worked to develop a system which transformed data from real objects which had

21

been scanned using lasers into useable digital models for downstream applications.

22

13.

For several months in 1999 I was a Visiting Professor of Computer Science at the

23

University of Otago in New Zealand. During that time I taught and conducted research in

24

computer graphics.

25

14.

Since 2002, I have been an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the

26

University of Toronto where I co-direct a graphics and human computer interaction laboratory

27

known as dgp (dynamic graphics project). I have conducted research and taught classes in

28

graphics and in human computer interaction. During this period, I have also undertaken
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

2

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

consulting projects with various companies in the computer graphics and design industries. Since

2

2002, I have also been the Chief Scientist at Geometry Systems, which is a company which

3

designs software for the reverse engineering of physical objects into usable digital models. I also

4

co-founded Arcestra, Inc. in 2006, which is a software service for conceptualizing and visualizing

5

architectural interiors.

6
7

15.

devices inspired by a sketching metaphor.

8
9

My current research focus is on interaction techniques for pen and touch based

16.

I have previously testified by deposition as an expert in proceedings before the

International Trade Commission in the ITC Investigation In re Certain Electronic Digital Media

10

Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796 on behalf of complainant Apple.

11

III.

12

MATERIALS REVIEWED
17.

In forming my opinions as stated in this Declaration I reviewed a large volume of

13

materials relating to the ’915 patent and the ’163 patent and to Samsung’s arguments with respect

14

to those patents. A subset of the materials I reviewed included the ’163 and ’915 patents and their

15

file histories, the LaunchTile videos and papers attached to Mr. Bederson’s Declaration, the

16

XNav code produced in this litigation, Mr. Gray’s Invalidity Report and his Rebuttal Report on

17

Non-Infringement, the Gray and Bederson Declarations and exhibits filed in support of

18

Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and all of the deposition transcript and dictionary

19

excerpts and other materials cited in this Declaration. Additional materials that I reviewed in

20

forming my opinion in this case were disclosed in my opening Infringement Report and in my

21

rebuttal Validity Report.

22
23
24

IV.

UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
18.

I have not been asked to offer an opinion on the law; however, as an expert

25

assisting the Court in determining patent infringement and validity, I understand that I am obliged

26

to follow existing law. I have therefore been asked to apply the following legal principles to my

27

analysis of patent infringement and validity:

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

3

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

19.

I understand that to determine whether there is infringement of a patent: (1) the

2

claims of the patent must be construed; and (2) the properly construed claims must then be

3

compared with the accused products.

4

20.

Where the Court has construed a claim term, I have applied that construction.

5

Where no claim construction has been issued by the Court, I have interpreted the claims as one of

6

ordinary skill in the art would have at the time the relevant patent was filed in light of its claim

7

language, specification, and prosecution history.

8
9

21.

As the second step in the infringement analysis, I understand that the properly

construed claim must be compared to the accused products. I understand that infringement

10

requires that every limitation of a claim be met, either literally or equivalently, by the accused

11

device.

12

22.

I understand that one test for determining equivalence is to determine whether the

13

differences between the claimed limitation and the accused product are insubstantial. I

14

understand that another test for determining equivalence is to examine whether the step used by

15

the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to

16

achieve substantially the same result as the claimed step.

17

23.

I understand that to prove direct infringement of a device claim, a plaintiff must

18

show that a defendant “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells,” within the United States, or imports

19

into the United States, an accused device that reads on every limitation of the patent claim.

20
21
22

24.

I understand that a device literally and directly infringes a claim of a patent if all of

the asserted claim elements are found in the accused device or method.
25.

I have been informed by counsel that by United States statute, a patent is presumed

23

valid. I understand that the patent challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity of the patent

24

by clear and convincing evidence.

25

26.

I have been informed by counsel that, for a finding of invalidity of a patent under

26

35 U.S.C. § 102, which is known as “anticipation,” each and every element of a claim, as

27

properly construed, must be found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference,

28

subject to the limitations imposed by § 102 in paragraphs (a)–(g). I understand that under
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

4

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

principles of inherency, if the extrinsic evidence makes clear that the prior art necessarily

2

functions in accordance with or includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates. I understand that

3

inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. I also understand that, in order

4

to anticipate a patent claim, a prior art reference must also be enabling, such that a person of

5

ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.

6

27.

I have been informed by counsel that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if

7

the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published

8

anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is invalid

9

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public

10

use, on sale, or offered for sale in the United States, more than one year prior to the filing date of

11

the patent application. And I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §

12

102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent granted on an

13

application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before the date of invention for such

14

a claim. A claim is also invalid, as I understand, under 35 U.S.C. §102 (f) if the invention was

15

invented by another prior to the claimed invention. It is also my understanding that a claim is

16

invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102 (g)(2) if, prior to the date of invention for the claim, the invention

17

was made in the U.S. by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed the invention.

18
19
20

V.

THE SAMSUNG ACCUESED PRODUCTS INFRINGE CLAIM 8 OF THE ’915
PATENT
28.

In my opinion, each of the Samsung Accused Products meets each and every

21

limitation of claim 8 of the ’915 patent literally and, in the alternative, under the doctrine of

22

equivalents, as explained below. Videos of various Accused Products performing the limitations

23

of this claim were included in my Infringement Report as Exhibit 18 (Galaxy Tab 10.1), Exhibit

24

19 (Galaxy S II), Exhibit 20 (Vibrant), and Exhibit 21 (Captivate). They are renumbered as

25

Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 to this Declaration.

26
27
28

29.

Claim 8. Claim 8 recites:
A machine readable storage medium storing executable program
instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to
perform a method comprising:

DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

5

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2

[a] receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points
applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data
processing system;

3

[b] creating an event object in response to the user input;

4

[c] determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture
operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to
the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation
and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display
that are interpreted as the gesture operation

5
6
7

[d] issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the
scroll or gesture operation;

8
[e] responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a
window having a view associated with the event object;

9
10

[f] responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the
view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or
more input points in the form of the user input.

11
12

30.

