Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 
` 
` 
`
`Paper No. 51
`Date Entered: March 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`
`BACKGROUND
`On March 29, 2013, in Paper 11, the Board entered a Decision to Institute an
`inter partes review on the following challenges raised by Kyocera Corporation to
`the patentability of claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183,
`252, 283, and 317 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,461,353 B2 (the
`’353 Patent) owned by Softview LLC (“Patent Owner”):
`
`Challenged Claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183,
`252, 283, and 317as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Zaurus1, Pad++2;
`Challenged Claim 66 as obvious over the combination of Zaurus, Pad++ and
`SVG3;
`
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 Power Zaurus Personal Digital Assistant Documentation (“Zaurus”), Ex. 1004
`2 Bederson, Benjamin B. and Hollan James D., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical
`Interface System, CHI ‘95 Mosaic of Creativity, May 1995; Bederson, Benjamin
`B. and Furnas, George W, Space-Scale Diagrams: Understanding Multiscale
`Interfaces, CHI ‘95 Proceedings, 1995; Bederson, Benjamin B., et al, A Zooming
`Web Browser, SPIE, Vol. 2667, 260-71, May 1996; Bederson, Ben and Meyer,
`Jon, Implementing a Zooming User Interface: Experience Building Pad ++,
`Software-Practice and Experience, Vol. 28(1), 1101-35, Aug. 1998; Bederson,
`Benjamin B., et al., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical Sketchpad for Exploring
`Alternate Interface Physics, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 7,
`3-31, 1996; Pad++ Reference Manual Version 0.2.7, published July 9, 1996;
`Pad++ Programmer’s Guide Version 0.2.7, published June 10, 1996 (collectively,
`“Pad++”), Ex. 1006
`3 Ferraiolo, Jon, Scalable Vector Graphics Requirements: W3C Working Group
`Draft, Oct. 29, 1998. (“SVG”), Ex. 1007
`2 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`Challenged Claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183,
`252, 283, and 317 as obvious over the combination of Zaurus,
`Tsutsumitake4, and Hara5;
`Challenged Claim 66 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
`combination of Zaurus, Tsutsumitake, Hara, and SVG.
`
`IPR2013-00256, brought by Motorola Mobility LLC, raised the same
`challenges and later was joined to this proceeding. IPR2013-00256, Paper 10.
`Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility are referred to collectively as
`“Petitioner.”
`On July 19, 2013, Patent Owner filed a response brief. (PO Resp., Paper
`25). Petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. (Paper
`28). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. (Mot. to Exclude, Paper 41) and
`Petitioner replied (Reply to Mot. to Exclude, Paper 42). An oral hearing was held
`on January 7, 2014, concurrent with the oral hearing in related consolidated
`proceeding, IPR2013-00004/IPR2013-00257, between the same parties.
`In this Final Written Decision, we determine pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that all challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`THE ’353 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`As indicated by its title, the ’353 patent is drawn to the scalable display of
`Internet content, e.g., Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML)-based content,
`cascade style sheet (CSS) content and XML content on mobile devices by enabling
`the content to be rendered, zoomed, and panned for better viewing on small screens
`
`                                                            
`4 Japanese Laid Open Patent Application H10-21224 (“Tsutsumitake”), Ex. 1005
`5 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H10-326169 (“Hara”),
`Ex. 1008
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`and standard monitors. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 22-39, col. 5, ll. 18-22. A client side
`viewer receives the Internet content in an Internet browser, e.g., a micro-browser
`or a browser plug-in, and uses the simple vector format (SVF) originally designed
`to handle common computer aided design (CAD) file formats to describe the
`current web content. Id. at col. 4, ll. 43-63. Translation of the content into a
`scalable vector representation can be done by a third party proxy service (Fig. 1A),
`the content provider’s web site (Fig. 1B) or at the client (Fig. 1C).
`Figure 5 illustrates the logic used by the invention when translating content
`into a scalable vector representation. Id. at col. 3, ll. 50-52. Pre-rendering parsing
`of a received HTML document identifies elements such as tables, column
`definitions, graphic images, paragraphs, and line breaks, and determines where to
`place objects on a display. Id. at col. 15, ll. 45-52. When using frames, the display
`page is divided into multiple frame areas, which enables a single displayed page to
`include source code from several HTML documents. Id. at col. 15, ll. 33-36.
