Opinion ID: 2786705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: apple’s appeal

Text: The ’078 patent is directed to a “small-sized, portable and hand-held work station,” such as a notebook computer, that includes a camera unit, a data processing unit, a 6 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. display, a user interface, and at least one memory unit. ’078 patent, Abstract. The specification describes how this “notebook computer” uses the attached camera unit to take a picture of items such as business cards, handwritten text, and figures. Id. at 5:15–21 (business cards), 5:43–45 (circles or lines), and 5:37–38 (handwritten text). Software applications, such as graphics and optical character recognition (OCR) software, convert the captured images into text or rudimentary graphical data for subsequent use by the notebook computer. Id. at 5:21–58. According to the specification, adding a camera unit to the notebook computer allows a user to “scan different written and/or drawn information into the memory of the notebook computer quickly and easily.” Id. at 6:17–20. A “digitizer pad” may also be part of the notebook computer, which uses “known technique[s]” to recognize input from a pen and convert figures drawn on the digitizer pad into bitmap images. Id. at 7:6–10. The notebook computer can include a cellular mobile phone unit, which uses “conventional” analog modem or digital GSM technology. Id. at 3:37–49. Coupled with a miniature speaker and microphone, the GSM interface allows the notebook computer to “be used in the same way as a conventional hand-held telephone.” Id. at 3:49–53. The notebook computer can also transmit SMS (Short Message Service) and e-mail messages through its GSM interface. Id. at 8:7–17. Although the invention is described throughout the specification as a “notebook computer,” the specification also contemplates that the device “may also be a radiotelephone.” Id. at 8:18–20. Claim 73 of the ’078 patent recites such an embodiment of the claimed invention: 73. A portable cellular mobile phone comprising: a built in camera unit for obtaining image infor- mation; MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 7 a user interface for enabling a user to input sig- nals to operate the camera unit; a display for presenting image information ob- tained by the camera unit; a microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit in response to input signals from the user interface, and to process image in- formation received by the camera unit; and means, coupled to said microprocessor, for transmitting image information processed by said mi- croprocessor to another location using a radio frequency channel; and wherein the camera unit comprises: optics for obtaining image information; an image sensor for obtaining image infor- mation; and means for processing and for storing at least a portion of the image information obtained by the camera unit for later recall and processing. Id. at 16:1–19 (emphasis added).
Apple contends that the district court erred by denying its JMOL motion that the ’078 patent is invalid as obvious over two references: Japanese patent application publication no. H6-133081 (Kyocera) and U.S. Patent No. 5,550,646 (Lucent). Kyocera discloses a mobile phone with a built-in camera unit, a user interface, and a viewfinder display. Kyocera, Abstract; J.A. 57596. The camera unit includes an image sensor that captures image data through a lens. Kyocera, ¶ 10; J.A. 57601. Lucent discloses a portable phone with an integrated camera unit, a keypad interface, and an LCD display. Lucent, 3:21–33, 4:1–31. The Lucent device includes a micropro- 8 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. cessor that controls camera operations, id. at 3:24–29, and processes pictures in order to “enhance presentability,” id. at 3:47–48. The device stores these pictures in RAM memory. Id. at 4:32–33, 4:40–42, and 6:46–62. The device can then transmit the pictures using a “built-in cellular telephone” and fax modem. Id. at 2:4–5, 2:61–66, and 5:26–47. During trial, Apple contended that the Kyocera mobile phone, together with the microprocessor controlling the Lucent device, disclose all limitations of claim 73. 1 Apple’s expert further testified that the two references discuss similar technologies, and a person having ordinary skill in the art—someone with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and between two and four years of experience in the field 2—would have understood the benefits and cost advantages of combining the references. MobileMedia JMOL, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 471. MobileMedia responded with testimony from its expert that such a skilled artisan would not have been able to combine the Lucent microprocessor with the Kyocera mobile phone during the relevant time frame due to the “complexity and sophistication of software and hardware integration and development.” Id. MobileMedia did not present evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. J.A. 19477–78. 1 Apple also argued at trial that Kyocera anticipated claim 73 of the ’078 patent. MobileMedia contended that Kyocera did not disclose a microprocessor or means for storing captured images for later recall. The jury found that Kyocera did not anticipate claim 73, a finding which Apple does not appeal. 