Claim 8 – Preamble and limitations [a] , [b], [d], [e] and [f] Each of the

13

Accused Products is either a smartphone or tablet running a version of the Android operating

14

system, which includes a data processing system. Each Accused Product includes a computer

15

readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause the

16

data processing system to perform the method described in claim 8. I have previously submitted

17

an Expert Report on the Infringement of the ’915 patent, providing details on how the Accused

18

Products meet the preamble (if it is a claim limitation) and every limitation found in Claim 8. In

19

my Infringement Report I discussed method claim 1 in detail, and opined that device claim 8 was

20

infringed for essentially the same reasons as method claim 1, because claim 8 in essence claims a

21

device for performing the method of claim 1. My infringement opinions included claim charts as

22

Exhibit 17 to my Infringement Report, which were submitted as Exhibit 14 to Mr. Gray’s

23

Declaration. They also included claim charts as Exhibit 16 to my Infringement Report, which is

24

attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 8. I incorporate those claim charts by reference in this

25

Declaration.

26

31.

Because Samsung’s Motion and Mr. Gray’s Declaration do not contest that the

27

Samsung Accused Products infringe the preamble or the limitations Mr. Gray had labeled as [a],

28

[b], [d], [e] and [f], but instead challenge only whether the Accused Products meet limitation [c], I
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

6

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

will focus on that limitation rather than reiterating all of the reasons why the other limitations are

2

present in the Samsung Accused Products.

3

32.

Claim 8 – Element [a] “receiving a user input, the user input is one or more

4

input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing

5

system.”

6

33.

In my opinion, each of the Accused Products infringes this limitation. The

7

Accused Products receive a user input. The user input includes one or more input points (one or

8

more fingers) applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the Samsung device.

9

Samsung has not disputed this in its Motion or in Mr. Gray’s Declaration.

10

34.

For example, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy S II receives a user input with

11

one input point (one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display as illustrated below. The

12

touch-sensitive displays are integrated into the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy S II.

13

35.

Based on my observations of the Accused Products, as well as my analysis of the

14

source code for each major release of Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1,

15

2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that each Accused Product receives a user input, where the

16

user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with

17

the device. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 to my Infringement Report identified analogous code

18

that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. (Gray Decl. at Ex. 14.)

19

36.

Claim 8 – Element [b] “creating an event object in response to the user

20

input.” In my opinion, each of the Accused Products includes a machine readable storage

21

medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing

22

system to create an event object in response to the user input. Samsung has not disputed this in

23

its Motion or in Mr. Gray’s Declaration.

24
25
26

37.

Each of the Accused Products, via the Android platform on which it operates,

creates an event object in response to the user input.
38.

Under the public Android platform, a MotionEvent object is created in response to

27

a touch on the touch screen. (http://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/

28

MotionEvent.html.)
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

7

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

39.

I

40.

Based on my observations of the Accused Products, as well as my analysis of the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

source code for each major release of Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1,

11

2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that each Accused Product includes similar computer code

12

that creates an event object in response to user input. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 to my

13

Infringement Report identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and

14

2.3. (Gray Decl. at Ex. 14.)

15

41.

Claim 8 – Element [c] “determining whether the event object invokes a scroll

16

or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-

17

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points

18

applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation.” In my

19

opinion, each of the Accused Products meets this limitation.

20

42.

The Accused Products determine whether an event object invokes a scroll or

21

gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point (one finger) applied to the touch-

22

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points (more

23

than one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation.

24

43.

For example, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet distinguishes between a scroll operation

25

when one finger is applied to the touch-sensitive display and a gesture operation when two or

26

more fingers are applied to the touch-sensitive display.

27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

8

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Scroll operation when one input point is applied.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(Gesture operation when two or more input points are applied.)

16
17

44.

For example, the Galaxy S II phone distinguishes between a scroll operation when

18

one finger is applied to the touch-sensitive display and a gesture operation when two or more

19

fingers are applied to the touch-sensitive display, as illustrated below:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

9

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.

(Scroll operation when one input point is

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.

20

(Gesture operation when two or more input points are applied.)

21
22
23
45.
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

10

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6

46.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

47.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

16

Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that

17

each Accused Product includes similar computer code that distinguishes between a single input

18

point (one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation

19

and two or more input points (more than one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that are

20

interpreted as the gesture operation. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 to my Infringement Report

21

identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. (Gray Decl. at

22

Ex. 14.)

23

48.

I understand that this limitation is the only one that Mr. Gray addresses in his

24

Declaration in support of Samsung’s Summary Judgment Motion. I further understand that Mr.

25

Gray alleges that the MotionEvent object does not “invoke” a scroll or gesture operation. I

26

disagree with Mr. Gray, because the Accused Products contain a MotionEvent object that

27

“invokes” a scroll or gesture operation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

11

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

49.

I understand that Mr. Gray interprets the term “invoke” to mean that the event

2

object must itself “call” a scroll or gesture operation. In essence, this would mean the event

3

object must itself call the operation with no intervening steps. I disagree with Mr. Gray’s

4

interpretation of “invoke,” as it fails to interpret “invoke” in light of the specification.

5

50.

In my opinion, based on the context provided by the ’915 patent specification and

6

claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “invoke” means “causes” or

7

“causes a procedure to be carried out.”

8
9

51.

The specification refers multiple times to the “user input invokes a scroll,” which

means that user input causes a scroll operation to occur. As one example, the specification

10

discloses, “The method 1000 for providing the scroll hysteresis operation includes transferring a

11

scroll hysteresis call to determine whether a user input invokes a scroll at block 1002.” (Arnold

12

Decl. Ex. 85 [’915 Patent] at 10:66-11:2 (emphasis added).) As another example, the

13

specification discloses, "In an embodiment, the library of the framework provides an API for

14

specifying a scroll hysteresis operation to determine whether a user input invokes a scroll." (Id.

15

at 22:62-64 (emphasis added.)) Similarly, the specification discloses that the “user input” may

16

“invoke a gesture” on the view associated with the user input. (Id. at 13:37-39.) One skilled in

17

the art would understand that “user input” cannot itself “call” scroll or gesture operation code, but

18

instead causes the scroll or gesture operation to occur via intervening hardware detection and

19

software steps. Mr. Gray’s narrow construction of “invokes” is contrary to the specification.