`During pre-rendering, each frame is examined in the sequential order it appears in
`the HTML document, and during further processing, actual objects are rendered in
`their respective positions. Id. at col. 15, ll. 52-57. The content is separated into
`objects based on logical groupings of content, and a page layout is built using
`bounding boxes produced for each object. Id. at col. 16, ll. 19-38, col. 17, ll. 15-
`29). The ’353 Patent admits that the above steps commonly are performed by
`conventional browsers in the pre-rendering process, but indicates that the steps it
`discloses to use layout data generated in the pre-rendering process to generate a
`scalable vector representation of the original page content depart from the prior art.
`Id. at col. 17, ll. 30-45.
`The ’353 Patent discloses that generating a scalable vector representation
`begins by defining a page datum point as an X,Y value and a datum point as an
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`X,Y value for each object’s bounding box. Id. at col. 17, ll. 45-64, col. 18, ll. 1-5.
`A vector between the page datum point and the datum point for each bounding box
`is then generated and stored. Id. A frame datum can also be assigned and vectors
`drawn from the page datum to the frame datum to establish the frame’s offset and
`from the frame datum to each object in the frame. Id. at col. 18, ll. 5-16. The
`scalable vector representation then is completed by a reference that links each
`object’s contents, attributes such as type (image, text), and bounding box
`parameters such as height and width to the object’s vector. Id. at col. 18, ll. 18-26.
`A display list of vectors for the vectorized HTML content is built, as is
`known from CAD arts, and a user selectable scale and offset are determined. Id. at
`col. 19, ll. 14-25. The bounding boxes are processed using the scale and offset,
`and a bounding box defining the limits of the display content is determined. Id. at
`col. 19, ll. 32-35. Scaling and offset can be accomplished either (i) by mapping
`vectors to a virtual display area in memory with much more resolution than the
`actual display, and reducing the scaling of the objects in the virtual display to how
`they will appear in the actual display, or (ii) by using a fixed reference frame
`corresponding to the client’s screen resolution and scaling and offsetting the
`vectors’s bounding boxes relative to the fixed frame. Id. at col. 19, ll. 39-56.
`Using the latter approach, respective offsets in X and Y (-∆X and -∆Y) are applied
`to the starting point and the vectors are scaled by an amount SF, producing a new
`datum (starting point) for each bounding box relative to the rendered page datum,
`which remains fixed, but may, or may not, be displayed depending on the offset
`and scaling. Id. at col. 19, l. 58 - col. 20, l. 17. Once the bounding boxes are offset
`and scaled, the content (e.g., image and text) corresponding to objects having at
`least a part of their bounding boxes on the screen is retrieved from the client
`device’s display list and scaled. Id. at col. 20, ll. 18-44. A display limit bounding
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`box defines the portion of the display screen that actually will be used to display
`content. Id. at col. 19, l. 58 - col. 20, l. 7. The portions of the scaled content
`falling within the display limit bounding box are rendered on the client’s display
`device. Id. at col. 20, ll. 45-47.
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`Apparatus claims 1 and 36, which are illustrative, are shown below.
`1. A wireless device comprising:
`processing means;
`wireless communications means, to facilitate wireless communication with a
`network that supports access to the Internet;
` a display;
` a memory; and
` storage means, in which a plurality of instructions are stored that when
`executed by the processing means enable the wireless device to perform
`operations including,
` rendering a browser interface via which a user is enabled to request
`access to an original Web page, the Web page comprising HTML-
`based Web content having an original format defining an original
`width and height of the Web page and an original page layout,
`functionality, and design of content on the Web page;
` in response to a user request to access the Web page, retrieving the Web
`page via the wireless communication means, and translating at least a
`portion of the HTML-based Web content from its original format into
`scalable content that supports a scalable resolution-independent
`representation of the Web page that preserves the original page layout,
`functionality and design of the content defined by its original format
`when scaled and rendered; and
` scaling the scalable content to render the Web page on the display such
`that a width of the Web page is rendered to fit across the display.
