Exhibit 23 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 43
Paper No. ______

Filed: July 21, 2022

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

GOOGLE LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,

Patent Owner.

Case No. IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

____________

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction......................................................................................................1

II. The Robertson Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims..................1

A. Robertson Is Analogous Art..................................................................1

1. Robertson is in the same field as the ’879 patent .......................1

2. Robertson is reasonably pertinent to the ’879 patent’s 

problem .......................................................................................4

B. Robertson Discloses the “Gliding ... Away” Limitation......................7

1. The ’879 patent lacks written description for Neonode’s 

construction.................................................................................7

2. Robertson’s “flick” gesture discloses the “gliding ... 

away” limitation under the plain meaning and under 

Neonode’s construction ..............................................................9

3. Robertson’s “insert” gesture discloses the “gliding ... 

away” limitation........................................................................11

4. Robertson’s “insert” gesture activates a represented 

function .....................................................................................12

C. Robertson discloses the “one option” limitation.................................13

D. Robertson and Maddalozzo Render Obvious the Preamble................15

1. Robertson and Maddalozzo render obvious “a mobile 

handheld computer unit”...........................................................15

a. Robertson’s gesture activations apply to mobile 

handheld computer units.................................................15

b. A POSITA would have found it obvious to 

implement Robertson’s gesture activations in 

mobile handheld computer units ....................................17

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

ii

2. Robertson teaches and Maddalozzo renders obvious 

computer program code being “read by a mobile 

handheld computer unit”...........................................................18

III. The Tarpenning Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims..............19

A. Tarpenning Discloses “Gliding ... Away”..........................................19

B. A POSITA Would Have Modified Tarpenning as Claimed ...............21

IV. The Dependent Claim Are Unpatentable ......................................................23

V. Neonode’s Secondary Considerations Do Not Overcome Obviousness.......23

A. There Is No Nexus with the Claims....................................................24

1. The N1/N2 phones do not practice every claim limitation.......24

2. Neonode’s phones implement other critical technology ..........25

B. There Is No Industry Praise for the Claimed Features........................26

C. No Evidence of Commercial Success.................................................28

VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................30

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,

299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..........................................................................15

In re Applied Materials, Inc.,

692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................29

Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,

713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................3

In re Clay,

966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................5

D Three Enters., LLC v. SunModo Corp., 

890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................8

Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,

851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................24

Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,

979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................4, 6

Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,

815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................10

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,

944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................25

In re GPAC Inc.,

57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................29

In re Huang,

100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 28-29

In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,

496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................4

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

iv

InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC,

690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................13

In re Kao,

639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................27

In re Klein,

647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................6

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,

550 U.S. 398 (2007)............................................................................................18

Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,

437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................22

Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.,

808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................26, 29

In re Mouttet,

686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................17

Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,

723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................8

PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,

773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................23

PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu,

891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................16

Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..........................................................13

Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,

599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................26

Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,

823 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................10

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,

824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................7

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

v

Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC,

8 F.4th 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................10

SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,

809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................29

Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,

957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................19

Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,

841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................18

Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,

993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ..............................................................................5

Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,

616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................1, 24

Board Decisions

Polygroup v. Willis Electric Co.,

IPR2016-01610, Paper 187 (Feb. 26, 2018).........................................................6

Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neonode Smartphone,

IPR2021-00145, Paper 71 (July 6, 2022) ...........................................................24

SCHOTT Gemtron v. SSW Holding Co.,

IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 (May 26, 2015)...........................................................6

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

vi

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

Ex-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”)

Ex-1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

Ex-1003 Declaration of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.

Ex-1004 CV of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.

Ex-1005 George G. Robertson, Buttons as First Class Objects on an X 

Desktop, UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User 

Interface Software and Technology: Hilton Head, South Carolina, 

USA, pp. 35-44 (Nov. 11-13, 1991) (“Robertson”)

Ex-1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,768,501 to Maddalozzo Jr. et al. (“Maddalozzo”)

Ex-1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,717 to Vayda et al. (“Vayda”)

Ex-1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,870,092 to Bedford-Roberts (“Bedford-Roberts”)

Ex-1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,344 to Tarpenning et al. (“Tarpenning”)

Ex-1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0035880 to Musatov 

et al. (“Musatov”)

Ex-1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0149569 to Dutta 

et al. (“Dutta”)

Ex-1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0013483 to Ausems 

et al. (“Ausems”)

Ex-1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,249,277 to Varveris (“Varveris”)

Ex-1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,344,848 to Rowe et al. (“Rowe”)

Ex-1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,388,870 to Canova Jr. et al. (“Canova”)

Ex-1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,081,882 to Sowden et al. (“Sowden”)

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

vii

Exhibit Description

Ex-1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 to Agulnick et al. (“Agulnick”)

Ex-1018 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters

Ex-1019 Declaration of Kelley M. Hayes Greenhill

Ex-1020 Wisconsin MARC Record for Robertson, available at

https://wrlc-gu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/sourceRecord?vi

d=01WRLC_GUNIV:01WRLC_GUNIV&docId=alma9911002247

004101&recordOwner=01WRLC_NETWORK (last visited May 

26, 2021)

Ex-1021 Library of Congress MARC Record for Robertson, available at 

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=16367&recPo

inter=0&recCount=25&bibId=11489112 (last visited May 27, 

2021)

Ex-1022 U.S. Copyright Office Record, available at 

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=8&ti=1,8&S

earch%5FArg=Proceedings%20of%20the%20ACM%20Symposi

um%20on%20User%20Interface%20Software%20and%20Tech

nology&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=S5YOB6rlEC

B6M_LEJD300IQpy&SEQ=20210527133326&SID=3 (last 

visited May 27, 2021)

Ex-1023 WorldCat Record for OCLC Control Number 28864712, available 

at

https://www.worldcat.org/title/proceedings-of-the-acm-symposiumon-user-interface-software-and-technology/oclc/28864712 (last 

visited June 2, 2021)

Ex-1024 WorldCat Record for OCLC Control Number 270712133, available 

at

https://www.worldcat.org/title/proceedings-of-the-acm-symposiumon-user-interface-software-and-technology-hilton-head-south-caroli

na-usa-november-11-13-1991/oclc/270712133 (last visited June 2, 

2021)

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

viii

Exhibit Description

Ex-1025 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00505-ADA, 

Docket No. 40, Order Granting Stay (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020)

Ex-1026 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 

No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA, Text Order Granting Stay (W.D. Tex. 

