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 14
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

REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
OF DR. KARAN SINGH, PH.D.
REGARDING VALIDITY OF U.S.
PATENTS NOS. 7,864,163,
7,844,915 AND 7,853,891

Defendants.

20
21
22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

XNav System, U.S. Patent No. 7,327,349 to Robbins et al. (“Robbins”), U.S. Patent No.

2

7,933,632 to Flynt et al. (“Flynt”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,211,856 to Choi et al. (“Choi”). Mr.

3

Gray also cites these references in combination with six other named references to support his

4

opinions that the asserted claims of the ’163 patent are invalid as obvious. For the reasons

5

discussed below, it is my opinion that none of these prior art references anticipates any of the

6

claims of the ’163 patent that I asserted were infringed in my Expert Report Regarding

7

Infringement. Moreover it is my opinion that none of these references, alone or in

8

combination with one another, renders the asserted claims obvious. Finally, it is my opinion

9

that the asserted claims of the ’163 patent are not invalid for lack of written description or

10
11

enablement, or for indefiniteness.
A.

The Asserted Claims of the ’163 Patent Are Not Anticipated or Rendered
Obvious by the LaunchTile or XNav Systems or the LaunchTile Publication

12
29.

Three of the references that Mr. Gray asserts anticipate the ’163 patent—the

13
LaunchTile System, the XNav System, and a publication entitled AppLens and LaunchTile:
14
Two Designs for One-Handed Thumb Use on Small Devices (the “LaunchTile
15
Publication”)—are closely related. I understand that the LaunchTile System is a prototype
16
graphical user interface created by Benjamin Bederson and his colleagues for use on mobile
17
devices such as Personal Digital Assistants and cell phones. (Bederson Decl. in Supp. of
18
Samsung’s Opp. to Apple’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1.) The LaunchTile Publication describes
19
how aspects of the LaunchTile System function. (Id.) The XNav System is a variant of the
20
LaunchTile System that is adapted for use with different devices and operating systems.
21
XNav is based on the same source code as LaunchTile, and it has many of the same features.
22
(Id. at 7.)
23
30.

Mr. Gray’s own description of LaunchTile, which applies equally to XNav,

24
shows that LaunchTile’s functionality is fundamentally different from the functionality
25
claimed in the ’163 patent. Mr. Gray describes LaunchTile as follows:
26
27
28

LaunchTile consisted of an “interactive zoomspace” consisting of
36 application tiles, divided into nine zones of four tiles each. The
LaunchTile Publication referred to this “zoomspace” as the
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

8

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

“World.” When the entire zoomspace was in view, the LaunchTile
Publication referred to the view as “World View.”

2

The zoomspace included a blue button (“Blue”) in the center of
each 4-tile “Zone” that could be selected by the user to enlarge and
translate the four tiles that were adjacent to the selection button.
When enlarged, the four tiles and the selection button [were]
referred to as the “Zone View[.]”

3
4
5
6

From the Zone View, LaunchTile permit[ted] the user to select any
one of the 4 application tiles to launch the corresponding
application.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(Gray Report at 89-90.) LaunchTile / XNav and the ’163 patent address fundamentally different
problems: LaunchTile and XNav address the use of a fixed set of applications in a predefined
layout, whereas the ’163 patent deals with the readability and navigation of arbitrarily sized and
structured documents on a small screen.
31.

LaunchTile, as described above, discloses a method that purposely uses

abstraction to provide three different layers of information. At each layer (World, Zoom, and
Application) the system displays different content, which is distinct from the content in other
layers, notwithstanding the fact that symbolic links may exist between layers (such as text and
graphics that comprise, for example, an email icon in the Zone View launching a
corresponding, but separate, email Application). By contrast, the ’163 patent claims a method
for viewing the content of the same structured electronic document effectively on a portable
device’s screen, even when the screen does not naturally accommodate the document’s size.
The ’163 patent describes scaling and translating a structured electronic document to better
allow a user to focus on different portions of it, but it is, at all relevant times, the same
electronic document that is displayed on the screen. In contrast, moving to a different layer in
LaunchTile and XNav does not merely enlarge or translate a structured electronic document,
but instead displays different and additional content. For at least these reasons, LaunchTile
and XNav do not anticipate claims 2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17-18, 27, 29-30, 32-35, 37-41, or 49-52.
Mr. Gray’s obviousness arguments that urge combinations with LaunchTile and XNav are
addressed below in connection with the claims to which they apply.
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

9

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

1.