`
`
`Claim 33 further limits the scalable content of claim 1 to vector based
`content. Claim 118 is a method claim limited to operations, which generally
`correspond to the operations performed by the apparatus recited in claim 1.
`
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`36. A mobile hand-held device, comprising:
`a processor,
`a wireless communications device, to facilitate wireless communication with
`a network that supports access to the Internet;
`a display; and
`flash memory, operatively coupled to the processor, in which a plurality of
`instructions are stored that when executed by the processor enable the
`mobile hand-held device to perform operations including,
` rendering a browser interface via which a user is enabled to request
`access to a Web page comprising HTML based Web content defining
`an original page layout, functionality, and design of content on the
`Web page;
` retrieving the Web page via the wireless communications device, and
`processing HTML-based Web content to produce scalable content;
`and
` employing at least one of the scalable content or data derived therefrom
`to,
` render the Web page on the display; and
` re-render the display in response to associated user inputs to enable
`the Web page to be browsed at various zoom levels and panned
`views while preserving the original page layout, functionality, and
`design of the Web page content at each zoom level and panned
`view.
`
`
`Claim 43 limits the scalable content recited in claim 36 to vector-based
`content. Claim 48 limits claim 36 to enabling a user to zoom on a column of the
`web content, such that the display is re-rendered to fit across the display. Claim 51
`similarly limits claim 36 when the selected content is an image. Claim 52 limits
`claim 51 to selecting the image by tapping the display. Claim 66 limits claim 36 to
`preserving aspects of the web page design that are defined by cascaded style
`sheets.
`Claim 149, which is drawn to a method, and claim 252, which is drawn to a
`machine readable medium, both recite limitations which generally correspond to
`the operations recited in claim 36. Claim 183 limits the method in claim 149 to
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`vector-based content and claim 283 limits the machine readable medium in claim
`252 to vector-based content.
`Claim 58, which depends from apparatus claim 36, recites additional
`operations including parsing HTML-based code and logically grouping selected
`content into objects. Method claim 138, which depends from claim 118, recites
`similar parsing and logical grouping features. Claim 59, which depends from
`claim 58, and claim 139, which depends from method claim 138, recite generating
`a bounding box.
`Independent claim 317 recites a hand-held device comprising a variety of the
`features recited in the claims discussed above.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`As discussed in our our Decision to Institute, we construed the claim terms
`as the Petitioner represented they were construed by the district court in co-
`pending litigation,SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00389-LPS (D.
`Del.). Dec. to Institute, Paper 11, 20-22. A dispute concerning the meaning of
`another term, i.e., “preserve[s] an original page layout, functionality and design,”
`(“the preserving limitation”) emerged after the Patent Owner Response argued in
`this proceeding and in IPR2013-00004 that this claim feature recites a major
`distinction over the art cited in Petitioner’s challenges. PO Resp. 2.
`We authorized briefing concerning the proper construction of the preserving
`limitation in this proceeding and in IPR2013-00004, which concerns U.S. Patent
`No. 7,831,926 B1 (the ’926 Patent) that has a common specification with the ’353
`Patent. Petitioner filed the same claim construction brief in each proceeding.
`Patent Owner filed essentially the same claim construction brief in each
`proceeding. Neither party argued that the preserving limitation should be
`construed differently in IPR2013-00004 and IPR2013-00007. We thoroughly
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`addressed the construction of the preserving limitation in IPR2013-00004 and
`determined that the preserving limitation should be construed to mean maintains
`the features of the web page’s capabilities and appearances in a manner consistent
`with the translated portion of HTML code defining those capabilities and
`appearances. IPR2013-00004, Final Written Decision. Neither Petitioner nor
`Patent Owner argued that the preserving limitation should be construed differently
`in this proceeding. As discussed below, the construction we adopted in IPR2013-
`00004 concerning the ’926 Patent applies to the claims of the ’353 Patent as well.