Dec. 11, 2020)

Ex-1027 Excerpts from Robert W. Scheifler & James Gettys, X Window 

System, Version 11, Release 5 (Digital Press 3d ed. 1992)

Ex-1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,116 to Pisutha-Arnond (“Pisutha-Arnond”)

Ex-1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,644,628 to Schwarzer et al. (“Schwarzer”)

Ex-1030 Teleconference Transcript of Conference Call with Board dated 

November 8, 2021

Ex-1031 Deposition transcript of Craig C. Rosenberg, Ph.D. (July 7, 2022)

Ex-1032 Second Declaration of Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ph.D.

Ex-1033 Excerpt from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (CMP Books 17th ed. 

2001) (definition of “desktop”)

Ex-1034 Except from Barron’s Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms

(Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. 7th ed. 2000) (definition of 

“desktop”)

Ex-1035 HP 620LX/660LX Palmtop User Guide (Hewlett Packard 1st ed. 

May 1998)

Ex-1036 NEC MobilePro 790 User’s Guide (NEC Computers Inc. Mar. 

2001)

Ex-1037 Excerpts from IBM ThinkPad 760E, 760ED, or 769EL User’s Guide 

(International Business Machines Corp. Sept. 1996) 

Ex-1038 Introducing Microsoft Windows 95 (Microsoft Corp. 1995)

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 10 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

ix

Exhibit Description

Ex-1039 Mohan Rajagopalan et al., Profile-Directed Optimization of 

Event-Based Programs, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 

Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation 

(PLDI’02), June 17-19, 2002, pp. 106-116 (ACM 2002)

Ex-1040 William R. Hamburgen et al., Itsy: Stretching the Bounds of Mobile 

Computing, Computer, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 28-36 (IEEE Apr. 2001)

Ex-1041 Noboru Kamijoh et al., Energy trade-offs in the IBM Wristwatch 

computer, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on 

Wearable Computers, Oct. 8-9, 2001, pp. 133-140 (IEEE 2001)

Ex-1042 Excerpts from PowerBook Getting Started (Apple Computer, Inc. 

1994)

Ex-1043 File history to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/796,880

Ex-1044 Deposition transcript of Magnus Goertz (June 2, 2022)

Ex-1045 Deposition transcript of Thomas Eriksson (June 3, 2022)

Ex-1046 Deposition transcript of Marcus Bäcklund in IPR2021-00145 (Nov. 

30, 2021)

Ex-1047 Deposition transcript of Ulf Martensson in IPR2021-00145 (Dec. 3, 

2021)

Ex-1048 Nichole Lee, Neonode N2 – black (unlocked) review: Neonode N2 

– black unlocked, CNET (Jan. 23, 2008), available at

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/neonode-n2-black-unlocked-review/

(last accessed July 8, 2022)

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 11 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

1

I. Introduction

Neonode’s Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 29, “POR”) disputes the 

Petition’s (Paper 1, “Pet.”) showings only as to independent claim 1, and does not 

separately argue any dependent claim. Neonode fails to rebut the Petition’s 

obviousness showings for both the Robertson grounds and Tarpenning grounds. 

Neonode’s secondary considerations arguments lack a nexus to the claims and, if 

considered, cannot overcome Petitioner’s strong obviousness case.

II. The Robertson Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims

A. Robertson Is Analogous Art

Neonode wrongly argues that Robertson is not analogous art based on 

Neonode’s misunderstanding of the ’879 patent’s field and Robertson. POR 18-31. 

Robertson satisfies both of the alternative tests for analogous art, which are 

“broadly” construed. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). 

1. Robertson is in the same field as the ’879 patent

Neonode contends the ’879 patent’s field is “a user interface for a mobile 

handheld computer unit.” POR 22 (quoting Ex-1001, 1:6-7). The Petition explains

that Robertson is in this same field because it describes a “user interface toolkit” 

with “pen-based gestural input,” which POSITAs would have understood describes

mobile handheld computers (e.g., PDAs and laptop computers). Pet. 12-18; 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 12 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

2

Ex-1005, Abstract, § 3.1. Petitioner’s expert explained that POSITAs would have 

understood Robertson relates to gesture-based user interfaces on many platforms 

and applies broadly because X Windows is merely an example platform. Ex-1003, 

¶¶93, 96; Ex-2018, 60:18-61:9.

Neonode’s narrow interpretation that the field is “small” devices for “one

hand only” use by “inexperienced users” lacks support. POR 21-25. The ’879 

patent’s “technical field,” contrary to Neonode’s interpretation, broadly refers to a 

“user interface for a mobile handheld computer unit” and includes within its field

laptop computers and PDAs, two-handed use via a stylus or pointer, and any users. 

Ex-1001, 1:6-9, 1:24-33, 1:65-2:14, 6:13-15; Paper 19 (“D.I.”), 35 n.10. The 

“technical field” never refers to “small” devices, “one-handed” use, or 

“inexperienced users.” Ex-1001, 1:6-20. Even if some examples disclose small, 

one-handed devices, that does not limit the patent’s field, given the contrary 

examples. 