2
3
32.

4

Claim 2: “detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed
portion of the structured electronic document; determining a first box
in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture; enlarging
and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box
is substantially centered on the touch screen display”
I disagree with Mr. Gray’s determination that LaunchTile and XNav disclose

5

claim 2’s recitation of “detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the

6

structured electronic document; determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location

7

of the first gesture; enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the

8

first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.”
33.

9

The unambiguous language of claim 2 requires that the “structured electronic

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

determined. LaunchTile and XNav fail to disclose this recitation of claim 2 because the

14

different zoom levels in LaunchTile and XNav do not display the same structured electronic

15

document. In LaunchTile and XNav, the “substantially centered” Zone View is entirely

16

distinct from the World View, or portion of it, that is initially displayed and tapped on by the

17

user.1 Transitioning from the World View to the Zone View does not involve “enlarging and

18

translating” a portion of the World View. Rather, a Zone View entirely replaces the World

19

View that was previously displayed. This replacement functionality is apparent in all of the

20

LaunchTile screenshots included in part [2b] of the claim chart attached as Appendix 7 to Mr.

21

Gray’s report, which clearly show that the Zone View is not merely a translated and enlarged

22

version of the World View, but entirely different content with a different visual appearance:

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

I express no opinion as to whether the portions of the World View, Zone View, and
Application View displayed by LaunchTile and XNav individually constitute “structured
electronic documents” within the meaning of the ’163 patent. Because it is clear that the different
Views display distinct content, they cannot be the same structured electronic document.
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

10

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

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

Note, for example, that the single phone icon in the World View becomes a list of calls in the

14

Zone View; the email and calendar cells similarly become detailed lists in the Zone View where

15

they were merely iconic representations in the World View. The difference is more than mere

16

enlargement and translation; it is substitution of entirely different content.

17

34.

A review of the XNav source code confirms that the Zone View displays

18

different content, not merely an enlarged and translated version of content displayed in the

19

World View. Specifically, the XNav code calls entirely different graphical assets when a

20

transition is made from World View to Zone View, rather than enlarging the World View

21

graphical assets. (See Landscape.cs in Bederson Decl. in Supp. of Samsung’s Opp. to Apple’s

22

Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Ex. G (hereinafter XNav Source Code Exhibit).)

23

2.

24
25
26
27

35.

Claim 2: “while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected
on a second box other than the first box; and 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”
I disagree with Mr. Gray’s determination that LaunchTile and XNav disclose

claim 2’s recitation of “while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a

28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

11

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

commercially successful and have garnered widespread praise for their elegant and user-

2

friendly interfaces.

3

E.

The Asserted Claims of the ’891 Patent are Not Invalid as Indefinite Under 35
U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6

4

310.

I disagree with Dr. Darrell’s opinion that claims 51-52, 55-56, 64-71, and 73-

5
74 are indefinite because the specification of the ’891 patent lacks corresponding structure to
6
adequately identify the scope of these claims.
7
311.

It is my opinion that there is sufficient disclosure of structure in the ’891

8
patent specification for performing the functionality claimed in these means-plus-function
9
claims. I have identified the physical components (such as hardware) and the algorithmic
10
components (such as flow diagrams) of structure in the ’891 patent specification associated
11
with each element of claims 51-52, 55-56, 64-71, and 73-74 in my Expert Report Regarding
12
Infringement. (See Expert Report of Karan Singh, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement of U.S.
13
Patents Nos. 7,864,163, 7,844,915 and 7,853,891 at 154-165.) The relevant disclosed
14
structure includes at least the text at 2:42-3:14, 3:45-50, 4:28-5:31, 5:54-6:8, 6:21-40, 7:7-50,
15
and 8:4-9:63 and Figures 1, and 7-21. This structure is, in my opinion, sufficient to render
16
claims 51-52, 55-56, 64-71, and 73-74 definite, and therefore not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
17
112 ¶ 6.
18
19
Dated: April 16, 2012
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

104