• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00578 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Anthony and Hanggie, alone or in combinations with Matthews and Robertson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “3. Remaining claim terms Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “does not generate the claimed images because it displays active applications in 3D space, where “the user can interact with the control buttons on the window, [thus] the window (object) is not an image.” PO Resp. 41, 46. Both parties agree that the language of claim 1 (limitation [1d-1]) requires interacting with an image in order to prompt the replacement of the image in 3D space with objects within 2D space. See Tr. 46:25–47:3; Pet. 55–56. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument that Hanggie cannot teach the claim limitation because there is interaction with an image runs contrary to the plain meaning of the claim language and Patent Owner’s view of that language. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the disclosures of the ’868 patent support the claimed interactivity of the images in the 3D space. Pet. Reply 2–5. In particular, Petitioner refers to the ’868 patent’s explanation that “the 3D GUI runs as an Active X control within the Internet Explorer web browser,” and “once [a] file, document, application or desktop is added to the virtual space 300, it is fully interactive and functional and appears no different from, or close to, the original way the program functions when it was not in the 3-D Cartesian space 300.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:33–44, 21:12–28, 21:29–43; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 11–12). Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that the Specification provides support that the images in 3D are interactive and function in a similar manner to those as corresponding objects in 2D. Id.” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “use of items in 2D space and difficulties in finding files, this argument is based on Anthony’s prior art discussion offered to identify the need for improvements that are solved by its 3D invention. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 6, 8. But the issue identified as the problem with 2D items, that is, difficulties in finding 2D files, is not at issue in the combination of the prior art that Petitioner proposes. As discussed, in the combination that Petitioner asserts, with the selection of a maximize button on a 3D window, the window would be displayed in 2D and would occupy all or most parts of the screen—so in that combination, difficulties in finding the 2D files would not be an issue. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111). Further, Petitioner offers the advantages that this presentation in 2D space would conserve power and allow certain users to interact with an application in a 2D environment. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66, 69. Accordingly, we credit Dr. Fuchs’s testimony that Petitioner’s proposed “specific experience [of the combination] would not deter a user from replacing images in 3D space with an object in 2D space.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 48. We also do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that Anthony’s approach is different from the claimed invention because its method for” slip op. at 65

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (so called “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[E]vidence of secondary considerations may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “[T]o be accorded substantial weight in the obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a ‘nexus’ to the claims, i.e., there must be ‘a legally and factually sufficient connection’ between the evidence and the patented invention.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS” slip op. at 66

  Patent outcomesUS 9,696,868 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,696,868
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00344 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations of Anthony, Hanggie, Matthews, and Robertson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “The Board instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 11 (“Dec.”). We joined Google LLC as a party to the proceeding (collectively, with Apple Inc., “Petitioner”) based on a petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2023-00578. Paper 14.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 Google LLC, which filed a petition in IPR2023-00578, has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding. See Paper 14, 8.” slip op. at 1

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” The parties agree that the claim terms “3D space” and “two-” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “use of items in 2D space and difficulties in finding files, this argument is based on Anthony’s prior art discussion offered to identify the need for improvements that are solved by its 3D invention. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 6, 8. But the issue identified as the problem with 2D items, that is, difficulties in finding 2D files, is not at issue in the combination of the prior art that Petitioner proposes. As discussed, in the combination that Petitioner asserts, with the selection of a maximize button on a 3D window, the window would be displayed in 2D and would occupy all or most parts of the screen—so in that combination, difficulties in finding the 2D files would not be an issue. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111). Further, Petitioner offers the advantages that this presentation in 2D space would conserve power and allow certain users to interact with an application in a 2D environment. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66, 69. Accordingly, we credit Dr. Fuchs’s testimony that Petitioner’s proposed “specific experience [of the combination] would not deter a user from replacing images in 3D space with an object in 2D space.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 48. We also do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that Anthony’s approach is different from the claimed invention because its method for” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 9,696,868 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,696,868