Robertson is in the same field. Pet. 13-14. Neonode does not dispute that 

Robertson relates to a user interface for computers, including touchscreen gesture 

activations, but instead argues a misunderstanding of “desktop” to dispute whether 

Robertson relates to a mobile handheld computer unit. POR 25-26. Robertson does

because it describes the desktop as the user-interface screen. Pet. 13; Ex-1003, 

¶¶83-84; Ex-1032, ¶¶17-20, 22. “Desktop” in computer terminology refers to the 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 13 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

3

on-screen interface—“[t]he screen layout, the menu bar, and the program icons 

associated with the machine’s operating environment”—not a hardware desktop 

computer system, as Neonode asserts. Ex-1033; Ex-1034 (“desktop” is “the whole 

computer screen, representing your workspace”); Ex-1032, ¶21; Ex-1031, 

14:19-15:10. A POSITA would have understood that “desktop” in Robertson also 

refers to the on-screen interface, not the physical hardware, because it describes the 

buttons being “on” the desktop screen. Ex-1032, ¶¶17-20, 22. As Petitioner’s 

expert explains, many small mobile handheld devices, including PDAs and laptops, 

refer to the on-screen user interface as a “desktop” in the same way as Robertson. 

Ex-1032, ¶¶22-25. For example, the HP 620LX and NEC MobilePro 790 handheld 

devices, and the IBM ThinkPad and Apple PowerBook laptops, all refer to the 

on-screen user interface as a “desktop.” Ex-1032, ¶¶22-25.

The prosecution history of related Application No. 16/796,880 confirms that 

Robertson is in the same field. There, the examiner explained Robertson is in the

same field of endeavor when rejecting the pending claims reciting a “portable 

handheld ... computer device” over Robertson’s gliding gesture. Ex-1043,

1246-1247, 1256. Neonode did not dispute the examiner’s analogous art finding.

Ex-1043, 1315, 1312-1313; Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 

1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applicant’s failure to challenge examiner’s finding 

weighed against later assertions by patentee).

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 14 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

4

Robertson is analogous prior art.

2. Robertson is reasonably pertinent to the ’879 patent’s 

problem

Robertson also satisfies the second, alternative test.

Neonode alleges multiple “problem[s]” for the ’879 patent. POR 28-29. 

Robertson need only be “reasonably pertinent to one1 ... [of those] problems” to be 

analogous art, “even if there are significant differences” between the references.

Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020); 

In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

Robertson is reasonably pertinent at least to Neonode’s alleged “problem[s]”

of (1) creating a “simple” user interface and (2) a user interface that can handle 

large and different amounts of information. POR 28.

First, Robertson describes a “user interface toolkit” having gesture-activated

buttons that “are selected by simple ... pen gestures” and “invoked by a simple 

interaction” using a “style of interaction [that] is familiar to everyone.” Ex-1005, 

§§ 1-1.1, 3-3.1; Pet. 5, 12-14. This is reasonably pertinent to creating a “simple” 

user interface. 

1 All emphases added, unless indicated otherwise.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 15 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

5

Second, Robertson’s “pen-based gestural input[s]” meet end-user needs by 

creating “simple” and “familiar” interactions for many different kinds of

applications, such as phone, printer, and document applications. Ex-1005, §§ 1-1.1, 

3-3.1; Pet. 5-6, 32. Creating simple, familiar activation gestures for different

applications is reasonably pertinent to handling large amounts of information by

making it easy and intuitive to access. Pet. 5-6, 12-14.

Neonode’s argument that Robertson’s buttons can have multiple functions

does not change the outcome. POR 29. As explained in Section II.C, claim 1 

covers multiple-function or multi-action buttons and is not limited to a 

“single-action button,” which is recited in dependent claim 17. Further, Neonode’s 

unduly narrow interpretation regarding one-handed use, “small” devices, and 

“inexperienced” users (POR 22-25) is contradicted by the ’879 patent (supra 

§ II.A.1). 

Neonode’s cited cases are distinguishable. In In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 

659-60 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the patent concerned a problem of “dead volume” in tanks 

for storing refined petroleum, which was different from plugging underground

geological formation anomalies. Here, the ’879 patent and Robertson are both 

concerned with using gestures to create simple user interfaces. POR 28-29; Pet. 5, 

12-14: Ex-1005, §§ 1-1.1, 3-3.1. In Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 

993 F.2d 858, 864-65 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the prior art industrial controller “could not

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 16 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

6 

be used” with the patent’s personal computers. In contrast here, Robertson’s user 

interface is pertinent to creating “simple,” “familiar” gestural inputs for mobile 

handheld computer units, such as laptops and PDAs, like the ’879 patent. Ex-1005,

§ 1-1.1; Pet. 16. And, unlike Polygroup v. Willis Electric Co., IPR2016-01610, 

Paper 187, 38 (Feb. 26, 2018), Petitioner here provided ample explanation 

regarding Robertson’s pertinence, including that Robertson provides a “simple, 

configurable multi-function user interface” and can handle large amounts of 

information. Pet. 5-8, 16, 25-28, 30-32. 

Neonode incorrectly characterizes SCHOTT Gemtron v. SSW Holding Co., 

IPR2014-00367, Paper 62, 17 (May 26, 2015) (emphasis in original), as requiring 

the prior art to be pertinent to the “entire problem” of the challenged patent. But 

the prior art need only be reasonably pertinent to a “particular problem” to be 

analogous art. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 

The Federal Circuit explained this means reasonably pertinent to “one ... of the 

problems” of the challenged patent even if there are “significant differences” 

overall. Donner, 979 F.3d at 1361. 