2 The parties agreed on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Compare J.A. 20464 (testimony from Mo- bileMedia’s expert), with J.A. 20285–86 (testimony from Apple’s expert). MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 9 The district court determined that there was no material dispute between the parties at trial that Kyocera and Lucent together disclose all the limitations of claim 73. MobileMedia JMOL, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 471. The district court also found that the “jury implicitly chose to believe” the testimony of MobileMedia’s expert instead of the testimony of Apple’s expert regarding the alleged motivation to combine the two references. Id. at 472. Therefore, the district court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that the ’078 patent was not invalid, and denied Apple’s JMOL motion. On appeal, Apple argues that the combination of the Kyocera and Lucent references is merely the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and therefore would have been obvious. First, Apple contends that Lucent discloses a microprocessor that performs signal processing to “enhance presentability” of captured pictures, and that its expert testified that a skilled artisan would have recognized that modifying Kyocera with Lucent provides the benefit of improved picture quality. Second, Apple asserts that the Lucent microprocessor can be programmed to provide functionality similar to that of the Kyocera mobile phone, and that its expert testified that skilled artisans would have understood the cost advantages of using a programmable microprocessor for the relevant operations of the Kyocera mobile phone. Apple also notes that Lucent discloses a commercially-available, off-the-shelf microprocessor, and that its expert testified that disclosure of such an ordinary, commercially-available processor would have motivated those of skill in the art to try—and to expect success from using—the Lucent microprocessor with the Kyocera mobile phone. A patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention 10 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406–07 (2007). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying facts, as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The Graham factors are (i) the scope and content of the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, and (iv) any relevant objective considerations of nonobviousness. See id. at 17–18. What a particular reference discloses is a question of fact, as is the question of whether there was a reason to combine certain references. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, although we review any underlying findings of fact by the jury—whether explicit or implicit—for substantial evidence, the ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law we review de novo. Bos. Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The existence of a motivation to combine the Kyocera and Lucent references was contested by the parties at trial. Thus, while Apple may have presented some evidence to support its position that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kyocera with Lucent, this alone does not demonstrate that the jury’s verdict was unsupported by substantial evidence. At trial, MobileMedia’s expert focused on Kyocera’s failure to teach a skilled artisan how to implement the claimed “microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit in response to input signals from the user interface, and to process image information received by the camera unit.” J.A. 20463; ’078 patent, 16:7–10. MobileMedia’s expert acknowledged that had the claims merely required a processor, “it [would have been] obvious to put one there,” but testified that the surrounding claim limitations required the microprocessor to “play[] multiple roles” and “make [the claimed components] all work MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 11 together,” which was “a real challenge” in the art at the time of the claimed invention. J.A. 20463–64, 204637. MobileMedia’s expert noted that Nokia, which at the time “was at the very forefront of innovation in the cellphone industry,” needed two years to develop a product with a microprocessor that provided the claimed functionality between a phone and camera. J.A. 20467. In view of these considerations, MobileMedia’s expert testified that it would not have been obvious for one of skill in the art at the time the invention was made (1994), even with knowledge of the Lucent microprocessor, to combine the Lucent microprocessor with the Kyocera mobile phone in a manner that satisfied the limitations of claim 73 of the ’078 patent. J.A. 20466–67. As the Supreme Court noted in KSR, even when a technique has been used to improve a device, and a skilled artisan would recognize that it could improve other devices in the same way, using that technique may not be obvious if its actual application is beyond his or her level of skill. 550 U.S. at 417. Here, MobileMedia’s expert testified that integrating the Lucent microprocessor to control the camera of the Kyocera mobile phone in the manner required by the asserted claims would be beyond the technical ability of a skilled artisan. This provided the jury with a reasonable basis for finding that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant timeframe. Although Apple’s expert offered a differing opinion, when there is conflicting testimony at trial, and the evidence overall does not make only one finding on the point reasonable, the jury is permitted to make credibility determinations and believe the witness it considers more trustworthy. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the jury credited the testimony of MobileMedia’s expert over the testimony of Apple’s expert. MobileMedia JMOL, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 472. Where there is substantial evidence 12 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. for a reasonable jury finding, it is not our function to second guess or reevaluate the weight given to that evidence. See, e.g., Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the Lucent and Kyocera references to arrive at the claimed invention. Consequently, the district court did not err by denying Apple’s motion for JMOL of invalidity.