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00579 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5, 7–8, 10–13, 15–17, and 19 over Anthony and Hanggie; claims 6, 9, 14, and 18 over Anthony, Hanggie, and Matthews.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. 20. Patent Owner states that it “generally agrees” with the level of skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner states that Dr. Schaefer and Mr. Bakhash meet the definition. Id. Based on our review of the ’654 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’654 patent, and the cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Schaefer, is not qualified to opine as a person of ordinary skill in the art because he does not meet the required qualifications as his work experience does not amount to two years. Pet. Reply 7 n.3 (citing Ex. 1031, 14:22–19:6). We do not find this assertion persuasive because, as Patent Owner points out (PO Sur-reply 5 n.3), Dr. Schaefer was working in the field of 2D and 3D user interfaces with the companies SensAble Technologies, Microsoft, and Mok3, and had also completed a Master of Science degree before the critical date of September 2005. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 5–11, 88; Ex. 1031, 14:22–17:17. In that time frame, Dr. Schaefer was also working towards a Doctoral degree, which he completed in 2006. See id. To the extent that Dr. Schaefer’s work experience is short of two years, his additional education more than compensates for any deficiency in work experience.” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” The parties agree that the claim terms “3D space” and “two- dimensional (2D) space” should be construed as “a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system” and “a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system,” respectively. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1005,3 6); PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2011,4 16–17). The construction is based on the construction issued by the district court in the Samsung case. Ex. 2011, 19. 3 Petitioner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex.). 4 Claim Construction Order, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex.). Although Patent Owner has agreed to the construction of these terms, Patent Owner contends that “these constructions should be viewed in light of the [Samsung] Court’s attendant reasoning.” PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that because the district court differentiated “objects” and “spaces,” “in determining the presence of a 2D or 3D space, it is irrelevant whether the objects themselves are 2D or 3D. What is important is the space in which the objects reside.” Id. Patent Owner further asserts that for claim limitation [1d-2], “it is not the object (e.g., window) that is 2D but the space in which the object is presented.” Id. at 55. We address this issue in the discussion of limitation [1d-2] below, infra Section II.D.3.c.ii. In the discussion of the construction of the terms, the district court found that “[t]he specification describes the 3D space as a ‘seemingly unlimited space’ that creates the ‘illusion of infinite space in three dimensions.’ In contrast, the specification describes the 2D space as the ‘finite working graphical area’ of the desktop, and not as a virtual space.” Ex. 2011, 17. The district court’s constructions of “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” are supported by the description in the Specification. Accordingly, we accept the parties’ agreement and adopt the district court’s constructions of these terms.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “On this record, in light of the broader disclosures in the ’654 patent, we decline to import an additional limitation into the term “image” to place a restriction on interactions to not include modifications, as proposed by Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner does not cite to any supporting evidence to show that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope to restrict the construction of the term “image.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.”). Thus, the Specification, as a whole, does not support Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “image” that adds the limitation that its underlying content cannot be modified in an interaction.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,304,654 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,304,654
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00343 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Anthony and Hanggie; claims 6, 9, 14, and 18 are also unpatentable over Anthony, Hanggie, and Matthews.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Citing testimony from Dr. Fuchs, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of September 13, 2005 (the earliest possible priority date of the ’654 patent) would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with 2D and 3D graphical user interfaces.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32). Petitioner further states that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31– 32). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. 20. Patent Owner states that it “generally agrees” with the level of skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner states that Dr. Schaefer and Mr. Bakhash meet the definition. Id. Based on our review of the ’654 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’654 patent, and the cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” The parties agree that the claim terms “3D space” and “two- dimensional (2D) space” should be construed as “a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system” and “a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system,” respectively. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1005,3 6); PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2011,4 16–17). The construction is based on the construction issued by the district court in the Samsung case. Ex. 2011, 19. 3 Petitioner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex.). 4 Claim Construction Order, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex.). Although Patent Owner has agreed to the construction of these terms, Patent Owner contends that “these constructions should be viewed in light of the [Samsung] Court’s attendant reasoning.” PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that because the district court differentiated “objects” and “spaces,” “in determining the presence of a 2D or 3D space, it is irrelevant whether the objects themselves are 2D or 3D. What is important is the space in which the objects reside.” Id. Patent Owner further asserts that for claim limitation [1d-2], “it is not the object (e.g., window) that is 2D but the space in which the object is presented.” Id. at 55. We address this issue in the discussion of limitation [1d-2] below, infra Section II.D.3.c.ii. In the discussion of the construction of the terms, the district court found that “[t]he specification describes the 3D space as a ‘seemingly unlimited space’ that creates the ‘illusion of infinite space in three dimensions.’ In contrast, the specification describes the 2D space as the ‘finite working graphical area’ of the desktop, and not as a virtual space.” Ex. 2011, 17. The district court’s constructions of “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” are supported by the description in the Specification. Accordingly, we accept the parties’ agreement and adopt the district court’s constructions of these terms.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “3. Remaining claim terms Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “additions to the proposed construction for the term “image” such that its underlying content cannot be modified in an interaction, as discussed above. Patent Owner points to two embodiments in the ’654 patent Specification, which allegedly provide support that “the imaged object . . . cannot be interacted with in 3D space, i.e., inactive images.” PO Sur-reply 15–19. Conversely, Petitioner points to the ’654 patent that discloses that when graphics from the 2D desktop are displayed in 3D space, “the functionality of the 2D programs and documents” is retained and “the 3D GUI runs as an Active X control within the Internet Explorer web browser.” Pet. Reply 3–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:22–33, 20:39–41). Further, the ’654 patent discloses, for instance, “a Microsoft Word document [] running in a window [] within a 3D virtual space” (Ex. 1001, 20:56–57) where “once [a] file, document, application or desktop is added to the virtual space 300, it is fully interactive and functional and appears no different from, or close to, the original way the program functions when it was not in the 3-D Cartesian space 300” (Ex. 1001, 20:66–21:3). Pet. Reply 3–4. We agree with Petitioner that these disclosures provide support that the images in 3D are interactive and the functionality of the 3D images can be the same as objects in 2D. Id. On this record, in light of the broader disclosures in the ’654 patent, we decline to import an additional limitation into the term “image” to place a restriction on interactions to not include modifications, as proposed by Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner does not cite to any supporting evidence to show that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope to restrict the construction of the term “image.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.”). Thus, the Specification, as a whole, does not support Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “image” that adds the limitation that its underlying content cannot be modified in an interaction.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 9,304,654 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,304,654
• Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00454 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Reavey–Chandhri combination met limitation 1h.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioners assert, with the support of its expert, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not dispute or address this characterization of the skill level of an artisan in the relevant field. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’315 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we rely on Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to focus the lens through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “The Petition offers explicit claim constructions for a number of claim terms, including “plurality of views,” “display component,” “execution component,” “storage component,” and “first/second user interface component.” Pet. 11–15. And Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioners’ explicit claim constructions because the Petition fails even if these constructions are adopted.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Nevertheless, we do not reach Petitioners’ proposed constructions because a resolution in this matter does not turn on the precise meaning of any of those terms; in fact, none of the proposed constructions are for terms that are used in Limitation [1h]. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the language used in Limitation [1h], which is critical to our decision, both parties rely on the plain and ordinary meaning and neither party suggests that any term used has a particular meaning beyond what is clearly conveyed within the context of the ’315 patent. Therefore, no term in this proceeding needs to be construed expressly.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,003,315
• Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00455 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood that Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest limitation 1[h].

