Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 53
`Date Entered: March 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00004
`Case IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 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 IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`On March 29, 2013, in Paper 12, the Board entered a Decision to Institute an
`inter partes review on the following challenges raised by Kyocera Corporation to
`the patentability of claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, and 75 (Challenged
`Claims) of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,926 B2 (the ’926 Patent) owned by Softview
`LLC (“Patent Owner”):
`
`Challenged Claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination
`of Zaurus1, Pad++2, and SVF3; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Specification for the Simple Vector Format v. 1.1, Jan. 16, 1995; New CAD
`System Works With AutoCAD Drawings Without Translation,” June 17, 1996,
`retrieved from:
`http://web.archive.org/webI19961019052917/http://soft:source.cominet
`PX 1009 news.html ; “Bring New CAD Viewing Power to the Internet,” Mar. 4,
`1996, retrieved
`from:http://web.archive.org/webI19961019052917/http://softsource.cominet
`news.html, (collectively, “SVF”), Ex. 1009
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`Challenged Claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination
`of Zaurus, Hara4, Tsutsumitake5, and SVG6.
`
`IPR2013-00257, brought by Motorola Mobility LLC, raised the same
`challenges and later was joined to this proceeding. IPR2013-00257, Paper 10.
`Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility are referred to collectively as
`“Petitioner.”
`On July 19, 2013, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response. (“PO
`Resp.,” Paper 25). On September 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a Consolidated Reply
`to Patent Owner’s Response. (“Petitioner’s Reply,” Paper 28). On November 22,
`2013, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. (“Mot. to Exclude,” Paper 42). An
`oral hearing was held on January 7, 2014, concurrent with the oral hearing in
`related consolidated proceeding, IPR2013-00007/IPR2013-00256, 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 claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, and 75 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVF. Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude is denied.
`
`THE ’926 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`As indicated by its title, the ’926 Patent is drawn to the scalable display of
`Internet content, e.g., Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)-based content,
`
`4 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H10-326169 (“Hara”),
`Ex. 1008
`5 Japanese Laid Open Patent Application H10-21224 (“Tsutsumitake”), Ex. 1005
`6 Ferraiolo, Jon, Scalable Vector Graphics Requirements: W3C Working Group
`Draft, Oct. 29, 1998. (“SVG”), Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`cascade style sheets (CSS), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) on mobile
`devices, by enabling the content to be rendered, zoomed, and panned for better
`viewing on small screens and standard monitors. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 32-43, col. 5.
`ll. 11-15. Patent Owner’s expert describes the ’926 Patent and related patent, U.S.
`Patent No. 7,461,353 (“the ’353 Patent”),7 as “being 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. 4:35-45.” Declaration of Glenn Reinman (Reinman Decl.), Ex.
`2003 ¶ 9. According to the ’926 Patent, a client side viewer receiving Internet
`content has an Internet browser and uses the simple vector format (SVF) originally
`designed to handle common computer-aided design (CAD) file formats to describe
`the current web content. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 35-49. 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).
`The ’926 Patent describes the logic used by the invention when translating
`content into a scalable vector representation. Id. at col. 3, ll. 40-42, Fig. 5. 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
`
`7 The ’353 patent is the subject of co-pending IPR2013-00007.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`page layout is built using bounding boxes produced for each object. Id. at col. 16,
`ll. 19-38, col. 17, ll. 15-29. The ’926 Patent acknowledges that the above steps
`commonly are performed by conventional browsers in the pre-rendering process,
`but indicates that the disclosed use of layout data generated in the pre-rendering
`process to generate a scalable vector representation of the original page content
`departs from the prior art. Id. at col. 17, ll. 30-45.