20

52.

Similarly, the specification discloses that the “software invokes an animation that

21

performs a scaling transform on the view associated with the user input.” (Arnold Decl. Ex. 85

22

[’915 Patent] at 15:4-6.) One skilled in the art would understand. In light of this description, that

23

the software event object does not or need not call a scroll or scaling function directly, but rather

24

that the general code for scrolling and scaling would perform those operations.

25

53.

I disagree with Mr. Gray’s assertion that there is a significant distinction in the

26

’915 patent between “event object invokes” and “user input invokes.” (See Gray Decl. ¶ 25.)

27

The patent specification often refers to “event object” as shorthand for “user input in an event

28

object.” As explained in the specification, “A multi-touch driver of the device receives the user
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

12

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

input and packages the event into an event object.” (See Arnold Decl. [’915 Patent] at 12:30-32.)

2

The previous limitation of claim 8, “creating an event object in response to the user input,”

3

indicates that the event object includes the user input information. Moreover, the interchangeable

4

use of “event object” and “user input” is illustrated throughout the specification, which refers to

5

the “event object,” “user input,” and “software” to invoke, or cause, various operations. (Id. at

6

10:16-11:12, 13:37-39, 15:4-6, 22:62-64.)

7

54.

The specification also expressly describes how the event object is used to cause

8

scroll or gesture operations to execute via multiple steps. In each of the below examples, the

9

event object does not itself call scroll or gesture operation code, but the event object’s user input

10

information is used to cause the scroll or gesture operation code to execute. For example, the

11

specification discloses, “A window server receives the event object and determines whether the

12

event object is a gesture event object. If the window server determines that a gesture event object

13

has been received, then user interface software issues or transfers the handle gesture call at

14

block 1302 to a software application associated with a view." (Arnold Decl. Ex. 85 [’915 Patent]

15

at 12:32-37 (emphasis added).) In this way, the user input information in the event object causes

16

the gesture operation to execute. Similarly, the specification discloses, “If the events are hand

17

events based on a user input, the events are routed to the window they occurred over. The

18

window then routes these events to the appropriate control by calling the instance's mouse

19

and gesture methods. The control that receives a mouse down or mouse entered function will

20

continue to get all future calls until the hand is lifted. If a second finger is detected, the gesture

21

methods or functions are invoked.” (Id. at 12:9-16 (emphasis added).). In this way, the event

22

object is based on the user input, causes a routing from the window to the user interface control,

23

which then calls a scroll or gesture operation based upon whether the event object contains a one-

24

finger or two-finger user input. The specification is entirely consistent with my interpretation of

25

“invokes.” Mr. Gray’s narrow definition limiting “invokes” to the event object itself calling a

26

scroll or gesture operation with no intervening steps contradicts the specification.

27
28

55.

My opinion that “invokes” means “causes” or “causes a procedure to be carried

out” is supported by dictionaries published near the time of the ’915 patent invention. For
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

13

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “invoke” in the “Computing” context as “cause

2

(a procedure) to be carried out.” (Oxford Dictionary of English (2d Ed.) (2005) attached as

3

Exhibit 9.) As another example, Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines “invoke” as “to bring

4

about, cause.” (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (2004) attached as Exhibit 10.)

5
6

56.

I disagree with Mr. Gray’s statement that MotionEvent object never invokes a

scroll or gesture operation. (See Gray Decl. ¶ 35.)

7
8
9
10

57.

Mr. Gray attempts to shift focus onto the WebView class, which is merely an

11

abstraction for a set of code that assists with routing event information to the window animation

12

software that executes the scrolling or scaling. (See Gray Decl. ¶ 34-35.) Mr. Gray never

13

contests that Samsung code calls the scroll or gesture operation depending upon the number of

14

touch points, but instead alleges it is WebView, not the event object, that calls the scroll or

15

gesture operation. I disagree with Mr. Gray. The specification clearly discloses that the window

16

or user interface code would use the event object’s user input information to cause a call to the

17

scroll or gesture operation. As I explained above, the specification discloses that the window

18

class (i.e., WebView) calls the scroll and gesture methods using the event: "If the events are hand

19

events based on a user input, the events are routed to the window they occurred over. The

20

window then routes these events to the appropriate control by calling the instance's mouse

21

and gesture methods.” (Arnold Decl. [’915 Patent] at 12:9-16 (emphasis added).) Further, the

22

specification explains that the window’s user interface software (i.e., WebView) issues or

23

transfers the gesture call based on the event: “A window server receives the event object and

24

determines whether the event object is a gesture event object. If the window server determines

25

that a gesture event object has been received, then user interface software issues or transfers

26

the handle gesture call at block 1302 to a software application associated with a view." (Id. at

27

12:32-37 (emphasis added).) Thus, the ’915 patent specification clearly shows that “invokes”

28

includes the use of additional code (such as WebView) to assist with routing the event object
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

14

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

information and, depending on whether the event object indicates there is one or more input

2

points, call the scroll or gesture operation.

3

58.

4
5
6
7

This is

8

precisely what it means to “determin[e] whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture

9

operation by distinguishing a single input point . . . and two or more input points . . . ,” as recited

10
11
12

in claim 8[c].
59.

I also disagree with Mr. Gray’s comment that the MotionEvent object is a passive

container of information. (See Gray Decl. ¶ 33.)

13
14
15
16

].)
60.

I further understand that Samsung alleges that the “named inventors agree with its

17

construction,” but neither co-inventor agreed that “invoke” was limited to the event object itself

18

calling a function. Co-inventor Mr. Herz testified, “[A]n example of invoking something would

19

be . . . causing that code to run.” (Bartlett Decl. Ex. 53 at 95:15-19.) Herz also testified, “So in

20

the example I gave invoking could mean, yeah, causing something to happen.” (Id. at 95:20-

21

96:1.) Further, in response to a question, “Is there a way the view can determine whether the

22

event is associated with a scroll or gesture operation,”

23
24
25
26
27

Contrary to Mr. Gray’s out-of-context citation, Mr. Herz

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

15

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

supports my interpretation that the “event object” does not itself call the scroll or gesture

2

operation code, but instead causes the scroll or gesture operation to occur.

