Opinion ID: 2801691
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anticipation of Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent

Text: Claim 8 of the ’915 patent describes a computer-based method for distinguishing between scrolling and gesture (such as zooming) operations on a touch screen. ’915 patent, claim 8. The dispute centers on whether a prior art reference, the Nomura patent application, taught the “event object” element in claim 8. The claim recites “event object” in the context such as: “creating an event object in response to the user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation . . . .” Id. Samsung contends that the “movement history” in Nomura inherently disclosed the “event object” in claim 8 based on the opinion of its expert. Appellants’ Br. 64-65. Apple, however, rebuts with its own expert testimony. Apple’s expert explained that “event objects” in claim 8 refers to a particular “programming construct[]” and that there were many potential programming alternatives that Nomura could have used to implement the “movement history” it disclosed. J.A. 43636-37. According to the explanation by Apple’s expert, Nomura did not inherently disclose the claimed “event object.” We find that a reasonable jury could have credited the testimony of Apple’s expert over Samsung’s expert. Thus, we agree with the district court that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that claim 8 of the ’915 patent was not anticipated.