`The ’926 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
`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
`then is 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 from
`the frame datum to each object in the frame. Id. at col. 18, ll. 5-16. The scalable
`vector representation is then 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 computer aided design (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 by (i) 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’ bounding boxes relative to the fixed frame. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`at col. 19, ll. 39-57. Using the latter approach, respective offsets in X and Y (-ΔX
`and -ΔY) 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 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
`Independent claims 30 and 52, which are illustrative, are shown below:
`30. A mobile phone, comprising:
`a processor,
`wireless communications means operatively coupled to the processor, to
`facilitate communication with a mobile service provider network via
`which Web content may be accessed;
`a touch-sensitive display;
`a memory, operatively coupled to the processor; and
`storage means, operatively coupled to the processor, in which a plurality of
`instructions are stored that when executed by the processor enable the
`mobile phone to perform operations including,
`rendering a browser interface via which a user is enabled to request to
`access to a Web page having an original format comprising HTML-
`based content defining an original page layout, functionality, and
`design of content on the Web page;
`retrieving HTML-based content associated with the Web page;
`translating at least a portion of the HTML-based content from its original
`format to produce translated content including scalable vector-based
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`content that supports a scalable resolution-independent representation
`of the HTML-based content that preserves an original page layout,
`functionality and design of the at least a portion of the HTML-based
`content when scaled and rendered; and
`employing the scalable vector-based content to render a view of at least a
`portion of the Web page on the display using a first scale factor,
`wherein preservation of the functionality defined by the HTML-based
`content includes preservation of hyperlink functionality.
`
`
`52. A mobile device comprising:
`a processor;
`wireless communications means, to facilitate wireless communication with a
`network via which Web content may be accessed;
`a touch-sensitive display;
`flash memory, operatively coupled to the processor, in which a plurality of
`instructions are stored that when executed by the processor enable the
`mobile 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 and processing the HTML-based Web content to produce
`scalable content; and
`employing the scalable content and/or data derived therefrom to,
`render a view of the Web page on the touch-sensitive display; and
`re-render the Web page in response to associated user inputs to enable
`the user to iteratively zoom in and out views of the Web page
`while preserving an original page layout, functionality, and design
`defined by the HTML-based Web content as interpreted by a
`rendering engine,
`wherein preservation of the functionality defined by the HTML-based
`Web content includes preservation of hyperlink functionality.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`As discussed in 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. 10-389-LPS (D. Del.). Dec. to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`Institute (Paper 12), 19-20. A dispute concerning the meaning of another term, i.e.,
`“preserve[s] an original page layout, functionality and design,” emerged after the
`Patent Owner Response argued that this claim feature recites a major distinction
`over the art cited in Petitioner’s challenges. PO Resp. (Paper 25) 2. In claim
`construction briefing authorized by the Board, Patent Owner argues that the
`original page layout, functionality, and design that must be preserved means “as
`viewed on a conventional desktop browser.” See, Patent Owner’s Supplement
`Claim Construction Brief. Paper 38. Petitioner argues that “what is being
`preserved is the layout of the webpage after it has been processed by the browser.”
`See, Petitioner’s Supplement Claim Construction Brief. Paper 37. Petitioner’s
`proposed construction is consistent with statements made by Patent Owner during
`prosecution of the related ’353 Patent, which is the subject of IPR2013-00007,
`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.
`
`
`IPR2013-00007, Ex. 1002, 233. In a footnote, Patent Owner noted that differences
`in page interpretation will be generally a function of the browser’s rendering
`engine (a.k.a. layout engine). Id.
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`that, using the same HTML code, different browsers produce different displays,
`see, IPR2013-00007, Ex. 1002, 229-31,8 but during the final hearing, argued that
`preserving the look and feel of the website 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 a web page would
`understand that that was the same web page as the one that they were using in
`connection with a desktop computer.” Tr. 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.
`
`
`8 The ’353 and ’926 Patents have the same specification. During prosecution of
`the ’353 Patent, Patent Owner noted that,
`“Even 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. . . . However,
`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.
`IPR2013-00007, Ex. 1002, 231.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`We begin our claim construction analysis with the language of the claims.
