IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Patent of: Peter S. Wilens
`U.S. Patent No.: 5,779,566
`Issue Date:
`
`July 14, 1998
`Appl. No.:
`
`08/392,280
`Filing Date:
` February 22, 1995
`Title:
`Handheld Golf Reporting and Statistical Analysis Apparatus
`and Method
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR CARL A. GUTWIN, Ph.D.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`
`I, Prof. Carl A. Gutwin, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`(1.) My name is Carl A. Gutwin, Ph.D. I am a Professor of Computer
`
`Science at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. I am also an
`
`Adjunct Professor of Computer Science at Queen’s University in Kingston,
`
`Canada. I have been a professor at the University of Saskatchewan since 1997.
`
`(2.)
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Computer Science from the University of Calgary in 1997. I received my Masters
`
`of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Computer Science from the University of
`
`Saskatchewan in 1991 and my Bachelors of Science (B.Sc.) degree in English
`
`Literature and Computer Science from the University of Saskatchewan in 1988.
`
`(3.) For more than 20 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`field of computer science and computer-human interaction (“CHI,” also known as
`
`1
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 1
`
`

`

`human-computer interaction (“HCI”)). My experience includes over 20 years of
`
`teaching and research, with interests in interface design, interaction techniques, and
`
`interactive systems organization, just to name a few.
`
`(4.)
`
`I have designed and implemented dozens of software systems that use
`
`interface and interaction elements that are utilized by the device described in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,779,566 (“the ‘566 patent”). Included among these are numerous
`
`systems developed as a student, since menu-based and screen-based systems were
`
`part of most course assignments and projects in the 1980s. In addition, over the
`
`course of my research career, I have also been involved in the development of
`
`several software systems that involve these interactive elements. For example, the
`
`Gemini training system (Gutwin, Jones, Brackett, and Adolphe 1995) involved
`
`user selection of screens of information, entry of user information into entry fields,
`
`and different paths through system content based on selections made by the user.
`
`The Kea keyphrase-extraction system (Witten, Paynter, Frank, Gutwin, and Nevill-
`
`Manning, 2004) provides functionality for the user to enter input data, and presents
`
`screens of information based on that user input. The KeyPhind system for creating
`
`and presenting a phrase-based index to a document collection (Gutwin, Paynter,
`
`Witten, Nevill-Manning, and Frank, 1999) provided input fields for user data and
`
`selection of screens of information based on user input. The RTChess system for
`
`multi-player chess (Gutwin, Barjawi, and Pinelle, 2012) provides pre-task, during-
`
`2
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 2
`
`

`

`task, and post-task screens of information, and allows users to specify data values
`
`during the pre-game screens. Although the interfaces of these systems are often
`
`graphical and mouse-based, they still contain the basic elements that are relevant to
`
`the ‘566 patent, such as selection and retrieval of content, presentation of screens
`
`of information, navigation through system content, entry of user data, and selection
`
`of values from sets of items.
`
`(5.) As an instructor of Computer Science courses (particularly courses in
`
`the design and development of user interfaces), I have developed several additional
`
`systems as educational demonstrations that use these interface and interaction
`
`elements. For example, I have developed menu-based systems that use key-based
`
`user input, systems that allow selection of one value from a list of items, systems
`
`that select content based on key input, and systems that present linear and non-
`
`linear sequences of information screens to the user. Finally, I note that I continue
`
`to employ many of the user interface design concepts generally described by the
`
`‘566 patent because they represent many of the widely utilized design elements
`
`common to menu-based and screen-based systems which, as I describe below in
`
`paragraphs 15-35, were ubiquitously well-known years prior to the filing of the
`
`‘566 patent.
`
`(6.)
`
`In 2012, I was inducted into the Association of Computer Machinery
`
`(“ACM”) CHI Academy, which is an honorary group of individuals who have
`
`3
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 3
`
`

`

`made substantial contributions to the field of computer-human interaction.
`
`Members of the CHI Academy are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts
`
`have shaped the discipline and/or industry, and lead research and/or innovation in
`
`CHI. I also regularly serve as a reviewer for 6 journals focusing on CHI, another 9
`
`conferences focusing on the same, and have held and continue to hold various
`
`chairman and committee positions within these organizations.
`
`(7.)
`
`I am the author or co-author of 3 book chapters and over 150 technical
`
`articles directed to computer-human interaction. Many of these publications
`
`highlight my familiarity with designing software applications using menu structure
`
`designs and functionality. Below is a list of my publications that are relevant to
`
`the interface and interaction elements discussed in the ‘566 patent:
`
`(1.)
`(Cockburn and Gutwin, 2010, “A Model of Novice and Expert
`Navigation Performance in Constrained-Input Interfaces”). This article
`examines and models user abilities when selecting items and navigating
`through screens of information using devices with limited key-based input.
`
`(2.)
`(Cockburn and Gutwin, 2009, “A Predictive Model of Human
`Performance with Scrolling and Hierarchical Lists”). This article examines
`and models user abilities when scrolling through lists of pre-determined
`items and selecting items from the list. Both key-based and mouse-based
`navigation and selection are considered.
`
`(3.)
`(Hill and Gutwin, 2004, “The MAUI Toolkit: Groupware Widgets for
`Group Awareness”). This article examined several basic interface widgets
`including entry fields and scrollable lists of items, and adapted these
`components to multi-user operation.
`
`(4.)
`(Gutwin, Paynter, Witten, Nevill-Manning, and Frank, 1999,
`“Improving Browsing in Digital Libraries with Keyphrase Indexes”). This
`4
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 4
`
`