Robertson is reasonably pertinent to at least two of Neonode’s alleged 

problems and is analogous art. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 17 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

7

B. Robertson Discloses the “Gliding ... Away” Limitation

Neonode’s “gliding ... away” argument relies on an unsupported

construction of “gliding” that, if accepted, renders the claims invalid for lack of 

written description. Robertson discloses the same movement gesture as the ’879 

patent and discloses the claimed “gliding ... away” limitation. Pet. 25-29.

1. The ’879 patent lacks written description for Neonode’s 

construction

Neonode argues that “gliding” is a single, specific type (species) of broad 

“movement” category (genus). POR 32-35. Accepting Neonode’s argument

renders all claims invalid for lack of written description and cannot be correct. 

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1004 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (declining construction that “would likely render the claims invalid for 

lack of written description”). 

The ’879 patent describes only generic “movement” or “moving” for 

activating a function. Ex-1001, 2:10-14, 4:7-11. It never describes “gliding” or any

other specific type of movement, let alone distinguishes “glide” and “flick”

movements. “Gliding” was added by amendment years after the original filing. 

Ex-1002, 317. The applicant’s only alleged support for the amendment informs the 

meaning, and the applicant relied only on disclosures of “movement” generally, 

not “gliding.” Ex-1002, 338. Moreover, there is no discussion of “gliding” being 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 18 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

8

significant. Ex-1002, 334-341. Any interpretation other than “movement” renders 

the claim invalid. Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 

1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims invalid where specification disclosed only 

broad genus, but claim recited particular species); D Three Enters., LLC v. 

SunModo Corp., 890 F.3d 1042, 1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (POSITA’s knowledge 

of alterations cannot suffice for written description). 

Neonode’s expert also could not delineate the boundary between these two 

movements and explained that whether a gesture is a “flick” or “glide” depends on 

how the system is configured, further confirming Neonode’s construction is wrong 

and arbitrary. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12. Moreover, Neonode’s expert 

admitted that where the ’879 patent discusses movement speed, it does so unrelated 

to claim 1’s claimed function activation. Ex-1031, 34:24-35:17; Ex-1001, 2:61-67, 

5:33-35.

The prosecution history also does not support Neonode’s construction. The 

applicant never distinguished “gliding” from other gestures or movement 

generally, and in fact equated other gestures with a “glide.” Ex-1002, 496-497

(equating “drag” and “glide”). The examiner also continued to search “flick” as 

relevant after the amendment. Ex-1002, 381, 482, 585.

Neonode’s citation to its after-arising N2 advertisement (POR 33-34) is not 

relevant because it was used to distinguish “the representation of the function is not 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 19 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

9

relocated or duplicated during the gliding” limitation, not between “gliding” and 

another movement type (Ex-1002, 258, 611-612).

To avoid invalidation, “gliding” includes “moving,” the only disclosure in 

the ’879 patent.

2. Robertson’s “flick” gesture discloses the “gliding ... away” 

limitation under the plain meaning and under Neonode’s

construction

If Neonode’s construction is rejected, Neonode does not challenge the 

Petition’s showing that Robertson teaches the “gliding ... away” limitation. POR 

35-44; Pet. 25-29.

Neonode’s expert admitted that both flick and glide gestures start at a 

touched location and move away from the touched location while continuing to 

touch the screen, as taught by the ’879 patent and explained in the Petition. 

Ex-1031, 21:4-22:6, 36:2-12; Pet. 25-29. 

Neonode’s argument is based solely on its improper construction of 

“gliding,” which should be rejected. Supra § II.B.1. Neonode argues arbitrary 

differences in speed and duration of movement (e.g., “glide” is a “smooth,” 

“effortless” motion, while “flick” is a “sudden,” “sharp,” “jerky” motion) (POR 

35-36), but Neonode’s expert admitted that the distinction is arbitrary and he could 

not identify the boundary between these motions because “flick” or “glide” 

classification depends on the system configuration, and the argument lacks support 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 20 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

10

in the ’879 patent. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12. Neonode’s citations to 

general-purpose dictionaries are unavailing because they are either after-arising2 or 

improperly contradict the intrinsic record, which describes only “movement” 

without regard to speed or distance. Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring 

Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Profectus Tech. LLC v. 

Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (extrinsic evidence may 

not be used to contradict intrinsic record); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. 

Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (extrinsic evidence is 

improper when “the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence”).

Even under Neonode’s improper construction, Robertson teaches the 

“gliding ... away” limitation because Robertson discloses that the “flick” gesture

starts by touching inside a button and moving away from the touched location, as 

described in the ’879 patent. Pet. 25-28; Ex-1003, ¶¶105-110. Robertson does not 

place any boundary on the speed or duration of its gestures, and Neonode identifies 

2 Neonode’s citations to development guides dated two decades after the 

2002 priority date are improper and irrelevant because they do not describe the 

terms in 2002. POR 39-40 (citing Ex-2022 (dated 2022); Ex-2025 (same); Ex-2027 

(same); Ex-2029 (same); Ex-2023 (dated 2020); Ex-2026 (same); Ex-2028 (dated 

2021)).

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 21 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

11

none to distinguish it from the ’879 patent. Moreover, Neonode’s expert’s 

admission that the distinction between “flick” and “glide” is arbitrary because a 

“flick” or “glide” classification depends how the system is configured refutes 

Neonode’s position. Ex-1031, 27:15-29:6, 31:15-32:12.

Neonode’s assertion that Robertson’s flick gesture is “not intended to ... 

move[] outside of the [b]utton” (POR 43-44 (citation omitted)) is contradicted by

Robertson’s disclosure that the gesture can move outside the button and should be 

disregarded. Ex-1005, § 4.2; Pet. 25-28; Ex-1003, ¶¶105-110. Neonode’s attempt 

to distinguish “flick” from a “drag-and-drop” gesture is also irrelevant. POR 44. 

