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

Filing 1351

Unredacted Claim Construction Brief by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) re 1256 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, re (Dkt. No. 1183) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 4 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 9 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 10 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 11 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 12 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 13 to the Schmidt Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 14 to the Schmidt Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 13
FILED UNDER SEAL

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**
SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

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

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
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