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

Filing 1184

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Cyndi Wheeler In Support Of Apples Administrative Motions To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine, #2 [Proposed] Order Granting Apple Inc.s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine, #3 Apples Motions In Limine, #4 Declaration Of Jason Bartlett In Support Of Apples Motions In Limine, #5 Exhibit 1, #6 Exhibit 3, #7 Exhibit 4, #8 Exhibit 5, #9 Exhibit 6, #10 Exhibit 7, #11 Exhibit 8, #12 Exhibit 9, #13 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/5/2012)

Exhibit 7

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Case No.
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13

11-cv-01846-LHK

REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
OF PETER W. BRESSLER,
FIDSA

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,
Defendants.

14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER, FIDSA
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

1

67.

The D’677 patent is further distinguished from the JP’638 Patent based on

2

additional differences, including the smaller speaker slot depicted in the JP’638 Patent, which is

3

narrower relative to the overall design than the speaker slot depicted in the D’677 patent, and the

4

relative narrowness of the front face of the JP’638 design as compared to the D’677 design.

5

Mr. Sherman concedes these differences. (Sherman Report at 7.)

6

68.

As a result of Mr. Sherman’s erroneous analysis, key differences between the

7

JP’638 design’s front surface and the corresponding portions of the D’677 patent were ignored:

8

(1) the JP’638 design’s significant camber; (2) its lack of a continuous front surface covered

9

entirely by a single piece of material; (2) its lack of edge-to-edge transparency across the front

10

surface; and (4) its lack of a black color designation. These differences would be readily noticed

11

by the ordinary observer and given significant weight in a visual comparison. Based on the

12

contrast in overall visual impressions, it is my opinion that an ordinary observer would not find

13

the D’677 design to be substantially the same as the JP’638 design.6

14

69.

JP’221 Patent. I also disagree with Mr. Sherman that the JP’221 patent

15

anticipates the D’677 design. In particular, there’s no indication in the JP’221 reference that

16

there is a continuous and transparent surface covering the entire front face of the device. Rather,

17

JP’221 shows an opaque black border around a matte gray screen. Moreover, despite

18

Mr. Sherman’s assertion otherwise (Sherman Report at 34), there is no indication that any kind of

19

transparent surface stretches over the gray display area. Accordingly, the JP’221 Patent does not

20

disclose a continuous transparent front surface that extends over the entire front face of the

21

device.

22
23
24
6

25
26
27
28

Mr. Sherman’s analysis also refers to the Sharp 825SH product as the implementation of the
JP’638 design. I am informed, however, that the Sharp 825SH product was not announced and released
until 2008, after the D’677 patent had been filed in 2007 and is not prior art. Moreover, I find that there
are significant differences between the JP’638 design and the Sharp 825SH phone that make it clear that
the latter is not an accurate representation of the JP’638 design. Most significantly, the Sharp phone has
much less camber to its front surface when compared to the JP’638 design, and the Sharp phone appears to
use a black-colored transparent front surface, which is not indicated in the JP’638 design.
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER, FIDSA
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

25