Robertson describes activating the “dialphone” function using a “flick,” meeting

the touch-then-glide limitation. Pet. 25-29. Whether a drag-and-drop may also be

defined for other buttons is irrelevant.

Robertson therefore teaches the claimed “gliding ... away.”

3. Robertson’s “insert” gesture discloses the “gliding ... away” 

limitation

Neonode’s arguments that Robertson’s “insert” gesture does not disclose the 

“gliding ... away” limitation are largely the same as for “flick” (POR 47-50) and 

fail for the same reasons as explained in Section II.B.2. Neonode’s argument 

regarding the size is also irrelevant because neither Robertson nor the ’879 patent 

is size-constrained.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 22 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

12

4. Robertson’s “insert” gesture activates a represented 

function

Neonode incorrectly argues that Robertson’s button does not “represent” the 

button editor function activated by the touch-and-glide insert gesture. POR 45-47. 

Neonode does not explain why Robertson’s phone button cannot represent more 

than one function. Claim differentiation specifically permits multi-function buttons 

because claim 17 limits the claim to the button representing only one function. 

Compare Ex-1001, claim 1, with Ex-1001, claim 17.

The phone button represents the phone button editor function because the

insert gesture on the phone button activates only the phone button editor and is 

specific to that button. Pet. 23-24.

Neonode’s argument appears to be that the button must visibly show or 

identify the function, but that is contradicted by the ’879 patent. POR 45-46. In the 

patent, function 21 is an “application dependent function” that varies for each 

application, but always shows the same “+” icon without visibly identifying the

different application-dependent functions. Ex-1001, 4:4-6, FIG. 1. Neonode’s 

citations to the patent do not rebut this and, in fact, rely on this same disclosure 

that the activated function is “represented” without being identified. POR 45 

(citing Ex-1001, 4:4-6). Robertson’s phone button represents the activated phone

button editor function, consistent with the ’879 patent’s disclosure. Pet. 19-22.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 23 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

13

C. Robertson discloses the “one option” limitation

Neonode does not dispute that Robertson discloses only one option for 

activating Robertson’s “dialphone” function and one option for activating 

Robertson’s phone-button editor function under the plain claim language.3

Neonode instead wrongly argues that “wherein the representation consists of 

only one option for activating the function” prohibits the representation from 

having “multiple options to choose from in terms of what to activate”—that is, that 

the representation represents only one function. POR 50, 52-53.

Neonode’s interpretation is contradicted by the claim language, which states 

that there is “only one option for activating the function,” not that there is only one 

function to activate. Ex-1001, 6:51-52. Claim differentiation also rebuts Neonode’s 

argument because dependent claim 17 limits the representation to having only one 

function. Ex-1001, claim 17. InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318, 

1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (en banc). Neonode’s interpretation also contradicts the specification, which 

discloses “application dependent function” 21 being different “depending on the 

3 Neonode’s expert acknowledged that Robertson’s gestures on the phone button 

activate different functions (Ex-1031, 45:24-47:4), as Petitioner’s expert also 

explained (Ex-1003, ¶¶103-104).

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 24 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

14

current active application,” and thus has multiple different functions. Ex-1001, 

4:4-5, 4:12-15.

Neonode’s prosecution history arguments regarding Hirshberg are also 

unavailing. POR 52 (citing Ex-1002, 542). There, the applicant distinguished 

Hirshberg because it had multiple options—both glide and “conventional touch”—

to activate the same function depending on whether the device is in a single- or 

multi-function mode. Ex-1002, 541-542. The applicant did not distinguish the 

claims based on multiple functions with a single activation each. See Ex-1002, 

540-544.4

Even if claim 1 is limited to representing only one function, the Petition 

explains that this would have been obvious for claim 17, which the POR does not 

challenge. Pet. 46-47.

4 In a continuation application, the Office found that Neonode’s “one function” 

interpretation lacked written description support. Ex-1043, 1243-1244. Applicant 

did not disagree and abandoned the application.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 25 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

15

D. Robertson and Maddalozzo Render Obvious the Preamble5

1. Robertson and Maddalozzo render obvious “a mobile 

handheld computer unit”

a. Robertson’s gesture activations apply to mobile 

handheld computer units

The Petition shows that a POSITA would have understood Robertson’s 

gesture activations applied to any device having gesture-based inputs, including 

mobile handheld computer units, such as laptops, PDAs, and cell phones. 

Pet. 12-19. Neonode also does not dispute that a POSITA would have known that 

Robertson’s “pen-based gestural input[s]” were methods of inputting commands to 

mobile handheld computer units. Pet. 13. 

Neonode instead argues that Robertson does not disclose “a mobile handheld 

computer unit” because Robertson uses the word “desktop.” POR 56-58. Neonode 

is wrong because “desktop” refers to the on-screen user interface, not a physical 

desktop computer. Ex-1032, ¶¶17-25. Neonode’s expert acknowledged this on 

cross-examination. Ex-1031, 14:19-15:10.

5 Petitioner “does not concede the preamble is limiting.” Pet. 12 n.1. Neonode must

show it is. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 

2002).

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 26 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

16

In computer parlance, “desktop” generally refers to the on-screen user 

interface work area and was a commonly used term for mobile handheld computer 

units, such as laptops and PDAs. Supra § II.A.1; Ex-1032, ¶¶17-25. Neonode has 

not shown anything contrary in Robertson.

Neonode’s argument that Robertson’s many “programming languages are

not exclusively, or even likely, implemented on a mobile handheld computer unit” 

(POR 58) is wrong and irrelevant. Neonode’s argument tacitly acknowledges that

such gestures were (e.g., nonexclusively) used in mobile handheld computers, as 

explained in the Petition. Regardless, there is no requirement that a claim element 

must be “exclusive[]” or “likely”; it only needs to be known or obvious. PGS 

Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Neonode does not challenge the D.I.’s finding that the ’879 patent defines 

“mobile handheld computer unit” as including laptop computers and PDAs. Laptop 

computers used the same operating systems as desktop computers and even used 

X Windows, rendering Neonode’s argument baseless. Ex-1032, ¶¶26-28, 31-32; 

Ex-1039. Compaq’s credit-card-sized Itsy device and an electronic watch also 

implemented X Windows in touchscreen mobile handheld computer devices. 

