Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 251

RESPONSE in Opposition re 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment OF INVALIDITY OF US PATENT NO. 6,613,101 filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Steven K. Feiner Ph.D., # 3 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Steven K. Feiner Ph.D., # 4 Declaration of Jeffrey G. Randall in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, # 5 Exhibit 1 to Randall Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 2 to Randall Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 3 to Randall Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 4 to Randall Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 5 to Randall Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 6 to Randall Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 7 to Randall Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 8 to Randall Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 9 to Randall Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 10 to Randall Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 11 to Randall Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 12 to Randall Declaration)(Randall, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 251 Att. 14 Randall Declaration Exhibit 10 Dockets.Justia.com Appeal N o . 1 9 9 7 - 0 1 2 9 Application 08/287,108 document to the existing collection in Levine based on the internal representations of the third document and the collection has been discussed above, also see for example, column 13, lines 6 t o 6 5 , c o l u m n 1 5 , l i n e s 4 t o 20 a n d c o l u m n 2 5 , l i n e 58 t o column 26, line 28. Regarding claim 69, the claimed limitation i s akin to Vale's technique of determining the number of times a keyword, i . e . , a word or a group of words i s used at l e a s t once in each of the documents in the computer data base. T h u s , we w i l l a l s o s u s t a i n t h e o b v i o u s n e s s r e j e c t i o n o f c l a i m s 8 t o 1 0 , 34 t o 3 6 a n d 69 o v e r L e v i n e a n d V a l e . R e j e c t i o n o f c l a i m s 81 t o 86 u n d e r 35 U . S . C . 1 0 3 These claims are rejected as being obvious over Nicol and Levine. We t a k e u p i n d e p e n d e n t c l a i m 81 f i r s t . We h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e a r g u m e n t s o f A p p e l l a n t s [ b r i e f , p a g e s 31 t o 34 a n d r e p l y b r i e f , p a g e 2] a n d t h e E x a m i n e r [ a n s w e r , p a g e s 1 0 , 1 1 , 25 a n d 2 6 , a n d we c o n c l u d e t h a t L e v i n e a n d s u p p l e m e n t a l a n s w e r , p a g e 2] s h o w s t h e d i s p l a y i n g o f t h e t o p p a g e o f a d o c u m e n t , w h i c h we h a v e considered as an icon in our discussion here, alongside of the collection as the pointer i s pointed to a document in the c o l l e c t i o n . We h a v e d i s c u s s e d t h i s a t l e n g t h a b o v e . Nicol on the other hand discloses the concept of icons representing various documents and/or software routines in a computer. -21No i n d i v i d u a l 724 FH 398 APMW0025709 Appeal N o . 1 9 9 7 - 0 1 2 9 Application 08/287,108 a r g u m e n t s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d f o r c l a i m s 82 a n d 8 3 . Therefore, we s u s t a i n t h e o b v i o u s n e s s r e j e c t i o n o f c l a i m s 81 t o 83 o v e r Nicol and Levine. ~displaying With respect to claim 84, i t calls for in series a second indicia . . . and a third indicia (claim 84, lines 4 to 7). We h a v e r e v i e w e d representation" the Examiner's position [answer, page 11] and find t h a t the Examiner has not established a prima facie case to reject this claim. C l a i m s 85 a n d 86 d e p e n d o n c l a i m 84 a n d t h e E x a m i n e r h a s not presented any additional evidence for their rejection. T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t s u s t a i n t h e o b v i o u s n e s s r e j e c t i o n o f c l a i m s 84 t o 86 o v e r N i c o l a n d L e v i n e . R e j e c t i o n o f c l a i m s 31 t o 33 u n d e r 35 U . S . C . 1 0 3 These claims are rejected over Reed. We d o n o t d e a l h e r e with any procedural issues raised by Appellants in the utilization of this reference in the final rejection [brief, page 34 a n d 3 5 ] . We o n l y r e v i e w t h e m e r i t s o f t h e f i n a l r e j e c t i o n We t a k e u p c l a i m 31 f i r s t . We h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e based on Reed. p o s i t i o n s o f A p p e l l a n t s [ b r i e f , p a g e s 35 t o 3 8 ] a n d t h e E x a m i n e r [ a n s w e r , p a g e s 12 t o 1 3 ] a n d we c o n c l u d e th~t whereas Reed shows the textual search as well as the pictorial search, see columns 17 a n d 1 8 , i t d o e s n o t m e e t t h e l i m i t a t i o n ~displaying a graphical representation of said collection on said display -22- 724 FH 399 APMW0025710

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?