Review of Neonode’s (last) response (April 2024)

Erroneous “Three Meanings” Conclusion: Neonode argues that Samsung failed to demonstrate that the claim term in question, specifically limitation 1[b], is indefinite. [three potential and conflicting meanings]

Samsung insisted that it is unclear whether the “only one option” refers to “the ‘multi-step operation,’ a ‘function,’ or something else.”

The Court has repeatedly held that there is no requirement that the exact claim language appear in the specification.

Neonode explained in its Opening Brief , “only one option” refers to a characteristic of the representation—i.e., how many functions may be activated at a given time—not of the function or of how the function is activated.

Samsung did acknowledge that “it makes little sense to equate ‘option’ with ‘function’ when the ‘only one option’ is ‘for activating the function.’”
Neonode agrees — “option” is not “function.” Yet, that is exactly what Samsung proposes in its first and third “meanings,” both of which propose that “[t]he representation represents a single function ….”
So, Samsung’s opening argument torpedoes two of Samsung’s three purported “meanings.”
Accordingly, Samsung’s “three meanings” argument fails.
[Something I raised in my previous post]

Definition of “gliding”: Neonode supports the district court’s decision that the term “gliding,” as used in the patent claim, is not indefinite. Neonode argues that the term has a clear, ordinary meaning supported by the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
[Something I also pointed out my previous post]

In conclusion, Neonode requests that the appellate court reverse the district court’s finding of indefiniteness for limitation 1[b] and affirm the decision that the term “gliding” is not indefinite, allowing the patent claims to stand as valid.

SUMMARY
1) Trying to shoot down “gliding” will not fly. Too obvious what it means. That is a long shot by Samsung, who are worried that the Appeals court will reverse the first indefinite judgement.
2) Limitation 1[b] (representation of…) – I think there is a decent chance that it will be reversed. Neonode has better arguments to reverse it, than Samsung has to sustain it.!
At least 60/40 chance of a reversal.

Neonode’s final response is notably more balanced and explanatory than Samsung’s, which was considerably more disorderly and unconvincing.

——————————-

New Development!

An UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COORDINATE RELATED APPEALS was filed April 16.
Stay tuned, I need to analyze this and think what this means for the case, and whom it benefits most. (if any)