Ex-1032, ¶¶ 29-30; Ex-1040; Ex-1041. Regardless, obviousness “does not require 

an actual, physical substitution of elements,” and the Petition explains that 

Robertson’s user-interface gestures would have been applied to well-known 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 27 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

17

gestural devices, such as laptops and PDAs. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 

(Fed. Cir. 2012); Pet. 12-19.

b. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement

Robertson’s gesture activations in mobile handheld 

computer units

Neonode is wrong that the Petition fails to show a POSITA “would have 

implemented Robertson’s Xbuttons in Maddalozzo’s device.” POR 58-62. As an 

initial matter, the D.I. already rejected Neonode’s argument as 

“misunderstand[ing]” the Petition. D.I. 35-36. As acknowledged by the D.I., 

Robertson teaches all of claim 1, except the express type of mobile device, and

Maddalozzo identifies “common[]” touchscreen mobile handheld devices (e.g., 

laptops and PDAs) that a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement

Robertson’s teachings on because they used the same Unix and X-based software. 

D.I. 35-36; Pet. 14-19; Ex-1006, 1:12-35.

Neonode’s argument incorrectly states the law and argues there can be no 

motivation to combine because Maddalozzo “already provides a simple, user 

friendly interface,” is functional in itself, and no “deficiency” has been identified.

POR 60-61. Neonode is wrong; there is no requirement to show a “deficiency” or 

that the prior art system is nonfunctional. To the contrary, a patent challenger 

“does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in 

order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 28 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

18

combination.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002-03 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016). Neonode does not address the Petition’s combination, which does not 

rely on Maddalozzo’s interface, but rather Maddalozzo’s disclosure of mobile 

computers running the same Unix and X-based systems, on which Robertson’s 

interface would have been implemented. Pet. 14-19. Because Robertson’s 

gesture-activated interface improves any touchscreen-activated devices, like 

laptops and PDAs, a POSITA would have found it obvious as a matter of law to 

improve the same and similar devices in the same way. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).

2. Robertson teaches and Maddalozzo renders obvious 

computer program code being “read by a mobile handheld 

computer unit”

Neonode is wrong that Petitioner did not argue that Robertson teaches 

computer program code being read by a mobile handheld computer unit. POR 

62-65. The Petition explains that a POSITA would have understood Robertson’s

interface code would be stored on the device or the device “would not function.” 

Pet. 12-14; Ex-1003, ¶¶81-82, 85. 

Maddalozzo also “confirms and renders obvious” this teaching. Pet. 14-15; 

Ex-1003, ¶85.

Neonode wrongly argues that Robertson uses a client-server architecture that 

does not store the computer program code on the same device displaying the user 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 29 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

19

interface. POR 62-65. The Petition explains that the X client and server for 

Robertson’s interface “usually run[]” and “reside on the same machine” using 

“shared memory.” Ex-1027, 34, 51; Ex-1003, ¶115. Even if Neonode is correct that 

some code could be stored elsewhere, that is irrelevant. Pet. 13-14; POR 62-64.

The Petition also explains that Robertson’s teachings are not limited to X 

Windows, and Neonode does not disagree that other implementations store code on 

the same device or it would have been obvious to do so. Pet. 17-18. 

Regardless, merely moving the location storage and execution from an

external location to the mobile handheld computer unit (e.g., laptop, PDA) is 

obvious as a matter of law. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 

1338-42 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

III. The Tarpenning Grounds Render Obvious the Challenged Claims 

A. Tarpenning Discloses “Gliding ... Away”

Neonode wrongly attempts to distinguish Tarpenning’s touch-then-glide 

gesture from the claimed “gliding” by calling it a “drag[].” POR 67-69. But

Neonode’s own expert testified that a “drag” is the same as a “glide” because the 

pen is “moved ... across the screen like a glide.” Ex-2019, ¶90.

Neonode is also wrong that Tarpenning’s touch-then-glide hotkey 

assignment gesture does not activate a function. POR 67-68. As the Petition

explains, Tarpenning activates the assignment function (the system starts 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 30 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

20

determining whether a new function has been assigned) because of the 

touch-then-glide gesture. Pet. 78-80. This also accords with Neonode’s expert’s 

explanation that “function” is a very broad term. Ex-1031, 45:24-47:4. Neonode

argues that touch-then-glide does not activate the already-assigned function (POR 

67-68), but this is a non-sequitur because it looks at the wrong function.

The prosecution history (POR 69) confirms that Tarpenning discloses the 

claimed gliding. Neonode misleadingly omits the “Function Activation” row from 

the prosecution history, where the applicant argued that Hoshino’s “Function 

Activation”—at issue here—is activated by a “hard touch” before the “glide” 

(drag) occurs, whereas the claimed “activat[ion]” occurs “after the glide.” 

Ex-1002, 497. Contrary to the POR, Neonode specifically called Hoshino’s “drag” 

a “glide” action. Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 31 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

21

Id. (annotations added).

Neonode also distinguished Hoshino based on “moving an icon,” which is 

not present in Tarpenning, and the POR does not allege that it is. Ex-1002, 498;

POR 65-74. 

Tarpenning’s “drag[]” is a “glide” action that activates the “assignment” 

function. Pet. 76-80. 

B. A POSITA Would Have Modified Tarpenning as Claimed

Neonode fails to rebut the Petition’s showing of a motivation to activate the 

menu icons using Tarpenning’s already-disclosed touch-and-glide action. 