`

`article developed a system for retrieving screens of information from
`memory using a keyphrase-based index. The index allowed the user to
`select items and enter data as part of the retrieval process.
`
`(5.)
`(Scarr, Cockburn, Gutwin, and Bunt, 2012, “Improving Command
`Selection with CommandMaps”). This article investigates how user
`selection of an item from a set of items can be improved with a new menu
`design that lays out items in a two-dimensional grid.
`
`(6.)
`(Tak, Scarr, Gutwin, and Cockburn, 2011, “Supporting Window
`Switching with Spatially Consistent Thumbnail Zones”). This article
`investigates methods for retrieving screens of information from memory, and
`mechanisms for the user to select a specific screen from a set.
`
`(7.)
`(Flatla and Gutwin, 2010, “Individual Models of Colour
`Differentiation”). This article develops a process for interactive testing of
`color vision, using a screen-based presentation, key-based entry of user
`information, and multiple paths through the calibration process based on
`user input.
`
`(8.)
`(Ahlstrom, Cockburn, Gutwin, and Irani, 2010, “Why it’s Quick to be
`Square: Modeling New and Existing Hierarchical Menu Designs”). This
`article explores user abilities in menu-based selection, using several menu
`designs.
`
`(9.)
`(Cechanowicz and Gutwin, 2009, “Augmented Interactions: Adding
`Expressive Power to GUI Widgets”). This article develops a method for
`analyzing the interaction capabilities of interface components such as
`scrollable lists, selection mechanisms, and navigation mechanisms for
`moving through screens of information.
`
`(10.) (Bateman, Gutwin, Osgood, and McCalla, 2009, “Interactive Usability
`Instrumentation”). This article develops techniques for collecting usage data
`from existing form-based screens that involve user selection, data entry,
`scrolling through lists of items, and navigation within a form.
`
`(11.) (Cockburn, Gutwin, and Greenberg, 2007, “A Predictive Model of
`Menu Performance”). This article investigated and modeled user abilities
`when selecting items from menu structures.
`
`
`5
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 5
`
`

`

`(12.) (Cockburn, Gutwin, and Alexander, 2006, “Faster Document
`Navigation with Space-Filling Thumbnails”). This article examined user
`abilities in selecting screens of information for retrieval from computer
`memory, using several different techniques including scrolling lists and grid
`presentations.
`
`(13.) (Irani, Gutwin, and Yang, 2006, “Improving Selection of Off-Screen
`Targets with Hopping”). This article investigated different techniques that
`allow a user to select an item from a set of items, where each selection
`retrieved a new screen of information from memory.
`
`(14.) (Gutwin and Cockburn, 2006, “Improving List Revisitation with
`ListMaps”). This article investigates mechanisms for allowing users to
`select an item from a set of items, and compares a scrolling list presentation
`to a novel grid-based presentation.
`
`(15.) (Levy and Gutwin, 2005, “Improving Understanding of Website
`Privacy Policies with Fine-Grained Policy Anchors”). This article develops
`a method for analyzing input forms and adding visual information about
`privacy restrictions to each input field in the form.
`
`(16.) (Dyck, Pinelle, Brown, and Gutwin, 2003, “Learning from Games:
`HCI Design Innovations in Entertainment Software”). This article examines
`and analyzes interaction capabilities in games, including key-based
`navigation controls.
`
`(17.) (Gutwin, Jones, Brackett, and Adolphe, 1995, “Bringing ITS to the
`Marketplace: A Successful Experiment in Minimalist Design”). This article
`developed a screen-based system for delivering training content; user
`interactions included selection of screens from memory, entry of data into
`entry fields, navigation through screens of information, and multiple paths
`through training content based on user input.
`
`(8.)
`
`I have also given over 20 invited lectures throughout the world on
`
`various CHI topics, including research related to user selections, navigation
`
`through system content, and menu design.
`
`6
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 6
`
`