3
4

61.

In addition, the other co-inventor, Mr. Platzer qualified his statement, “With

regards to the patent, I’m not comfortable in defining ‘invoked.’

5
6
7
8
9

Mr. Platzer never
testified that the event object needed to itself call a scroll or gesture operation.
62.

Samsung’s Motion mischaracterizes my extensive testimony on the meaning of

10

“invoke,” and even deletes a key sentence for the snippet of testimony it does quote. I explained

11

multiple times that the meaning of “invokes” depends on the context. (Gray Decl. Ex. 7 at

12

313:14-319:15.)

13

63.

Further, I note that Samsung and Mr. Gray have been unclear and inconsistent as

14

to the meaning of “invoke” and how it might relate to an “event object.” Samsung initially

15

asserted, after fact discovery closed, that Apple had failed to prove “determining whether the

16

event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation, as ‘event objects’ are incapable of invoking

17

operations.” This assertion would be mean that “invoke” should be interpreted as an

18

impossibility, which contradicts the ’915 patent specification.

19

64.

Moreover, in his expert report, Mr. Gray states, “In my 35 years of systems

20

experience, I have never observed a system where an event object invoked a method.” (Bartlett

21

Decl. Ex. 31 at ¶ 266.) As I observed in my Validity Report, the construction that an event

22

object never invokes a method appears to be inconsistent with the notion that it would have been

23

obvious for a person of ordinary skill to add an event object that calls a scroll operation. (Ex. 2

24

at ¶ 177, 202, 226.) At his deposition, Mr. Gray retracted his earlier position, identifying his

25

paragraph 266 as an error in his Invalidity Report: “That’s not true. That’s the inaccuracy.”

26

(Bartlett Decl. Ex. 30 at 52:20-53:11.) I agree that Mr. Gray’s earlier position in his Invalidity

27

Report was inaccurate, and I think his current position is inaccurate as well.

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

16

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

65.

I further note that Mr. Gray also retracted his earlier reference to Mr. Platzer’s

2

testimony. Mr. Gray earlier said that Platzer “agreed” with him in his expert report but changed

3

his opinion at the deposition. (Bartlett Decl. Ex. 30 at 53:12-19.) I agree that Mr. Gray’s earlier

4

statement was inaccurate, and I think his new position again saying that Platzer “supports” his

5

opinion also is incorrect. (See id. at 53:12-19; Gray Decl. ¶ 22.)

6

66.

For the above reasons, it is my opinion that the Accused Products literally infringe

7

claim 8[c] as each is a machine readable medium containing instructions that “determine[e]

8

whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single

9

input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two

10

or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture

11

operation.”

12

67.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

13

the doctrine of equivalents. I disagree with Samsung’s proposed claim construction for “invoke,”

14

but even if I were to adopt Samsung’s new proposed construction, the Accused Products infringe

15

under the doctrine of equivalents because each of the Accused Products is a machine readable

16

medium containing instructions that perform steps insubstantially different from “determining

17

whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single

18

input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two

19

or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture

20

operation.”

21

68.

It also is my opinion that, even if I were to adopt Samsung’s new proposed

22

construction, the Accused Products infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because they

23

perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the

24

same result.

25

69.

First, it is my opinion that the Accused Products perform substantially the same

26

function as the recited limitation. The function of the limitation is “determining whether the

27

event object invokes a gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to

28

the touch-sensitive surface display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

17

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation.” (’915

2

patent claim 8[c] (emphasis added).) In the context of the ’915 patent specification and claim 8,

3

the function is determining based on distinguishing between one or two or more user input points

4

in the event object whether a scroll or gesture operation should execute. The functions are the

5

same.

6

70.

Second, the Accused Products perform this function in substantially the same way

7

as in the claim limitation. The Accused Products all perform a logical test using the event

8

object’s user input information.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

71.

I disagree with Mr. Gray’s characterization that my position eliminates the “event

object” limitation. (See Gray Decl. ¶ 44.)

16
17

].) Moreover, the user input data is

18

contained within the event object. Thus, the “event object” is used as part of the “way” to

19

achieve this limitation.

20

72.

Finally, the Accused Products obtain substantially the same result, i.e., the

21

execution of either the scroll operation or gesture operation code, depending on whether there is a

22

single input point or two or more input points.

23

73.

For the above reasons, it is my opinion that the Accused Products infringe claim

24

8[c] under the doctrine of equivalents as each is a machine readable medium containing

25

instructions that perform the equivalent of “determining whether the event object invokes a scroll

26

or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive

27

display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the

28

touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation.”
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

18

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

74.

Claim 8 – Element [d] “issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on

2

invoking the scroll or gesture operation.” In my opinion, each of the Accused Products meets

3

this limitation. I understand that Samsung and Mr. Gray have not disputed this point.

4

75.

The images reproduced above show the Galaxy 10.1 tablet and the Galaxy S II

5

smartphone issuing a scroll call when the scroll operation is invoked and issuing a gesture call

6

when the gesture operation is invoked. The software steps are summarized below.

7

76.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

77.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

15

Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that

16

each Accused Product includes similar computer code that issues at least one scroll or gesture call

17

based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 to my

18

Infringement Report identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and

19

2.3. (Gray Decl. at Ex. 14.)

20

78.

Claim 8 – Element [e] “responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by

21

scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object.” In my opinion, each of

22

the Accused Products meets this limitation, and I understand that Samsung and Mr. Gray have not

23

contested this point. The images of the Galaxy 10.1 tablet and Galaxy S II phone performing

24

scrolling reproduced above demonstrate the performance of this limitation. The software steps

25

are discussed below.

26

79.

27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

19

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6

.)
80.

7
8
9
10

.
81.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

82.

22
23
24
25
26

)
83.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

27

Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that

28

each Accused Product includes similar computer code that responds to at least one scroll call by
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

20

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

scrolling a window having a view associated with the MotionEvent. The claim chart in Exhibit

2

17 to my Infringement Report identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1,

3

2.2, and 2.3. (Gray Decl. at Ex. 14.)