`Patent Owner argues that the original page layout, functionality, and design
`that must be preserved is the layout “as viewed on a conventional desktop
`browser.” See, Patent Owner’s Supplemental Claim Construction Brief (Paper 37),
`2-3. Petitioner argues that “what is being preserved is the layout of the webpage
`after it has been processed by the browser.” See, Petitioner’s Supplemental Claim
`Construction Brief (Paper 36). Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent
`with statements made by Patent Owner during prosecution of the’353 Patent, that:
`With respect to the scope of the terminology “preserving the [overall
`layout, functionality and] design” of the content, this refers to
`preserving the design as interpreted by the browser while at different
`zoom levels and panned views as opposed to rendering the content
`identically to how it is rendered by a particular desktop browser that
`may interpret the page design differently..
`
`Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1002, 233). In a footnote on page 233, Patent Owner noted that
`differences in page interpretation generally will be a function of the browser’s
`rendering engine (a.k.a. layout engine). Ex. 1002, 233 n.8.
`We do not adopt either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed
`constructions. Patent Owner’s construction introduces uncertainty because the
`claims do not refer to a conventional desktop browser, and the proposed
`construction does not define a conventional desktop browser. Patent Owner agrees
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`that, using the same HTML code, different browsers produce different displays,
`Ex. 1002, p. 229-316, but argues that preserving the look and feel of the web site,
`as rendered on a desktop browser, is sufficient. See, Tr. 51-61. At the oral
`hearing, Patent Owner argued that “you need to preserve the look and feel so that a
`person using the web page would understand that that was the same web page as
`the one that they were using in connection with a desktop computer.” Id. at 60-61.
`Due to uncertainty regarding the scope of differences that would be permissible on
`the target device browser, while maintaining the look and feel as rendered by a
`conventional desktop browser, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction provides no more insight than the current “preserving” claim
`language.
`Petitioner’s construction requires that the zoomed version reproduce the
`layout of the page as initially displayed, but places no requirements on processing
`performed by the browser’s initial rendering of the web page, and does not
`recognize a relationship between the web page as displayed and the HTML
`defining its format.
`
`                                                            
`6 The ’353 and ’926 Patents have the same specification. During prosecution of
`the ’353 Patent, Patent Owner noted that,
`[e]ven when rendering the same Web page source content (i.e., the
`HTML code definition of the web page), conventional web browsers
`may not render the (non-scaled) Web page identically. Scaling Web
`pages may also result in alteration of the page layout . . . [h]owever, . .
`. the overall layout, functionality and appearance (design) of the
`scaled Web pages defined by the HTML code for the Web page are
`preserved . . . . Preserving functionality generally pertains to
`preserving the interoperability of various HTML-based Web page
`content, such as hyperlinks and UI [user interface] controls such as
`input forms defined via corresponding HTML-based code. Ex. 1002,
`231.
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`As previously noted, the parties do not argue a different claim construction
`should apply in the ’353 Patent and the ’926 Patent, which is the subject of
`IPR2013-00004, and which we decide contemporaneously with this proceeding.
`We explained our construction of the preserving limitation in detail in our Final
`Written Decision in IPR2013-00004. We agree that the same construction should
`apply to the preserving limitation in the ’353 Patent. The preserving limitation in
`claim 1 recites:
`a scalable resolution-independent representation of the Web page that
`preserves the original page layout, functionality and design of the
`content defined by its original format when scaled and rendered
`
`As an antecedent to the disputed “preserving limitation,” claim 1 recites that
`the claimed wireless device [mobile phone in the ’926 Patent] can render a browser
`interface that enables a user to request access to a web page “comprising HTML-
`based web content having an original format defining an original width and height
`of the Web page and an original page layout, functionality and design of content on
`the Web page.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Claim 1 also recites “translating at least a
`portion of the HTML-based Web content from its original format into scalable
`content that supports a scalable resolution-independent representation of the Web
`page that preserves the original page layout, functionality, and design of the
`content defined by its original format when scaled and rendered.” Thus, claim 1
`does not recite preserving the entire layout, functionality, and design, but only the
`original layout, functionality, and design that corresponds to the translated portion
`of the HTML-based web content.