`The “preserving limitation” in claim 30 recites:
`
` a
`
` scalable resolution-independent representation of the
`HTML-based content that preserves an original page
`layout, functionality and design of the at least a portion
`of the HTML-based content when scaled and rendered
`(Emphasis added)
`
`As an antecedent to the disputed “preserving limitation,” claim 30 recites
`that the claimed mobile phone can render a browser interface that enables a user to
`request access to a “web page having an original format comprising HTML-based
`content defining an original page layout, functionality and design of content on the
`Web page.” Ex. 1001, claim 30. Claim 30 next recites “translating at least a
`portion of the HTML-based content” from its original format into “translated
`content including scalable vector-based content that supports a scalable resolution-
`independent representation of the HTML-based content that preserves an original
`page layout, functionality and design of the at least a portion of the HTML-based
`content when scaled and rendered.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, claim 30 does
`not recite preserving the entire or layout, functionality, and design, but only that
`original layout, functionality, and design that corresponds to the translated portion
`of the HTML-based content.
`The “portion of the HTML-based content” in claim 30 corresponds to the
`disclosure relating to Figure 6, in which the HTML retrieved corresponds to
`objects whose bounding boxes at least partially fall within the display bounding
`box. However, claim 30 is not limited to the embodiment illustrated in the
`specification. Claim 30 recites only a representation that preserves an original
`page layout, functionality and design when scaled and rendered of the at least a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`portion of the HTML-based content. Claim 30 cannot be interpreted to preserve a
`particular conventional desktop layout because claim 30 does not recite what
`portion of the HTML-based content that defines the conventional desktop layout is
`scaled and rendered. Construing the claim broadly, but reasonably, 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.9 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 52 recites:
`employing the scalable content…to render a view of the
`Web page on the touch sensitive display and re-render
`the Web page…to iteratively zoom in and out views of
`the Web page while preserving an original page layout,
`functionality, and design defined by the HTML based
`Web content as interpreted by a rendering engine.
`
`Thus, claim 52 recites two renderings. The first rendering of a view of the
`Web page is not limited to one that preserves the original page layout, function,
`and design. The re-rendering or scaled view preserves the original layout,
`function, and design defined by the HTML content as interpreted by a rendering
`engine, such as one in the client device. Ex. 1001, col. 5 -6. Claim 52 does not
`recite that the rendering engine renders a layout, function, and design that
`conforms to one as viewed on a conventional desktop, or rendered by a
`conventional desktop browser.
`
`
`9 As discussed further herein, Patent Owner criticizes the prior art references as
`primitive devices that implement only a portion of available HTML capabilities.
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`As previously discussed, the ’926 Patent describes the relationships between
`a web page and HTML. Ex. 1001, col. 7.ll. 27-60. In HTML, tags define the
`layout and display information for a web page, including tables, paragraph
`boundaries, graphic image positions and bounding box sizes, type face styles,
`sizes, and colors, borders, and other presentation attributes. Id. at col. 7, ll. 47-52,
`col. 15, ll.19-32. A pre-rendering parsing of the HTML document is performed to
`determine where to place various objects on the display page. Id. at col. 15, ll. 48-
`50. Some objects, such as plain text, are rendered immediately, while other
`objects, such as graphic images must be retrieved before being fully rendered. Id.
`at col. 15, ll. 57-60. A web page may have all its information in a single frame, or
`may contain multiple frames as shown in Figure 4, which has adjacent frames 212
`and 214. Id. at col. 7, ll. 33-37, col.12, ll. 21-22. When multiple frames are
`present, they are processed sequentially, and objects are rendered in their
`respective positions. Id. at col. 15, ll. 52-58. As the primary HTML is parsed,
`content that should logically appear together, for example within a substantially
`rectangular outline, is grouped into objects, while other content, such as headlines,
`user interface objects, and graphic layout objects are identified, so that a page
`layout is built by defining a bounding box for each object. Id. at col 8, ll. 19-39,
`col. 16. ll. 19-38. The page layout is generated in conjunction with defining the
`bounding boxes, so that the location of an object is based on the location of other
`related and non-related objects. Id. at col. 16, ll. 19 - col. 17, l. 4. -.