4

84.

Claim 8 – Element [f] “responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by

5

scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input

6

points in the form of the user input.” In my opinion, each of the Accused Products meets this

7

limitation, which Samsung and Mr. Gray do not dispute.

8
9

85.

For example, the Galaxy 10.1 tablet and the Galaxy S II phone will respond to at

least one gesture call by scaling the view (zooming) associated with the MotionEvent object

10

based on receiving two or more input points in the form of the user input, as shown in the

11

“scaling” images reproduced above. The software steps are discussed below.

12

86.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

21

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

87.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

2

Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that

3

each Accused Product includes similar computer code that responds to at least one gesture call, if

4

issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more

5

input points in the form of the user input. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 to my Infringement

6

Report identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. (Gray

7

Decl. Ex. 14.)

8
9

VI.

LAUNCHTILE DOES NOT INVALIDATE CLAIM 50 OF THE ’163 PATENT
88.

Claim 50 of the ’163 patent recites1:

10
A portable electronic device, comprising:

11

[a] a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more
programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and
configured to be executed by the one or more processors,

12
13

[b] the one or more programs including: instructions for displaying at least
a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display,
wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes
of content;

14
15
16

[c] instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed
portion of the structured electronic document; instructions for determining
a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;
instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic
document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen
display;

17
18
19

[d] instruction[s] for, while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is
detected on a second box other than the first box; and instructions for, in
response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic
document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on
the touch screen display.

20
21
22
23

89.

As stated in my Validity Report (attached as Exhibit 2) at ¶¶ 29-38, it is my

24

opinion that Claim 50 of the ’163 patent is not anticipated or otherwise invalidated by the

25

LaunchTile System, the LaunchTile Publication describing it (Bederson Decl., Ex. A), or the

26

XNav System (which operates substantially identically to the LaunchTile System for purposes

27
28

1

I adopt the separation of claim elements set forth in Mr. Gray’s Declaration.

DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

22

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

relevant to this litigation). For convenience, I will refer collectively to these three pieces of

2

alleged prior art as “LaunchTile” except when discussing content or functionality that is specific

3

to one of them.

4

90.

I incorporate here by reference the arguments for validity over LaunchTile made in

5

paragraphs 29-38 of my Validity Report. (Ex. 2.) I made these arguments in my Validity Report

6

in the context of claim 2, but they apply equally to claim 50, which has claim limitations

7

substantially identical to those in claim 2. Mr. Gray agrees that “Claim 2 is a ‘computer

8

implemented method’ claim, and generally tracks the language of independent claims 49, 50, 51,

9

and 52.” (Bartlett Decl. Ex. 31 ¶ 289.) Claim 50 requires one or more programs including

10

“instructions for” performing each of the method steps described in claim 2. LaunchTile fails to

11

anticipate claim 50 for at least the same reasons that it fails to anticipate claim 2.

12

A.

Overview of LaunchTile

13

91.

LaunchTile is a research prototype system that provides the ability to launch 36

14

applications via tiles presented using a display abstraction that its authors call an “interactive

15

zoomspace.” (Bederson Decl., Ex. A at 204.) The zoomspace provides three levels of display: the

16

World View, which displays application tiles (symbolic visual representations) corresponding to

17

each of the 36 applications in a 6-by-6 grid; the Zone View, which displays four application tiles

18

with additional application-related content in a 2-by-2 grid; and the Application View, which

19

launches and allows a user to interact with each application itself. Clicking or tapping on a

20

location in the World View initiates an animation that fills the screen with a Zone View

21

rendering—distinct from the content displayed in the corresponding portion of the World View—

22

of the four application tiles around the location of the user’s touch. Once the Zone View is

23

rendered, clicking or tapping on one of the four displayed application tiles launches the

24

application—for example, an email client application or a mapping application—to which the

25

selected application tile corresponds.

26

92.

As the above description suggests, LaunchTile targets an entirely different

27

problem from the one that is solved by claim 50 of the ’163 patent: LaunchTile addresses the use

28

of a fixed set of applications in a predefined layout, whereas the ’163 patent deals with reading
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

23

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

and navigating arbitrarily-sized structured electronic documents on a small screen. LaunchTile

2

creates substantively different renderings of a fixed set of iconic application tiles. These tiles

3

facilitate the launching of the applications to which the tiles correspond. Claim 50, by contrast,

4

applies enlargement and translation to a unified, but arbitrarily sized, structured electronic

5

document to aid a user’s viewing of areas of interest in that document. LaunchTile fails to

6

disclose multiple elements of claim 50, as the analysis that follows will demonstrate.

7

B.

Claim 50, Element [b]

8

93.

LaunchTile does not disclose the element of claim 50 of “instructions for

9
10
11

displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display,
wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content.”
94.

According to Mr. Gray, LaunchTile displays a structured electronic document in

12

the World View. (Gray Decl. ¶ 76 (“It is my opinion that this 6x6 zoomspace is a ‘structured

13

electronic document’ with 36 embedded Application tiles, each of which is also a structured

14

electronic document.”).) I disagree. As I opined in my deposition in response to Samsung’s

15

questioning on this point (Gray Decl. Ex. 6 at 171:14-176:15), the mere fact that LaunchTile

16

arranges a set of otherwise conceptually independent application tiles into a grid for display does

17

not automatically qualify that collection as a single electronic document.

18

95.

In my opinion, those of skill in the art of the ’163 patent would understand that

19

there must be some conceptual relationship or commonality in the information in a “document”

20

that is sufficient to justify treating that information as a single, discrete entity. For electronic

21

documents, the classic indication of such a relationship is the storage of information in a single

22

file, such as a text file, an image file, an HTML file, or a spreadsheet file. Where a single file is

23

not present, information must be related in a conceptually equivalent way to be considered a

24

“document.”

25

96.