Apple also contends that the district court erred in construing two means-plus-function limitations in claim 73. MobileMedia SJ, 907 F. Supp. 2d at 601. Apple contends that the jury’s finding of infringement was based on these erroneous constructions, and that when construed correctly, no reasonable jury could find that Apple’s accused iPhones infringe claim 73 of the ’078 patent. Both parties agree that claim 73 includes two limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 3: a “means . . . for transmitting image information” and a “means for processing and for storing” this image information. Both parties also agree that the “image information” processed and transmitted by the two “means” must be obtained from the camera unit. Appellant’s Reply Br. 4 n.1; see also J.A. 28470–71. We turn first to the “means for processing and storing.” Apple argues that the district court erred in identi- 3 Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated § 112(f) when § 4(c) of the America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Because the applications resulting in the patents at issue in this case were filed before that date, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 13 fying the structure disclosed in the ’078 patent’s specification corresponding to the “means for processing and for storing” an image from the camera as any image pro- cessing unit in the overall device, rather than the processing and memory units within the camera unit. Apple contends that the language of the claim expressly requires the storing and processing of image data by the camera to be performed by the camera’s own processor and memory unit, and not by the notebook computer’s general purpose central processor. Apple also notes that the specification only links the functions of storing and processing images captured by the camera with the camera’s own processor and memory units. MobileMedia responds that the “means for processing and storing” are not limited to the camera unit’s processor and memory units because nothing in the specification indicates that these separate units cannot be used for other purposes. Although conceding that the claimed device includes a central processor that is separate from the processor within the camera unit, MobileMedia argues that the means for processing images captured by the camera can be either of the disclosed processors. Similarly, for the memory units, MobileMedia contends that because nothing in the specification suggests that the camera’s memory units function solely for the purpose of the camera, the means for storing images captured by the camera can be the memory units within the camera unit or the device’s separate system-level memory unit. We review the district court’s claim construction here de novo because it relied only on evidence intrinsic to the ’078 patent. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, a means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” A disclosed structure is a “corresponding structure” only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that 14 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. structure to the function recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 73 recites a portable cellular mobile phone comprising five components: (i) a built in camera unit, (ii) a user interface, (iii) a display, (iv) a microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit, and (v) a means for transmitting image information over a radio frequency channel. ’078 patent, 16:1–13. Claim 73 further recites that the camera unit comprises (i) optics for obtaining image information, (ii) an image sensor, and (iii) a means for processing and storing at least a portion of the image information obtained from the camera unit for later recall and processing. Id. at 16:14–19. In short, the language of claim 73 makes clear that the “means for processing and storing” is part of the camera unit, not the overall device. The components of the claimed device are dia- grammed in Figure 3. Id. at 2:27–28. Figure 3 indicates that the device includes both a “data processing unit” with a central “processor 4” and system-level “memory unit 13.” Id. at 2:41–42, 2:66–3:5. The “camera unit 14” is a separate and distinct component of the overall device that communicates with the “data processing unit” via “input/output controller 5.” Id. at 3:13–14. The specification explains that the structure of the camera unit “conforms to the block diagram shown in Fig. 5” of the ’078 patent. Id. at 4:23–25. Figure 5 illustrates that the camera unit includes a “camera 14a and optics 15b, image processing unit 14c, [and] battery 21.” Id. at 4:23–28. The camera unit’s image processing unit is a “microprocessor 23” and “a number of memory units 24.” Id. at 4:29–31, 4:37–41. Thus, consistent with the express language of the claim, the specification indicates that the camera unit’s “microprocessor 23” and “memory units 24” are different than and separate from the device’s central “processor 4” and system level “memory unit 13.” Id. at 2:41–42, 2:66–3:5. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 15 A picture taken by the camera unit is “transferred to [its] image processing unit 14c and through its microprocessor 23 to [its] memory unit 24.” Id. at 4:53–54. When a user wishes to view the picture, the image information is read from the camera unit’s “memory unit 24” by the camera unit’s “microprocessor 23,” and is then transmitted to the notebook computer’s “processor 4” for display. Id. at 4:54–62. The specification emphasizes that it is the camera unit’s “[i]mage processing unit 14c [which] processes the image information into a suitable form” to be displayed by the notebook computer. Id. at 4:62–63. The specification thus clearly links two structures to the claimed means for performing the function of processing and storing image information obtained by the camera for later recall: “microprocessor 23” and “memory unit 24,” the processor and memory units within the camera unit. Nowhere in the specification is the claimed function of processing and storing an image captured by the camera unit performed by the device’s separate “processor 4” or system-level “memory unit 13.” See id. at 3:18–21, 4:57–62, and 5:17–21 (explaining that later recall of image information captured by the camera unit requires transfer of image information from the camera unit’s memory to the device’s separate central processor and system-level memory). In addition, the specification does not suggest that the camera unit’s processor and memory perform functions beyond the processing and storing of image information for later recall. Indeed, the specification indicates that software for controlling the notebook computer’s other functionality—telephone and facsimile services, e-mail, SMS, and calendar programs— resides in the system-level “memory unit 13,” not the camera unit’s “memory unit 24.” Id. at 3:54–62. MobileMedia’s contention that the specification does not expressly limit the function of the camera unit’s microprocessor and memory to processing and storing image information for later recall does not justify the 16 MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. district court’s construction, which erroneously expands the scope of the “means for processing and storing” to include any image processing unit or memory unit. The scope of a means-plus-function limitation is outlined not by what the specification and prosecution history do not say, but rather by what they do say. As we noted in Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., the fact that “a structure may perform two functions and that a function may be performed by two structures” is “irrelevant in the context of a § 112, paragraph 6 analysis without a clear link or association between the function or functions recited in the means-plus-function limitation and the structure or structures disclosed in the specification for carrying out those functions.” 248 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). And Mo- bileMedia identifies no portion of the specification or prosecution history that clearly links any structure to the claimed function of processing and storing image information for later recall other than the camera unit’s “microprocessor 23” and “memory units 24.” Accordingly, the structures corresponding to the claimed function of the “means for processing and storing” encompass only “microprocessor 23” and “memory unit 24,” the camera unit’s processor and memory units. Correctly construed, no reasonable jury could conclude that Apple’s accused products literally infringe the “means for processing and storing” limitation of claim 73.4 Literal infringement of a § 112 ¶ 6 limitation requires that the relevant structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the speci- 4 MobileMedia did not contend that Apple’s accused iPhones infringe the ’078 patent under the doctrine of equivalents before the district court, J.A. 8302, and does not do so here on appeal. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC v. APPLE INC. 17 fication. Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the parties do not dispute that the camera module in Apple’s accused iPhones has no internal memory for storing image data. J.A. 5970–71; J.A. 8914. Thus, the camera module of Apple’s iPhones has no structure corresponding to the function of storing at least a portion of processed image information. Although MobileMedia contends that the “main memory of the iPhone” is the camera unit’s means for storing, J.A. 19632, this “main memory” is not located within the iPhone camera module, which is what claim 73 requires. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s judgment that Apple infringes claim 73 of the ’078 patent. We need not reach Apple’s alternative noninfringement argument that the district court erred in its construction of the “means . . . for transmitting” limitation in claim 73.
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.