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. And as a result, we find Petitioners have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the Reavey/Chandhri combination render independent claims 1 and 28 unpatentable, which is a deficiency that necessarily extends therethrough to all of the dependent claims challenged in all three grounds.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioners assert, with the support of its expert, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not dispute or address this characterization of the skill level of an artisan in the relevant field. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’315 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we rely on Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art to focus the lens through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “The Petition offers explicit claim constructions for a number of claim terms, including “plurality of views,” “display component,” “execution component,” “storage component,” and “first/second user interface component.” Pet. 12–16. And Patent Owner states that it “does not challenge Petitioners’ explicit claim constructions because the Petition fails even if these constructions are adopted.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Nevertheless, we do not reach Petitioners’ proposed constructions because a resolution in this matter does not turn on the precise meaning of any of those terms; in fact, none of the proposed constructions are for terms that are used in Limitation [1h]. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the language used in Limitation [1h], which is critical to our decision, both parties rely on the plain and ordinary meaning and neither party suggests that any term used has a particular meaning beyond what is clearly conveyed within the context of the ’315 patent. Therefore, no term in this proceeding needs to be construed expressly.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “view of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Petitioners have shown with sufficient particularity why the combined teachings of Reavey and Chandhri disclose or suggest the recited elements of Limitation [1h]. For our purposes here, we accept Petitioners’ contention that, in light of the Reavey and Chandhri disclosures, a skilled artisan would have been led to configure Reavey’s device to display in laptop mode a first set of visual representations using a menu-based view and transition when in flat mode to an image-based scrolling view to display a second set of visual representations. Still, we remain unpersuaded Petitioners have established sufficiently that the Reavey and Chandhri combination discloses or suggests to a skilled artisan a configuration in which the device filters the first set of visual representations by identifying and removing content therefrom to be used with the image-based scrolling view to generate a second set of visual representations that are based on the filtered version of the first set of visual representations.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,003,315
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00577 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Robertson, Gralla, and Gettman or Sauve and Tsuda; claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” As we stated in the Institution Decision, at page 20, the parties agree” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “4. Remaining claim terms Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “predictably improved Sauve’s quick pick interface, and would have promoted space efficiency and conveyed order more clearly. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 159). Petitioner further argues that the combination would have exploited spatial memory and more efficient use of screen space and, thus, would have been a differentiator among competing web browsers. Id. at 60–61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–162). Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination because GUIs, web browsers, and simulated 3D environments were all well-known technologies that had been demonstrated successfully in the real world. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 163). Dr. Fuchs’ testimony has rational underpinning, is logical and well-reasoned, and, accordingly, we give it substantial weight.” slip op. at 64

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. We have considered the portions of Sauve and Tsuda cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Schaefer, and find nothing that would discourage or lead in a direction divergent from the path taken by the inventor. Other than repeating Patent Owner’s argument that Sauve and Tsuda provide drastically different solutions for moving from one active window to another, Dr. Schaefer does not explain why he concludes that the solutions teach away from one another or point to evidence to support that conclusion. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 225–227.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 8,881,048 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,048
• Apple Inc. / Google LLC v. Spacetime3d, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00242 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either instituted ground; claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to prove the challenged combinations met the claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “3D space” and “two-dimensional (2D) space” As we stated in the Institution Decision, at page 20, the parties agree” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “3. “the rendered first webpage” Claim limitation 1dii recites “replacing the first and second objects within the 3D space with a window within a two-dimensional (2D) space in response to receiving the interaction, wherein the window includes the rendered first webpage.” Petitioner does not propose a construction for the term “the rendered first webpage” in the Petition. Pet. 13–14. Nevertheless, Patent Owner contends in the Patent Owner Response that “‘the rendered first webpage’ is the webpage that was requested by the user via the ‘first input’ from which the ‘first image’ was captured.” PO Resp. 13. As Petitioner summarizes, “[a]ccording to Patent Owner, ‘the rendered first webpage’ presented in 2D space ‘is the version that was previously received and rendered (e.g., stored in memory) from which the first image was captured. It is not a ‘live’ webpage from the Internet.’” Reply 6. Despite not proposing a construction in the Petition, Petitioner, in the Reply, asks us to construe “the rendered first webpage” to include either the previously received and rendered first webpage or a new (so called “live”) version of the first webpage rendered in response to receiving the user interaction of claim limitation 1dii. Reply 6–7. The plain and ordinary meaning of claim 1 supports Patent Owner’s argument. “To begin with, the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“To take a simple example, the claim in this case refers to ‘steel baffles,’ which strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects made of steel.”). Here, claim 1 refers to replacing the first and second objects with “the rendered first webpage,” which implies that the objects are not replaced with just any version of the first webpage. “Rendered” is in the past tense, suggesting a webpage that previously has been rendered. This is a clear reference to limitation 1ci, “rendering the first and second webpages.” Dr. Fuchs’ testimony is instructive. According to Dr. Fuchs, a skilled artisan “would have known that webpage rendering was a ubiquitous process for converting raw HTML code received from a web server into visible content.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 104. According to Dr. Fuchs, “[w]ebpage rendering is a core functionality of virtually all web browsers, and it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that rendering is a prerequisite step to obtaining ‘screen snapshots of actual web pages,’ as explained in Robertson’s companion Data Mountain paper.” Id. ¶ 105 (citing Ex. 1030, 5). Dr. Fuchs testifies that a skilled artisan “would have understood that Robertson’s 3D-GUI captures images of the rendered (first/second) webpages to obtain the webpage images on the object thumbnails.” Id. ¶ 107. Similarly, Dr. Fuchs testifies that “Gettman’s technique involves ‘cach[ing]’ ‘bitmap screenshots’ (captured first/second images) of rendered (first/second) webpages in local memory.” Id. ¶ 108. Here, as Dr. Fuchs reads claim limitations 1ci and 1cii, in step 1ci, a” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. We have considered the portions of Sauve and Tsuda cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Schaefer, and find nothing that would discourage or lead in a direction divergent from the path taken by the inventor. Other than repeating Patent Owner’s argument that Sauve and Tsuda provide drastically different solutions for moving from one active window to another, Dr. Schaefer does not explain why he concludes that the solutions teach away from one another or point to evidence to support that conclusion. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 225–227.” slip op. at 65

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. We have considered the portions of Sauve and Tsuda cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Schaefer, and find nothing that would discourage or lead in a direction divergent from the path taken by the inventor. Other than repeating Patent Owner’s argument that Sauve and Tsuda provide drastically different solutions for moving from one active window to another, Dr. Schaefer does not explain why he concludes that the solutions teach away from one another or point to evidence to support that conclusion. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 225–227.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 8,881,048 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,048
• Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00300 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–38 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the Carr grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted only if it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’770 patent’s challenged claims. We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Here, however, the February 18, 2022 filing date of Krupa (Ex. 1003, code (22)) is indisputably after the priority date for the claims recited in the ’770 patent, which Petitioner concedes is at least May 17, 2021 (Pet. 4, 14, filing date of the Krupa Provisional to qualify Krupa as prior art. See Pet. 4; 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Under subsection 102(d)(2), to qualify as prior art, a reference patent or published patent application is considered effectively filed as of the filing date of its provisional application only to the extent that the provisional “describes the subject matter” relied on in the reference patent document. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). We cannot presume that the Krupa Provisional describes the subject matter in Krupa that the Petition relies on, however. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (“[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.”). The burden to make this showing falls squarely on Petitioner. But Petitioner does not explain how the Krupa Provisional supports the relevant subject matter relied on in Krupa. In fact, Petitioner did not introduce the Krupa Provisional into the record, so it would not be possible to do so.9” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “But Patent Owner’s arguments do little to undermine the rational underpinning of Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Carr and Beuterbaugh because they improperly focus on what Carr and Beuterbaugh disclose individually, rather what they disclose in combination; and they appear to improperly rely on the bodily incorporation of Beuterbaugh’s pulsing method into Carr. Petitioner contends the motivation for combining Beuterbaugh and Carr in the manner claimed comes from the fact that valve sequencing generally (rather than Beuterbaugh’s specific pulsing method for “overlap of fluid flows to each well [to] be controlled to optimize the downhole pressure waves and minimize the surface impacts.” Pet. 63, 66 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 24; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 496–512). Patent Owner does not dispute, at this preliminary stage, that Beuterbaugh suggests valve sequencing was a known technique that can enhance well operations; nor does Patent Owner dispute that Carr discloses a control system that can control the sequence of opening and closing valves in response to determining that the fluid communicated via the manifold has satisfied one or more conditions. Thus, after considering what Carr and Beuterbaugh teach as a whole, we are persuaded at this stage that Petitioner’s reasoning for combining those reference in the manner claimed has a rational underpinning, which is supported sufficiently by the cited evidence of record.” slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), the terms in the challenged claims carry their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of art at the time of the invention, in view of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Here, both parties contend that the challenged claims in this proceeding do not need to be construed further. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 25. This is so, according to the parties, because a resolution in this proceeding does not hinge on a dispute about how the parties are interpretating any particular claim term or phrase. Id. Furthermore, neither Id. And we need only construe terms that are in controversy and only to the extent needed to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding claim construction is for “resolution of disputed meanings”). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, the ordinary and customary meaning of each of the challenged claim terms and phrases, viewed in the proper context of the intrinsic record, applies without any further construction.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,560,770
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2024 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 are unpatentable: claims 3–4, 6–11, 15–16, and 18 as obvious over Sanford and Hsu; claims 5, 12, and 17 under their respective additional-reference grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 patent “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in the field of security and access-control.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 26). IPR2022-00600, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements. PO Resp. 6–7; see also IPR2022-00600, Paper 22 at 12 (PTAB October 13, 2023) (Final Written Decision). In this proceeding, Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s levels of ordinary skill in the art, in particular education, are not substantively different. Petitioner’s proposal requires at least two years of experience in the field of security and access control, compared to one year as proposed by Patent Owner. We maintain our determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art from IPR2022-00600, including at least one year of experience as Patent Owner urges. On this record, Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’039 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Indeed, the difference between one and two years of experience in the field is fairly minimal considering that neither party asserts that it is necessary to have a significant amount of experience, e.g., 5–10 years in the field. For consistency, we rely on the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we determined in IPR2022-00600.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “construction with respect to the phrase “memory location defined by the provided card information” and limitation 3[D](1) as a whole, we maintain the claim construction given in IPR2022-00600 for the reasons provided here and in the Final Written Decision in that proceeding. IPR2022-00600, Paper 22, 29–36. We understand that, during an enrollment process, the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. The memory location or address where the fingerprint data is stored is, therefore, “contingent” on the card information, as Patent Owner’s construction requires.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Because at least Hsu, Sanford, and Tsukamura each discloses an enrollment process, in this case we need not explicitly determine whether the language from which Patent Owner argues infers “enrollment” in claim 3 is limiting. We can agree that from reading the ’039 patent in context there is As we explained in our Institution Decision the enrollment process includes step 401, which stores the biometric signature “at a memory address defined by the card data 604,” whereas in verification process 205 “step 204 reads the contents stored at a single memory address defined by the card data 604” and compares the stored biometric signature with the input biometric signature. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:65–66, 8:24–26). The language of the independent claims and the requirement that where the card information has not been previously provided, “storing the inputted biometric signature,” tracks with the specification description of an enrollment phase. See Ex. 1001, 9:63–65 (“The [enrollment] process 207 is entered from the step 206 in FIG. 5, after which a step 401 stores the biometric signature received by the step 203 in the memory 124.”). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we will consider the limitations of claims 3, 15, and 18 to include, at least in part, an enrollment process. However, because the terms “enrolling” or “enrollment” do not create any particular dispute between the parties that we need to resolve, we need not determine whether they are, in fact limitations.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “4. Means-plus-function terms In our Institution Decision we accepted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the several “means for” and “code for” limitations recited in claims 15 and 18. See Inst. Dec. 42 (The Board explaining that “we find Petitioner’s proposed constructions of these term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) consistent with the record in this case.”). These constructions are also consistent with the District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 39–43; see also Ex. 1012, 1–4. Patent Owner does not address the means-plus-function terms in the challenged claims. Because patentability on the claims at issue in this case does not turn on construction of the relative structures and functions of these means-plusfunction terms, and because they are not in dispute, we maintain the constructions from our Institution Decision including that “code for” is an equivalent recitation for “means for.” Inst. Dec. 39–43.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.