As I discussed in my Infringement Report, the display of a web page, such as the

26

New York Times home page, in a mobile device’s web browser is a paradigm example of the

27

display and navigation of a structured electronic document that the ’163 patent targets. The New

28

York Times home page is a structured electronic document that includes several boxes of content
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

24

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

that mobile devices—including Apple’s iOS products and the Samsung Accused Products—can

2

display on their touch screen displays. These devices detect a user’s double tap gesture (two taps

3

on the touch screen in quick succession) on a box of content, and respond to that gesture by

4

determining which box was tapped and then enlarging and translating the web page to

5

substantially center that box on the screen. If the user proceeds to double tap on a second box of

6

content on the web page, the web page is translated to substantially center that second box on the

7

screen.

8
9

97.

The various application tiles that LaunchTile is programmed to display together to

create the World View screen are not one electronic document. The different applications that

10

these tiles represent are entirely conceptually independent of one another: they are separate

11

programs designed to run independently and accomplish different tasks. LaunchTile purposely

12

uses different levels of abstraction to provide three different layers of information about a fixed

13

number of application programs. At each layer the system displays different content distinct from

14

the content in other layers, and it launches distinct application programs when an individual tile is

15

touched.

16

98.

My review of the XNav source code, which I understand is functionally equivalent

17

in the relevant respects to the code for the LaunchTile, confirms that the “interactive zoomspace”

18

that Mr. Gray identifies as the structured electronic document displayed in the World View is

19

actually just a programmatically assembled collection of separate image files representative of the

20

36 disparate applications displayed in the World View. This is consistent with Dr. Bederson’s

21

own description of LaunchTile. (Bederson Decl. ¶ 14 (“In our prototype implementation, the

22

individual tiles in LaunchTile were typically represented by one or more image files (.png

23

files).”).)

24

99.

Dr. Bederson and Mr. Gray attempt to manufacture a connection between the

25

various application tiles in the World View by resorting to the idea that LaunchTile’s code for

26

displaying these separate pieces assembles all of them into a “single, hierarchical object oriented

27

data structure.” (Bederson Decl. ¶ 13; cited by Gray Decl. ¶ 77.) Such a data structure—which is

28

a programming construct created by LaunchTile to facilitate display that could be populated with
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

25

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

arbitrary, unrelated content—is not an “electronic document” within the meaning of the ’163

2

patent because it lacks the prior semantic association of its contents that a “document” requires.

3

100.

Dr. Bederson’s inapt comparison of LaunchTile’s display-facilitating “data

4

structure” to an HTML document (Bederson Decl. ¶ 13:9-12) highlights a key distinction between

5

LaunchTile’s operation and the display of a true electronic document, such as the rendering of an

6

HTML document in a web browser. Dr. Bederson claims that LaunchTile’s “creating [a] single,

7

hierarchical object oriented data structure that is then translated into the visual representation

8

displayed to the user” (emphasis added) is “similar to the process that occurs when a typical web

9

browser application interprets and transforms the elements of a standard HTML document into

10

what is known as a data object model that can then be visually presented to the user as a single,

11

unified web page.” (Id.) A web browser, however, does not “creat[e]” the HTML documents

12

that it displays. Rather, unlike LaunchTile—which creates at runtime (i.e., when the program is

13

executed and the display is rendered) the “single object-oriented data structure” to which Dr.

14

Bederson and Mr. Gray refer2—a web browser takes as input a discrete quantum of information

15

that is already semantically associated as a unified HTML “document.” That a browser performs

16

additional processing to render an HTML document into viewable form does not change the fact

17

that it takes a unified HTML document as input, while LaunchTile merely assembles, for display

18

purposes, disparate image resources representative of independent applications.

19

101.

For the reasons above, it is my opinion that the World View in LaunchTile does

20

not “display[] at least a portion of a structured electronic document” and therefore does not

21

disclose this element of claim 50.

22

C.

Claim 50, Element [c]

23

102.

LaunchTile does not disclose the element of claim 50 of “instructions for detecting

24

a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;

25

instructions for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;

26
2

27
28

Dr. Bederson is careful to limit his testimony to say only that “embedded tiles were
always part of one unified zooomspace that was dependent on a single object-oriented data
structure for its content during the rendering process.” (Bederson Decl. ¶ 14 (emphasis added.))
No such unifying structure exists prior to—or independently of—LaunchTile’s being executed.
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

26

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

[and] instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first

2

box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.”

3

103.

Mr. Gray opines that “LaunchTile’s instructions for displaying an animated

4

transition from World view to Zone view” disclose this element of claim 50. (Gray Decl. ¶ 85.)

5

As I discussed in my Validity Report, I disagree. Claim 50 requires that the “structured electronic

6

document” that is “enlarge[ed] and translate[ed]” (such that the enlarged portion of it is

7

“substantially centered on the touch screen display”) must be the same structured electronic

8

document that includes a location where “a first gesture” is detected and “a first box” is

9

determined. LaunchTile does not meet this requirement because the content displayed in the

10

World View is entirely replaced with different content, assembled by LaunchTile from different

11

underlying graphical assets, when the system transitions from World View to Zone View. Total

12

replacement of content does not meet any reasonable definition of “enlarging and translating,”

13

and any “box” that existed in the World View is not part of the Zone View. The images in

14

Exhibit 3 to Mr. Gray’s Declaration plainly show entirely different content displayed before and

15

after the transition from World View to Zone View. For example, the single phone icon in the

16

World View becomes a list of calls in the Zone View; the email and calendar cells similarly

17

become detailed lists in the Zone View where they were merely iconic representations in the

18

World View:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

104.

Mr. Gray attempts to unify the entirely different content of the World View and

26

Zone View into a single structured electronic document by claiming that the “zoomspace” itself is

27

the structured electronic document of interest. (Gray Decl. ¶ 85.) But the zoomspace is not an

28

“electronic document” at all. It is, rather, an abstraction that refers to different possible
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

27

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

renderings of a set of independent application tiles. As discussed in the previous section in the

2

World View context, it is the LaunchTile program itself that assembles, at runtime, separate

3

image files representative of independent applications into the different grids that are displayed in

4

the World and Zone Views. None of these layouts are dictated by any discrete “document” in the

5

way that, for example, a preexisting HTML file encapsulates a web page that is rendered in a web

6

browser.

7

105.