First, Neonode argues that “[n]othing in Tarpenning hints at an accidental 

activation concern.” POR 70-71. This argument applies the incorrect

teaching-suggestion-motivation test rejected by KSR. As Petitioner’s expert 

explains, a touch-only activation can lead to accidental activation, whereas 

touch-then-glide is intentional to achieve the desired action, making accidental 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 32 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

22

activation less likely. Ex-1003, ¶221. Neonode argues that Tarpenning’s icons are

“recessed” and accidental activation “is unlikely,” but even if true, “unlikely” 

cannot dismiss this known problem. POR 71. A POSITA would have understood

that touch-then-glide is less likely to result in accidental user action, compared 

with a touch-only activation. Ex-1003, ¶221.

Second, Neonode wrongly argues there is no evidence why a POSITA 

would select touch-then-glide. POR 71. Petitioner’s expert explains a POSITA 

would have used touch-then-glide activation because it is already described in 

Tarpenning. Ex-1003, ¶¶217-218. Neonode’s alleged “drawbacks” that holding the 

device with both hands exactly as shown in FIG. 2 may be awkward for some users

(POR 71-72) are rebutted by Neonode’s acknowledgement that the “typical” way 

to hold Tarpenning’s device is with one hand and using the other hand to perform 

the touch-then-glide gesture—just like the touch-then-glide assignment function 

disclosed in Tarpenning (POR 73-74). Regardless, even if there are design 

tradeoffs, they do not obviate Petitioner’s motivation. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, 

S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Neonode’s assertion that a “tap” is faster to open the menu (POR 73-74)

does not rebut the Petition’s showing that touch-then-glide is more efficient overall

to select a menu item in one continuous operation, rather than two separate tap

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 33 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

23

operations (Pet. 82-83). Moreover, the ’879 patent specifically contemplates using 

a stylus to select menu items by moving along the menu. Ex-1001, 6:13-15.

The Petition provides explicit reasons and motivations why a POSITA 

would have modified Tarpenning. Pet. 82-84. Neonode disagrees whether the 

modification is a better option, but that does not obviate obviousness. PAR Pharm., 

Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

IV. The Dependent Claim Are Unpatentable

Neonode does not argue that claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-17 are separately 

patentable and waived any challenges to unpatentability of these claims. Paper 20, 

Scheduling Order, 9.

V. Neonode’s Secondary Considerations Do Not Overcome Obviousness

Neonode does not allege unexpected results, copying, skepticism, 

unresolved need, or failure of others. Nor could it. Neonode did not invent 

touch-then-glide activations, and the operation functions exactly as expected in the 

prior art. Ex-1044, 37:2-13, 18:9-17.

Neonode’s two theories, industry praise (POR 4-16) and commercial 

success/licensing (POR 16-17), are based solely on the touch-then-glide activation 

of claim 1.6 Both lack merit. Even if found, Neonode’s predictable use of prior art 

6 Neonode does not allege praise based on any other claim.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 34 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

24

functions cannot, as a matter of law, overcome obviousness. Wyers, 616 F.3d at

1246.

There is also no nexus with the claims—presumption or otherwise. The 

Board already found a lack of nexus and failure to establish commercial success 

and industry praise for similar claims, based on essentially the same evidence. 

Samsung Elecs. v. Neonode Smartphone, IPR2021-00145, Paper 71, 40-50 (July 6, 

2022). It should do so again here.

A. There Is No Nexus with the Claims

Neonode does not argue a presumption of nexus. See POR 4-17. There can 

be no presumption because the N1/N2 phones contain numerous features, 

including the also-patented zForce touchscreen. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von 

Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Without such 

presumption, Neonode must show that industry praise and commercial success are

specifically tied to the claimed invention. Id. As explained below, it cannot.

1. The N1/N2 phones do not practice every claim limitation

Neonode cannot show nexus because the N1/N2 lack at least two claim 

elements.

Neonode has not established that the icons activate only on a “glide” as 

opposed to any “movement” (e.g., flick or glide). Neonode’s video (Ex-2020)

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 35 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

25

appears to show “flick” gestures under Neonode’s interpretation because they are 

short, jerky movements.

Neonode’s phones do not include the “representation of the function is not 

relocated or duplicated during the gliding” because the icon (arrows) is duplicated 

during the gliding, as shown below. POR 33 (describing “representation” in 

Neonode phones as “menu item with an arrow”); Ex-1044, 151:20-152:14, 

153:2-13 (arrow is representation).

Ex-2024, 2, 9.

2. Neonode’s phones implement other critical technology

Neonode admits that its patented “zForce” touchscreen was critical and 

“required” to implement the N1/N2 user interface. Ex-2061, ¶5; Ex-2014, 2 

(including zForce as licensed technology). This precludes a presumption of nexus 

because the N1/N2 are covered by multiple patents. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, 

LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 36 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

26

Neonode relies only on claim 1’s touch-then-glide activation for secondary 

considerations (POR 4), but Neonode touted “seven available sweeps,” including 

unclaimed ones, such as the accept/decline gestures, which also precludes a nexus

(Ex-2020, 00:45-01:10). 

B. There Is No Industry Praise for the Claimed Features

Neonode relies heavily on alleged praise. POR 4-16. But reactions were 

mixed at best. At least one reviewer found Neonode’s interface “complicated” with

“a very steep learning curve” and could not recommend it. Ex-1048, 2, 4. Much of

Neonode’s alleged “praise” comes from Internet commenters, not persons

knowledgeable in user interface design.