`Claim 1 is not limited to a vector based representation. Claim 1 recites only
`a representation that preserves an original Web page layout, functionality and
`design when scaled and rendered as defined by at least a portion of the HTML-
`based web content. Claim 1 cannot be interpreted to preserve a particular
`11 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`conventional desktop layout because claim 1 does not recite what portion of the
`HTML-based web content that defines the conventional desktop layout is scaled
`and rendered. Construing the claim broadly, a portion of the HTML-based content
`could be scaled and rendered that would preserve only some features of the
`original layout, function, and design, as viewed on a conventional desktop.7 While
`preserving the original layout, functionality, and design of the translated portion of
`the HTML-based content, the web page rendered on the claimed device may, or
`may not, appear as it would on a conventional desktop, depending upon what
`portion of the HTML-based content is translated.
`The “preserving limitation” in claim 36 recites:
`employing at least one of the scalable content or data derived
`therefrom to, render the Web page on the display; and re-render the
`display . . . to enable the Web page to be browsed at various zoom
`levels and panned views while preserving an original page layout,
`functionality, and design of the Web page content at each zoom level
`and panned view.
`
`Thus, claim 36 recites two renderings. The first rendering of the Web page
`on the display of the mobile device employs the scalable content, and is not limited
`to one that preserves the original page layout, function, and design. Claim 36
`includes a “retrieving limitation” that recites retrieving the web page, which
`comprises HTML-based content defining an original page layout, functionality,
`and design. Although the remainder of the retrieving limitation recites “processing
`HTML-based Web content to produce scalable content,” it does not recite what
`HTML-based Web content is processed. Specifically, the retrieving limitation
`recites processing HTML based Web content generally, and does not recite
`
`                                                            
`7 As discussed further herein, Patent Owner criticizes the prior art references as
`primitive devices that implement only a portion of available HTML capabilities.
`12 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`processing the previously recited “HTML based Web content defining an original
`page layout, functionality, and design of content on the Web page.”
`The second rendering recited in claim 36 is a re-rendering of the display. As
`discussed above, the display of the Web page in the first rendering is not limited to
`one that preserves the original layout, functionality and design of the Web page.
`The re-rendering provides zooming, while preserving the original page layout,
`functionality, and design of the Web page content at each zoom level. This is
`possible only to the extent that the scalable content was produced from HTML
`based Web content that was processed, as recited in the retrieving limitation.
`In consideration of the language of the claims of the ’353 Patent, the
`language of the claim of the ’926 Patent, as discussed in our Final Written
`Decision in IPR2013-00004, and the parties’ contentions that the preserving
`limitation be construed to have the same meaning in the ’353 and ’926 Patents, we
`apply the same construction in both patents. Thus, as previously noted, we
`construe the preserving limitation to mean, maintains the features of the web
`page’s capabilities and appearances in a manner consistent with the translated
`portion of HTML code defining those capabilities and appearances.
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`Grounds Based on Zaurus and Pad++
`Claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 58, 59, 66, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252, and 283
`Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus, i.e., a wireless device. Patent Owner notes
`that claim 118 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Claim 36 is
`also drawn to an apparatus, i.e., a mobile hand-held device. PO Resp. 18. Patent
`Owner notes that claims 149 and 252 are method and machine readable medium
`claims that correspond to apparatus claim 36. Id. None of these claims is limited
`to a vector-based system. Claim 33, which depends from claim 1, claim 183,
`
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`which depends from claim 149, and claim 282, which depends from claim 252,
`recite vector-based content. Patent Owner argues that claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 58, 59,
`66, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252, and 283 would not have been obvious over the
`combination of Zaurus and Pad++ based on the preserving limitation.8
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int'l Co.
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved
`on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and
`the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with the
`above-stated principles. We also recognize that prior art references must be
`“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour,
`571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not
`only specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled
`in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d
`825, 826 (CCPA 1968). That is because an obviousness analysis “need not seek
`out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`                                                            
`8 Patent owner does not present separate arguments concerning claim 66, for which
`trial was instituted based on the combination of Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG.
`14 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d, 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`As we discussed above under Claim Construction, the ’353 Patent describes
`as conventional the use of HTML to specify the layout, design, and function of a
`web page. The ’353 Patent also describes the zoom and pan capabilities of the
`simple vector format (SVF, also referred to as “vectorized content”) as known in
`the CAD art and under consideration by the World Wide Web Consortium for
`adoption as a standard for vector content on the web. Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 57 – col.