Mr. Gray mischaracterizes my deposition testimony stating that an electronic

8

document is “usually some cohesive piece of information” to claim that it supports his conclusion

9

that “the embedded tiles at the World view are part of the same ‘document’ rendered in further

10

detail at Zone view.” (Gray Decl. ¶ 88.) My statement cuts exactly the opposite way, supporting

11

the contrary conclusion that there is no “document” in common across the World and Zone

12

Views. The separate image resources representative of independent applications that LaunchTile

13

assembles do not together constitute “some cohesive piece of information” on their own. The

14

hierarchical relationship between them, on which Mr. Gray depends, is only imposed by

15

LaunchTile itself as the program executes. This indicates the lack of any true “document” on

16

display across the different levels of LaunchTile, not the presence of one.

17

106.

Even if one considered the programmatically imposed layout of four application

18

tile images in a given Zone View a structured electronic document, it would still not be the same

19

structured electronic document as anything displayed in the World View. As the images above of

20

the World-to-Zone View transition show and my review of XNav code confirms, LaunchTile

21

assembles each 2-by-2 tile Zone View from image resources different from those that represent

22

the same applications in the World View. The mere conceptual association with the same

23

underlying applications is not enough, in my opinion, to qualify these otherwise entirely distinct

24

renderings of content as the same structured electronic document. Because the content of any

25

given set of four application tiles displayed in the World View is completely different from the

26

tiles representing those same applications in the Zone View, it is clear that the Zone View

27

rendering is not the result of simply “enlarging and translating” any purported structured

28

electronic document displayed in the World View.
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

28

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

107.

In his deposition, Mr. Gray admitted that the “Zone View” does not result from

2

enlarging and translating the same “structured electronic document” from which the box of

3

content was selected:

4

Q. Is it your opinion that the transition from the world view to the
zone view shown on page 4 of your Appendix 7 [the LaunchTile
invalidity claim chart], that what has been enlarged and translated is
the same structured electronic document that is shown in the world
view?

5
6
7

A. No. The document which is being shown in the zone view on
page 4 is a box of content from the structured electronic document
shown in the world view.

8
9

(Bartlett Decl. Ex. 30 at 205:21-206:3 (emphasis supplied).)

10

In responding to a follow-up question, Mr. Gray confirmed that the Zone View was not an

11

“enlarging” of the four tiles as they were displayed in the World View:

12

Q. It’s different content. It’s not simply an enlarging of the images
that are shown in the tile in the world view; it is a –looking at
different data and displaying different data rather than displaying
the same thing in a larger font size or a larger image, right?

13
14

[Objection; argumentative, misstates the document]

15

A. Let me agree that it is not a magnification of what’s in the—in
the upper right hand corner of the first box of the world view. It is
not a magnification—the upper right hand corner of the zone view
is not a magnification of the original. That’s accurate.

16
17
18

(Id. at 209:12-25.)

19

108.

Dr. Bederson invokes a concept he calls “semantic zooming” to try to justify his

20

conclusion that “[t]he four tiles that happen to be displayed in Zone view are the same embedded

21

Application tiles (albeit rendered in further detail) that were present at World view.” (Bederson

22

Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.) Dr. Bederson describes a semantic zooming object as “a procedural object that

23

renders itself differently depending on its viewing size,” and he contends that LaunchTile uses

24

such objects. (Id. ¶ 18.) In my opinion, a semantic zooming object that renders itself entirely

25

differently across two level of zoom does not meet claim 50’s requirement of “enlarging and

26

translating” a single structured electronic document to effect the transition between the two

27

levels.

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

29

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

109.

Mr. Gray states that “even if the tiles (embedded structured electronic documents)

2

were entirely replaced during the enlarging and translating step, this would not change [his]

3

opinion that the zoomspace, within which the tiles exist at any particular level of zoom, is the

4

same structured electronic document throughout the navigation process.” (Gray Decl. ¶ 89.) He

5

goes on to state:
In a somewhat analogous situation, I am aware that web pages
(structured electronic documents encoded in HTML) sometimes
contain embedded objects displaying live content in the form of
advertising material, stock quotes, or "breaking news" headlines.
When a user manually refreshes the web page or, in some cases,
after some pre-set amount of time, the embedded object will be
updated or even replaced with entirely new different content.
However, no person of ordinary skill in the art would believe that
they were viewing a different webpage (i.e., "structured electronic
document") merely because the content in one embedded element
had changed. (Id.)

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

110.

The “live content” that Mr. Gray identifies that “refreshes” within a web page is

13

not analogous to the replacement of content that occurs in LaunchTile on the transition from

14

World View to Zone View. In the web-page-live-content scenario, the same HTML document is

15

displayed before and after the refresh of embedded content. As explained above, LaunchTile has

16

no cross-transition analogue to the HTML document, because each level of its display is

17

assembled programmatically from disparate entities and is merely a fixed layout independent of

18

the inherent structure of a single document. In the web page case, the parts of the displayed

19

HTML document other than the embedded refreshing portion remain the same across the refresh.

20

When LaunchTile transitions from World View to Zone View, it completely replaces content

21

displayed in the prior view with new content derived from separate underlying image resources.

22

111.

23

of claim 50.

For the reasons stated and shown above, LaunchTile does not disclose element [c]

24

D.

Claim 50, Element [d]

25

112.

Neither does LaunchTile disclose the element of claim 50 of “instruction[s] for,

26

while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first

27

box; and instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

30

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen

2

display.”

3

113.

Mr. Gray opines that this element of claim 50 is disclosed by LaunchTile’s

4

launching of an application via a gesture on an application tile displayed in Zone View. (Gray

5

Decl. ¶¶ 92-95.) I disagree. Mr. Gray’s interpretation fails to appreciate the significance of the

6

act of launching an application in LaunchTile. This step, as LaunchTile’s name suggests, is of

7

critical—indeed, defining—importance to the system, and it distinguishes it fundamentally from

8

the invention of claim 50 of the ’163 patent.

9

114.