Even if the purported praise is considered, it fails. Neonode argues that 

“gliding ... away” is the “heart” of the claimed invention, but its evidence is not 

directed to this feature. POR 2, 66, 69. Rather, the evidence refers to the user 

interface generally or unclaimed features (e.g., zForce touchscreen, one-handed 

use), and cannot overcome obviousness. Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d

829, 837 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Neonode’s advertising video (Ex-2020; POR 4) contains its own self-serving 

statements, not industry praise. Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 

1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 37 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

27

The Pen Computing Magazine articles (Ex-2013; Ex-2024; POR 7-8, 11), 

“User-Video” (Ex-2038; POR 12), and Hollatz dissertation (Ex-2040, 8; POR 

13-14) refer to general features, such as operating Neonode’s interface “entirely 

with your thumb” (Ex-2013, 2) and using a touchscreen as the primary input and 

touch gestures, and “one-handed operation” (Ex-2024, 11), which are not claimed.

Ex-2038, 00:06. Generic praise not directed to claimed touch-then-glide activation 

does not provide a nexus. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

The Trend Hunter and RCR articles (Ex-2031; Ex-2035; POR 8-9) describe

having “no buttons” and one-handed actions as the “main selling point,” but are

not directed to the claimed touch-then-glide activation. Ex-2031, 1; Ex-2035, 3. 

The Tnkgrl N1m video (Ex-2041; POR 14) describes “left-to-right” and 

“right-to-left” swipes at the top to switch tabs and the bottom (over the icons) to 

indicate “yes”/“no” as “very clever,” the touchscreen as “very clever” and “works 

very well,” and “interesting” “haptic” feedback, but does not praise the claimed 

gliding-up icon-activation functions. Ex-2041 (Part 1, 1:08-1:41, 2:47-3:05, 3:21-

3:44), (Part 2, 2:05-2:32). Similarly, Tnkgrl’s post (Ex-2033; POR 8-9) describes 

many unclaimed features.

The YouTube comments (Ex-2043–2045; POR 14-15) describe the 

unclaimed zForce touchscreen as the “fastest touchscreen” and a “fast & 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 38 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

28

responsive touchscreen” (Ex-2043, 2), and the gesture-based comments are generic

(Ex-2044, 2; Ex-2045, 1).

Ars Technica (Ex-2042; POR 14) identified “not ... [having] a hardware 

keypad” and “relying almost entirely on software buttons for input” as “notable 

features,” but not the claimed touch-then-glide activation. Ex-2042, 8.

Neonode’s personnel’s self-serving hearsay also fails because it is generic

and not directed to the claimed invention. Mr. Bystedt’s statements about Samsung

are untrustworthy and not relevant because Samsung spoke in Korean, which Mr. 

Bystedt does not understand. Ex-2061, ¶9; Ex-1045, 74:12-14, 75:4-14.

Neonode fails to establish praise for the claimed invention.

C. No Evidence of Commercial Success

Neonode’s phones were not commercially successful. To the contrary, they

were “so rare” that “for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist.” Ex-2013, 1; 

Ex-2024, 1 (“almost no one has ever heard of” Neonode).

Neonode alleges “tens of thousands” of sales (POR 17), but this is puffery.

The evidence shows only about 9,600 sales. Ex-2054, ¶6. Of the remaining alleged

13,000 sales (id.), Neonode cannot identify how many were actual sales as opposed 

to supplier orders. Ex-1046, 34:21-23. Moreover, some “sales” were Neonode

buying its phones. Ex-1047, 30:13-16. Regardless, raw “sales” numbers are 

insufficient to show commercial success. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 39 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

29

Cir. 1996) (selling “several hundred thousand units” is not commercial success).

Market share is the relevant measure, which Neonode does not provide. In re 

Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Any phone that is 

“so rare” that “for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist” cannot have enough 

market share to constitute commercial success. Ex-2013, 1.

Neonode also has not shown that any alleged “sales” were driven by the 

claimed touch-then-glide activation, as opposed to other features (e.g., zForce 

touchscreen), as required. SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Regarding the Samsung license, Neonode cannot show relevance because it 

cannot tie the license to any claim of the ’879 patent. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 

1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The ’879 patent had not issued when the license was 

signed. Compare Ex-1001, with Ex-2014. The license indisputably included the 

zForce technology and does not support commercial success. Ex-2014, 2; Merck, 

808 F.3d at 838. No royalties appear to have been paid and no product produced, 

and the license appears to have expired without renewal, which suggests 

abandonment, not nonobviousness. Any Samsung sales (POR 16) are irrelevant 

because Neonode has not shown these phones practice the claims.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 40 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

30

VI. Conclusion

Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-17 are unpatentable. 

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 21, 2022 /Kevin D. Rodkey/ 

Kevin D. Rodkey

Backup Counsel for Petitioner

Reg. No. 65,506

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 41 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to 

Patent Owner’s Response contains 5,599 words, excluding those portions 

identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a), as measured by the word-processing system 

used to prepare this paper. 

Dated: July 21, 2022 /Kevin D. Rodkey/ 

Kevin D. Rodkey

Backup Counsel

Reg. No. 65,506

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 42 of 43
IPR2021-01041

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent 

Owner’s Response was served on July 21, 2022, via email directed to counsel of 

record for the Patent Owner at the following:

Kenneth Weatherwax

weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com

Nathan Lowenstein

lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com

Parham Hendifar

hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com

Patrick Maloney

maloney@lowensteinweatherwax.com

Vinson Lin

lin@lowensteinweatherwax.com

Neonode_IPRs@LowensteinWeatherwax.com

Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP

1880 Century Park East, Suite 815

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Philip J. Graves

philipg@hbsslaw.com

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 

LLP

301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 

920

Pasadena, CA

Dated: July 21, 2022 /Daniel E. Doku/ 

 Daniel E. Doku

Litigation Legal Assistant

 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 81-25 Filed 05/19/23 Page 43 of 43