`5, l. 6. Patent Owner’s expert states that the invention claimed in the ’353 Patent
`(and the ’926 Patent) is “directed toward a browser that extends the web to mobile
`devices by supporting full-page browsing with zoom and pan, using for example,
`SVF (Simple Vector Format) to describe web content. ’926 Patent, col. , ll. 35-
`45.” Reinman Decl., Ex. 2003 ¶ 9. Although Patent Owner disputes whether the
`evidence supports a combination of Bederson’s description of Pad++ with Zaurus,
`there appears to be little dispute that Bederson discloses vectorized content. PO
`Resp. 34.
`In view of Patent Owner’s arguments, our analysis of the claims turns on
`whether the Zaurus and Bederson references can be combined, and whether that
`combination of references renders the “preserving limitation” obvious, i.e.,
`whether it would have been obvious to maintain the features of the page’s
`capabilities and appearances in a manner consistent with the translated portion of
`HTML code defining those capabilities and appearances.
`The Zaurus PDA
`We begin our consideration of the scope and content of the prior art with
`Zaurus. Zaurus discloses extending the web to a mobile, handheld device with a
`small screen. Ex. 1004, 652 -54. As discussed in our Decision to Institute, Zaurus
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`is a handheld PDA with a wireless communication means to access web content
`(when used with a digital cellular phone adapter). Dec. to Institute, 23. Zaurus
`includes a processor to render a browser (with limitations), and provides vertical
`and horizontal scrolling and magnified and reduced views of web pages. Id.
`Zaurus includes a touch sensitive screen and a browser that has the ability to
`process HTML-based content up to HTML 3.2, but does not have the ability to
`render multiple frames properly. Ex. 1004, 105, 127-8. The ’353 Patent notes that
`web pages may be provided as a single frame or multiple frames. Ex. 1001, col.15,
`ll. 33-36. Zaurus does not ignore multiple frames in web pages. In Zaurus, pages
`composed of multiple frames are viewed by displaying them frame by frame. Ex.
`1004, 105, 638. The frame is selected using a touch screen, so that the selected
`frame is displayed. Ex. 1004, 647.
`Patent Owner argues that HTML is limited to anything that preserves the
`layout, functionality, and design and “excludes things like active scripting.” Tr.
`67. Zaurus also discloses differences in the ways its browser processes certain
`HTML content, for example using a smaller number of font sizes. Ex. 1004, 639.
`Patent Owner recognized such browser font limitations during prosecution of the
`related ’353 Patent stating “the Web page’s design is a matter of interpretation by
`the particular browser . . . browsers may substitute fonts for fonts (as defined by
`corresponding HTML code) that are not supported by the browser.” Ex. 1002,
`233. Zaurus’s ability to default to a standard font size, if the HTML data does not
`specify a size, further indicates that Zaurus incorporates a browser that recognizes
`HTML-based information used to define web site design features. Ex. 1004, 640.
`The inability of Zaurus to render properly web pages using certain plug-ins and
`scripts, or to implement a full complement of HTML features, does not mean
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00007; IPR2013-000256
`Patent 7,461,353 B2
` 
` 
`Zaurus cannot be applicable as prior art that teaches implementing HTML on a
`handheld, mobile device, such as a phone.9
`Zaurus discloses the ability to switch from a reduced view to a magnified
`view, as well as a left and right scrolling control and a vertical scrolling bar, to
`view material not currently on the screen. Ex. 1004, 641, 644-45. Zaurus provides
`hyperlink functionality, Ex. 1004, 94, 608, but is silent on whether it maintains
`hyperlink functionality in a magnified display. Zaurus also discloses that by
`touching the screen one can display a list of web pages opened after connection to
`the Internet and switching to a selected page. Ex. 1004, 644. Zaurus further
`discloses compatibility with client side clickable maps, so that by clicking inside a
`displayed map, one can jump to the page which corresponds to that portion. Ex.
`1004, 638. Thus, Zaurus discloses a system that maintains the primary features of
`a page’s appearance in a manner consistent with the portion of HTML code that
`the Zaurus browser uses. To the extent that the browser in Zaurus provides a
`limited implementation of HTML, Zaurus preserves the layout and design of the
`web p