Opinion ID: 2786705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ’068 patent (call handling)

Text: The ’068 patent is directed to the display of call handling options in a menu on a mobile phone’s display screen. ’068 patent, Abstract. Examples of call handling options include “hold” and “disconnect.” Id. at 6:14–30. According to the ’068 patent, at the time of the claimed invention, users were required to memorize specific sequences of keys in order to execute call handling options on a mobile phone. Id. at 1:29–39. The ’068 patent’s method for displaying a menu of options on the phone’s display screen allows users to select an option from a menu instead of needing to remember different key sequences. See id. at Figs. 6, 8–11, and 1:62–67. The specification explains that the mobile phone either displays this menu automatically when it receives an incoming call, or waits to display the menu until the user performs an action, such as when the user presses a key. Id. at Fig. 6 and 7:33–37, Figs. 8–9 and 12:42–44 (auto18 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. matic); id. at Fig. 10 and 12:45–52, Fig. 11 and 14:19–38 (user action). Claim 23 of the ’068 patent recites: 23. A communicating method for controlling a connecting state of a call into a desired connecting state upon a predetermined operation by a user, comprising the steps of: displaying processing items [i.e., call handling options] available to the user relative to the call on a display; selecting and determining a desired processing item out of said processing items displayed on said display by the user operating an input unit; and controlling the processing items being displayed on said display and controlling the call into a connecting state corresponding to the processing item selected and determined by the operation of said input unit by the user, wherein said step of controlling the processing items includes displaying said processing items [i.e., call handling options] on said display when only a single predetermined selection operation is made by the user, wherein said step of controlling the processing items includes listing said processing items available to the call on said display for each call. ’068 patent (reexamination certificate), 4:17–37 (emphasis added). In more plain language, claim 23 recites a method requiring (i) a mobile phone to display call handling options on a menu screen, (ii) the user to select one of these options, and (iii) the mobile phone to execute the call handling option selected by the user. Claim 24 of the ’068 patent is identical to claim 23 for most of its limitations, except that it requires the “processing items” to be disMOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 19 played in response to “a predetermined selection operation” instead of “only a single predetermined selection operation.” Id. at 4:37–61 (emphasis added). We turn first to Apple’s JMOL motion of invalidity. Although the district court granted Apple’s motion in part, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that claim 24 of the ’068 patent was not invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,754,636 (Bayless), the district court denied Apple’s motion as to claim 23, rejecting Apple’s argument that claim 23 is anticipated by or rendered obvious over the same reference. MobileMedia JMOL, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 461–65. Apple contends that the district court erred as to claim 23. Bayless discloses a telecommunications system that allows users to make and receive phone calls from a computer. Bayless, 1:58–62. Bayless’ system has a graphical user interface that can display call handling options available to the user in a “Make & Answer Calls” window. Id. at Fig. 41. The user prompts the Bayless system to display this call handling options window by activating what Bayless describes as a “Hotkey.” Id. at Fig. 42. Figure 42 provides one exemplary configuration for this “Hotkey,” showing that the Bayless “Make & Answer Calls” window is displayed when a user presses the keyboard’s “Ctrl” and “0” keys. Id. The district court determined that because Bayless’ call handling options window is displayed only after a user presses two keys in a serial sequence, the jury could reasonably find that Bayless’ “Hotkey” constituted “multiple ‘predetermined selection operations’ [] rather than one [such operation].” MobileMedia JMOL, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 463–64. Thus, because claim 23 requires call handling options to be displayed in response to “only a single predetermined selection operation”—unlike claim 24, which allowed these options to be displayed after any number of “predetermined selection operation[s]”—the 20 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. district court denied Apple’s motion for JMOL as to claim 23, while granting it as to claim 24. Id.; compare ’068 patent (reexamination certificate), 4:31–34 (emphasis added), with id. at 4:51–54. Apple contends that the unrebutted testimony at trial demonstrated that using one key instead of two keys to activate a window was well within the common knowledge of those with skill in the art. See J.A. 20044–45. For example, Apple’s expert explained that in the industry, an “operation” would have been understood to include “one or more physical keys that result in a single action,” such as to bring up and display Bayless’ “Make & Answer Calls” window. J.A. 20026, 20043. Apple’s expert further explained that a skilled artisan “would know that [the “Hotkey” operation of Bayless] does not have to be two keys,” and that the “Hotkey” could easily be programmed as a single key. J.A. 20022–23, 20045. In addition, Apple’s expert testified that the inclusion of “pull-down” selection boxes on the “Hotkey” menu would have explicitly signaled to one of skill in the art that the “Ctrl” and “0” key sequence could be changed to a different key sequence, such as to the single “F1” function key. J.A. 20044. Apple’s expert concluded that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to implement the Bayless “Hotkey” operation with a single key. J.A. 20045. MobileMedia’s expert did not rebut this testimony, offering only the conclusory statement that “I don’t see evidence for that.” J.A. 20506. Conclusory statements by an expert, however, are insufficient to sustain a jury’s verdict. See Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1268–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). While Apple’s expert provided specific reasons why a skilled artisan would have found claim 23 to be obvious in view of Bayless and common knowledge possessed by those of skill in the art, MobileMedia’s expert provided only testimony unrelated to the actual limitations of claim 23. For example, MobileMedia’s expert asserted that it MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 21 would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use a single key as Bayless’ “Hotkey” because the designer of the Bayless user interface for a computer faced different challenges than the designer of the mobile phone interface of the ’068 patent. J.A. 20491–92. MobileMedia’s expert sought to justify his assertion by explaining that Bayless “is talking about keyboards and PCs, whereas [claim 23 of the ’068 patent] has a different set of engineering tradeoffs,” relating to “cellphones” and “ease of use.” Id. In a similar vein, MobileMedia’s expert also testified that the 16 months between Bayless’ and the ’068 patent’s filing date suggests that claim 23 was inventive because Apple “could not point to [] a single person that ever did use a single button on a cellphone” during this timeframe. J.A. 20653 (emphasis added). Claim 23, however, recites only a “communicating method for controlling a connecting state of a call,” and includes no limitation that confines the claimed method to a cell phone or computer. ’068 patent (reexamination certificate), 4:17–37. And during cross-examination, MobileMedia’s expert conceded that “the fact that Bayless was implemented on a PC instead of on a cellphone [wa]sn’t relevant” to the “communicating method” recited in the preamble of the claim. J.A. 20494. In short, there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that a skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to take the straightforward and commonsensical step to configure the Bayless “Hotkey” to display the “Make & Answer Calls” window after the press of one key instead of two keys. No reasonable jury could conclude that claim 23 of the ’068 patent would not have been obvious in view of Bayless and the common knowledge of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the district court erred by denying Apple’s motion for JMOL of invalidity and we therefore reverse the district court’s judgment that claim 23 of the ’068 patent is not invalid. We need not reach Apple’s argument that its accused iPhones 22 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. do not infringe the “listing said processing items” limitation of claim 23.