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

Filing 972

Declaration of Cyndi Wheeler in Support of #927 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Exclude Opinions of Certain of Apple's Experts filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Declaration Of Mark D. Selwyn In Support Of Samsungs Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Samsungs Motion To Exclude Opinions Of Certain Apple Experts, #6 Selwyn Exhibit 1, #7 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Samsungs Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Samsungs Motion To Exclude Opinions Of Certain Apple Experts)(Related document(s) #927 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 5/24/2012)

Exhibit 2

EXHIBIT 18
FILED UNDER SEAL

Disparities Between the Descriptions of the Patented Features Used in Dr. Hauser's Surveys
and Apple‟s Descriptions of the Patented Features

Patent Description of the
Patented Feature in the
Hauser Surveys
“Whether the smartphone
‘607
accurately carries out what
you intend to do when you
touch the screen.”2
“Whether the tablet is
capable of reliably
performing a full range of
multi-touch operations.”3
For an example that did not
include the patented feature,
Dr. Hauser showed
respondents an animation.
The animation displayed the
words “Intended contact not
recognized,” multiple times.
The narration accompanying
the animation stated, “This
touchscreen is a single touch
screen with very limited
multi-touch capability. It
reliably tracks single-finger
operations like scrolling.
Some gestures involving
two fingers, like pinch-tozoom, will work, but with
poor response. As a result,
the touch screen will not
always carry out the twofinger gestures you intend.”4

Description of the Patented
Feature by Apple’s Technical
Expert1
“[T]he claimed inventions of the
„607 Patent relate to a specific
configuration of conductive lines
and layers that make up the touch
panel in a display arrangement.
The „607 Patent claims recite an
innovative combination of
elements including the use of a
mutual capacitance touch screen
in a truly transparent display that
can simultaneously detect and
generate signals representing
distinct multiple points of actual
or near contact and the use of
“dummy” visual features (that
can be made of the same material
as the conductive lines in the
display) to enhance the display.”
Maharbiz Opening Report at 8.

1

Disparity

No connection
between the
touchscreen
“reliably” doing
what “you intend”
and the „607 patent.

Samsung does not accept the descriptions provided by Apple‟s experts, but has used
them here to show that Dr. Hauser‟s descriptions do not even comport with Apple‟s experts‟
descriptions of the patented features.
2

Hauser Report, Exh. F at QATTR3.

3

Hauser Report, Exh. G at QATTR3.

4

Patent Description of the
Patented Feature in the
Hauser Surveys
“Tap to re-center after
‘163
zoom.”5
“After you double-tap to
zoom and center, this
touchscreen does not permit
you to tap on other parts of
the document to center their
content. In this example, to
center that content, the user
zooms back out, finds the
other content she wants, and
zooms back in.”6

“Whether you can
automatically switch back
and forth between using
only one finger on the
screen (“single touch”), and
using two or more fingers on
the screen (“multi-touch”).”7

‘915

5

Description of the Patented
Feature by Apple’s Technical
Expert1
“The invention of the „163 patent
allows a user to navigate easily
around a structured electronic
document by tapping or double
tapping on boxes of content in
that document. The „163 patent
describes enlarging or translating
the electronic document, in
response to a tap gesture, so that
the tapped box of content is
substantially centered on the
touch screen display. Tapping on
a previously enlarged box can
result in zooming back out,
including to the original scale.
Other gestures, such as a finger
swipe or a “depinch” gesture, can
also result in translating or
scaling of the electronic
document.” Singh Opening
Report at 7.
“The „915 patent is generally
directed to methods and
apparatus for responding to
user inputs on a touch-sensitive
display integrated with a device.
The asserted claims of the „915
patent recite methods and
apparatus that distinguish
between a single-input point that
is interpreted as a “scroll
operation” and two or more input

Hauser Report, Exh. F at QATTR3, Exh. G at QATTR3.

6

7

Hauser Report, Exhs F at QATTR3, G at QATTR3.

-2-

Disparity

The animation
presented to
respondents talks
about the ability to
“re-center after
zoom,” but says
nothing about the
requirement that a
“box” of content be
“substantially
centered” upon the
initial enlarging (i.e.
“zoom” step). The
animation also talks
about “recenter[ing],”
whereas the claim
covers “translating a
structured electronic
document” in order
to “substantially
center” a “second
box of content.”
Nothing in the
patent talks about
“automatically
switching” between
single- and multitouch.

Patent Description of the
Patented Feature in the
Hauser Surveys

“Whether or not the
touchscreen contains a
„rubberband‟ effect in which
the screen „bounces‟ when
you reach the end of a
webpage or image.”8

‘381

8

Description of the Patented
Feature by Apple’s Technical
Expert1
points that are interpreted as a
“gesture operation.” Singh
Opening Report at 68.
“The „381 patent generally
claims an innovative method of
informing the user of a touch
screen mobile device that the
edge of an electronic document
has been reached by allowing the
user to scroll beyond the edge of
the document and to view an area
beyond the edge of the document
for as long as the user keeps his
finger in contact with the screen.
Once the user‟s finger is
removed, the „381 patent
describes having the document or
image scroll back into place so
that the area beyond its edge is
no longer shown, and the
document or image can be
viewed.” Balakrishnan Opening
Report at 11.

Id.

9

-3-

Disparity

Dr. Hauser‟s surveys
use the term
“rubberband” to
describe the „381
patent, but the „381
patent does not use
that term. The
animation presented
to respondents
shows motion only
in the vertical
direction, while
Apple‟s expert does
not seem to limit the
„381 patent in this
way.9