As an initial matter, it is my opinion that claim 50’s requirement of a gesture on a

10

“second box other than the first box” is not met when the second box is wholly contained within

11

the first box. This is the case when, as Mr. Gray describes, a user enlarges a Zone View and then,

12

without scrolling to a different four-tile view, clicks on an application tile that is fully within the

13

Zone View that Mr. Gray defines as the “first box.” A “second box other than the first box”

14

requires, by its plain terms, a second box that is not any part of the first box.

15

115.

The LaunchTile invention was, according to its authors, motivated by “the

16

problem [of] navigating device applications” on smartphone and PDA devices. (Bederson Decl.,

17

Ex. A at 201.) LaunchTile sought to provide, in particular, “high-value at-a-glace information for

18

several applications at once, as well as on-demand application launch when users desire more

19

detailed information.” (Id.) These dual goals central to LaunchTile’s design—(1) providing “at-

20

a-glance information” about several unlaunched applications simultaneously and (2) allowing

21

“on-demand application launch” to enable use of the applications’ full functionalities—

22

fundamentally define the way the system operates. Mr. Gray’s interpretation of LaunchTile,

23

however, ignores that it has the ability to “launch” applications at all, because he contends that

24

LaunchTile’s individual applications in their launched, interactive mode are part of the same

25

“electronic document” as the application-launching tiles displayed in the World View and Zone

26

View. This is contrary to the well understood meaning of launching an application, as well as the

27

treatment of applications in the Bederson paper on LaunchTile (Bederson Decl., Ex. A).

28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

31

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

116.

An application is a software program that performs particular user-oriented tasks.

2

When a user launches an application, such as the Email application, from LaunchTile’s Zone

3

View, that application fills the entire screen, and it allows the user to interact with the application

4

to perform the tasks that the application is designed to accomplish. In the case of LaunchTile’s

5

Email application, for example, launching the application displays a scrollable email client inbox,

6

and the user can select an individual email to open it. This application-level functionality has

7

nothing to do with the display of grids of application-launching tiles in the World View and Zone

8

View: the content is entirely different, and it supports entirely different user interaction for a

9

different purpose. It is not accurate, in my opinion, to say that the entirety of an interactive

10

application is part of the same “electronic document” as a set of application-launching tiles that

11

includes one tile that can launch that application. For example, when a user taps on an individual

12

LaunchTile, it is not “substantially centered” by “translating the structured electronic document”

13

as claim 50 requires—any more than a Microsoft Word icon on a Windows desktop is

14

“substantially centered” by “translating” the desktop’s array of application icons when the user

15

clicks on the icon to launch the Word application.

16

117.

The Bederson paper on LaunchTile itself (Bederson Decl., Ex. A) repeatedly treats

17

the applications themselves as distinct from the World View and Zone View composed of

18

application-launching tiles. For example, the paper states that “Although the original focus of our

19

designs was on the application ‘shell’, we extended the LaunchTile interaction philosophy to the

20

application level, where we sought to make interaction consistent with navigation among the

21

application tiles.” (Bederson Decl., Ex. A at 205.) The LaunchTile authors distinguished

22

between “the application ‘shell’” that allowed “navigation among the application tiles” (i.e., the

23

World View and the Zone View) from the “application level” where interactive applications

24

themselves could be used. In describing implementation details, the paper again distinguishes

25

between the “shell” and “the applications themselves.” (Id. at 206.) The authors do not describe

26

“translating” any part of the shell to transition to the application level. Rather, they write that

27

“[t]he user taps any of the 4 notification tiles within Zone view to launch the corresponding

28

application.” (Id. at 205.) Thus it appears that even LaunchTile’s own authors did not conceive
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

32

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

of all three of LaunchTile’s levels as part of a unified electronic document. They treated the “the

2

application ‘shell’” (i.e., the World View and the Zone View)—which provided “high-value at-a-

3

glace information for several applications at once” (id. at 201)—as distinct from “the applications

4

themselves” (id. at 206) that gestures in the shell could “launch.”

5

118.

My inspection and use of LaunchTile and XNav confirm that launching an

6

application from the Zone View does not merely “translate[e]” the representative content

7

displayed in the Zone View. For example, launching the email application brings up a more

8

detailed and longer list of emails in an inbox, and a user can select an individual email to view it.

9

Dr. Gray’s own images of LaunchTile’s transition at the launch of the email application show the

10

application’s different visual appearance from the static thumbnail provided in the Zone View:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
119.

The unimplemented applications in the LaunchTile and XNav prototypes—which

20
include 33 of the 36 notification tiles (all except the email application that Mr. Gray uses as his
21
example and two others)—provide the best illustration of the fact that the Zone View and the
22
Application View display entirely distinct content. Selecting a notification tile in Zone View that
23
corresponds to an unimplemented application results in the display of a placeholder screen—
24
shared by all of the unimplemented applications—that says “Application Under Construction.” It
25
is readily apparent that no notification tile in Zone View displays this text, so it cannot be the case
26
that an Application View displaying this text is the result of merely “translat[ing]” any electronic
27
document displayed in Zone View.
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

33

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

As shown above, selecting the unimplemented Calendar Application in XNav brings up a mostly
blank screen with the text “Application Under Construction” on it.
120.

Underscoring the separation between the Zone and World Views and the

applications themselves, Mr. Gray conceded at his deposition that once a single application has
been launched, there is no way to pan or scroll to see any other box of content from the World
View or Zone View:

15
16

Q. And you cannot scroll or pan when you’re in the LaunchTile
application view to see any of the adjacent LaunchTile zone view
boxes, right?

17
[Objection, compound]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

A. My best recollection of the way that this operates is that—is
that—let me think. I don’t, sitting here right now, I don’t remember
certainly whether there is an ability to slide back to the other view.
But I think not. I think—so let me—sorry.
I believe that from the selected second box, which has been
expanded and centered on page 5, is labeled the “LaunchTile
application view,” that it is—from there, I don’t know of a
navigation path back to the first box other than to go back up to the
world view and then select the zone again.
(Bartlett Decl. Ex. 30 at 214:16-215:6.) Mr. Gray’s testimony further confirms that the
Application view is not obtained by merely “translating” or “scrolling” the structured electronic
document from which the application tile was selected.

27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

34

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 31, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DR. KARAN SINGH
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION

35