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

Filing 1379

Unredacted Exhibits to Gray and Van Dam Decs ISO Samsung's MSJ 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, (Dkt. Nos. 931, 937 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7 to Gray, # 2 Exhibit 8 to Gray, # 3 Exhibit 9 to Gray, # 4 Exhibit 10 to Gray, # 5 Exhibit 11 to Gray, # 6 Exhibit 12 to Gray, # 7 Exhibit 13 to Gray, # 8 Exhibit 14 to Gray, # 9 Exhibit 15 to Gray, # 10 Exhibit 2 to Van Dam)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 15
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

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.

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:

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

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

second box other than the first box; and in response to detecting the second gesture, the

2

structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on

3

the touch screen display.”

4
5

36.

Mr. Gray provides the following support seeking to establish that LaunchTile

and XNav disclose this recitation of claim 2:

6

In both the LaunchTile and XNav systems, the user “taps any of the
4 notification tiles within Zone view to launch a corresponding
application.” Therefore, in response to a second gesture (user tap) at
the location of a second box (notification tile), “[a]n animated zoom
draws the zoomspace toward the user until the target application
fills the entire display . . . .” See LaunchTile Publication at 205.

7
8
9
10

(Gray Report Appendix 7 at 5.) Mr. Gray advances several alternative theories in part [2c] of the
11
Appendix 7 claim chart that differ slightly in how the “first box” is defined or in the precise series
12
of steps that precede tapping on a notification tile. But all of these alternatives define the “second
13
box” as a notification tile in the Zone View, which is allegedly “substantially centered” when the
14
user taps on it and launches the corresponding Application.
15
37.

In my opinion, the transition from Zone View to Application View in

16
LaunchTile and XNav fails to disclose this recitation of claim 2 for reasons analogous to those
17
discussed in the previous section (there, in connection with the World View-to-Zone View
18
transition): Zone View and Application View do not display the same structured electronic
19
document. Rather, an Application, such as the email application that Mr. Gray uses as his
20
example (Gray Report Appendix 7 at 5-8), displays content entirely distinct from anything
21
displayed in the Zone View. As a result, any centering of content displayed in the
22
Application View has no bearing on the “second box” defined in the Zone View, which is
23
defined with respect to a different electronic document. The Application View displays
24
separate content, which is not the result of merely “translat[ing],” as claim 2 requires, any
25
electronic document visible in the Zone View. The unimplemented Applications in the
26
LaunchTile and XNav prototypes—which include 33 of the 36 notification tiles (all except the
27
email application that Mr. Gray uses as his example and two others)—provide the best
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

12

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