`The ’926 Patent describes all of the above functions as commonly performed
`by conventional browsers during a pre-rendering process, and at least in the case of
`the Mozilla browser, by the Mozilla rendering engine. Id. at col. 17, ll. 31-41.
`Claim 30 recites preserving the original layout, function, and design of the at
`least a portion of the HTML-based content (which defines the original layout,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`function, and design). Claim 52 recites preserving the original function, layout,
`and design defined by the HTML-based content in the re-rendering as interpreted
`by the browser’s rendering engine. In both cases, the preservation of the original
`layout, function, and design turns on what elements of the HTML are translated to
`be interpreted by the browser, rather than the how that HTML is viewed on a
`desktop. Therefore, 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.
`Our construction is consistent with the claims and the objectives of the
`invention, as described in the ’926 Patent specification. Both claims 30 and 52
`recite that an original layout, function, and design of a web page is defined by
`HTML-based content. There is no dispute with the statement in the ’926 Patent
`that HTML is a standardized language that describes the layout of content on a
`web page and attributes of the content. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 45-60. Our
`construction of preserving capabilities and appearances consistent with the
`translated portion of the HTML is consistent with the limitation in claim 30 that
`concerns “the at least a portion of the HTML-based content” and the limitation in
`claim 52 that recites, “as interpreted by the browser.” The Background of the
`Invention notes that fixed resolution Web pages used for displaying Internet
`content designed for desktop computers present a technical problem for displaying
`Internet content on small screens in hand held devices. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14-28. The
`Summary of the Invention states that the claimed mobile devices employ novel
`processing of original Web content, including HTML-based content, to generate
`scalable content, which is then employed to enable the Web content to be rapidly
`rendered, zoomed, and panned. Id. at col 2, ll. 32-41. The specification is silent on
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`how closely the rendered content should match the web page as viewed on a
`conventional desktop.
`
`ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART CHALLENGES
`Obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVF
`Claims 30 and 52
`A patent 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 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 ’926 Patent describes,
`as conventional, the use of HTML to specify the layout, design, and function of a
`web page. The ’926 Patent also describes the zoom and pan capabilities of 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, ll. 49-65. Patent Owner’s expert
`states that the invention claimed in 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. 4:35-45.” Reinman Decl., Ex. 2003 ¶ 9. Although
`Patent Owner disputes whether the evidence supports a combination of Bederson’s
`description of Pad++ with Zaurus, with or without SVF, there appears to be little
`dispute that Bederson discloses vectorized content. PO Resp. 34.
`In view of Patent Owner’s arguments our analysis of claims 30 and 52 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 is 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
`is a handheld PDA with a wireless communication means to access web content
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`(when used with a digital cellular phone adapter). Dec. to Institute, Paper 12, 22.
`Zaurus includes a processor to render a browser (with limitations), 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 ’926 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.
`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.” IPR2013-
`00007, 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926 B2
`
`
`features, does not mean Zaurus cannot be applicable as prior art that teaches
`implementing HTML on a handheld, mobile device, such as a phone.10
`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. Id. at 644. Zaurus further discloses
`compatibility with client side clickable maps, so that by clicking inside a displayed
`map, one can jump to the page that corresponds to that portion. Id. at 638. Thus,
`Zaurus discloses a system that maintains the primary features of the 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 page
`defined by at least a portion of the HTML-based content (claim 30) and as
`rendered by its rendering engine (claim 52).
`During the oral hearing, Patent Owner argued that under its proposed
`construction, which we do not adopt, the “preserving limitation” in the claims
`
`10 The ’926 Patent defines an HTML document as any document that contains web
`page content other than only g