`

`(9.) A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (C.V.) is attached to this
`
`declaration as Appendix A.
`
`II. Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`(10.) I have carefully reviewed the ‘566 patent as well as the application
`
`referenced in the section of the ‘566 patent entitled “Related U.S. Application
`
`Data.”
`
`(11.) For convenience, all of the information that I considered in arriving at
`
`my opinions is listed in Appendix B. Based on my review of these materials, I
`
`believe that the relevant field for purposes of the ‘566 patent is human computer
`
`interaction or computer human interaction. I have been informed that the relevant
`
`timeframe is on or before May 4, 1993.
`
`(12.) As described in Section I above and as shown in my CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in the field of computer science. Based on my experience, I
`
`have a good understanding of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe.
`
`III. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`
`
`
`(13.) I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of
`7
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 7
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ‘566 patent was effectively filed, was
`
`aware of and capable of designing key-based interactive systems using the well-
`
`known interface techniques discussed below in section IV.
`
`(14.) Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself at the time the patent was effectively filed.
`
`IV. Scientific Principles Underlying the ‘566 Patent
`
`(15.) The ‘566 patent claims common user interface design elements well
`
`known in the prior art, which the patentee simply applied to a handheld electronic
`
`golf computer of a type that was, itself, well known in the prior art. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known to apply the well-known and utilized
`
`design elements of key-based interactive systems, which I discuss next, to the
`
`electronic golf computers of the day to arrive at the invention claimed in the ‘566
`
`patent. The ‘566 patent offers nothing new, novel, or inventive that was not
`
`already known and, indeed, widely practiced, at the time the patent was originally
`
`filed.
`
`A.
`
`Brief Overview of Computing Systems pre-1990
`
`(16.) The computing milieu of the 1980s involved many different types of
`
`hardware and software systems. Computer hardware available at that time
`
`8
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 8
`
`

`

`included terminals connected to mainframes, key-based PCs (e.g., Apple II or IBM
`
`PC), mouse-based systems such as the Apple Macintosh, and several kinds of
`
`handheld computers such as enhanced calculators, miniature PCs, and game
`
`systems with only a few buttons for input. A wide range of software was available
`
`for these systems (in some cases built in to the device, and in some cases
`
`installable by the user), including office applications, games, financial calculation
`
`programs, operating-system software, personal information management
`
`applications, and many other types. For example, the Tandy Zoomer, introduced
`
`in 1992, represents one such miniature PC utilizing bi-directional up/down and
`
`left/right keys, and A and B buttons for input, along with touch panel input
`
`capabilities.
`
`(17.) When designed to support a set of user tasks – such as playing a
`
`game, calculating a tax return, or installing a program – these hardware and
`
`
`
`9
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 9
`
`

`

`software systems are called interactive systems. The research area of HCI or CHI
`
`– concerned with the design and evaluation of these interactive systems – was
`
`already well-established by the 1980s, with several academic conferences (e.g., the
`
`ACM CHI conference began in 1981) and numerous texts and guides for interface
`
`designers and developers.1
`
`B. Main Approaches to the Design of Interactive Systems
`
`(18.) There were three main ways that interactive systems were designed in
`
`the 1980s.2 Pointing-based systems used a graphical interface with a pointing
`
`device such as the mouse, allowing users to interact with on-screen elements such
`
`as windows and icons by pointing and clicking. Command-language systems
`
`provided only restricted interaction through a line-by-line interface; in these
`
`systems, users typed commands at a prompt, and were given textual output as
`
`results.
`
`                                                       
`1 See, e.g., Shneiderman, B., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective
`Human-Computer Interaction, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Chapters 2 and 3,
`1992 (Ex. 1014); Shneiderman, B., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction, First Edition, Addison-Wesley, Chapters 2
`and 3, 1987 (Ex. 1015); Coats, R., and Vlaeminke, I., Man-Computer Interfaces:
`An Introduction to Software Design and Implementation, Blackwell Scientific, §§
`3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1-7.6, 9.1-9.4, 9.7, 1987 (Ex. 1016).
`
` Ex. 1014 at chapters 3, 4, and 5; Ex. 1015 at chapters 3, 4, and 5. See also
`Downton, A., Engineering the Human-Computer Interface, McGraw-Hill, chapter
`4, 1991. (Ex. 1017).
`
` 2
`
`10
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 10
`
`

`

`(19.) The third approach, key-based systems, is the most relevant to the
`
`‘566 patent. Key-based systems provided either graphical or text-based interfaces,
`
`but did not have a pointing device, and instead used a keyboard or set of keys as
`
`the main input mechanism. Key-based systems have been used since the earliest
`
`days of interactive computing in the 1960s and this approach was still extremely
`
`common in the 1980s. It is used in all software for systems like the IBM PC and
`
`Apple II, as well as programs for handheld devices such as calculators or games.
`
`(20.) Designers of key-based systems had to address the following four
`
`design elements: (1) selection of commands or information items; (2) display of
`
`content; (3) within screen navigation and entry of user information; and (4)
`
`system-level navigation and organization of content. Thus, in practice, one of
`
`ordinary skill would have viewed the ‘566 patent as describing and claiming
`
`nothing more than a common handheld golf computer designed using routine
`
`programming techniques to address the four constraints above.
`
`(1.)
`
`Selection of Commands or Information Items
`
`(21.) Key-based systems generally present possible options to the user and
`
`need a way to allow the user to select from these options. Typical presentations of
`
`information for key-based systems include menus of commands or functions
`
`displayed on a screen, and lists of information items in scrolling windows. Typical
`
`selection mechanisms include typing a number or letter corresponding to a menu
`
`11
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 11
`
`

`

`item, and moving a selection indicator (e.g., a highlight box) from item to item
`
`using keys (e.g., arrow keys), and confirming the selection with another key (e.g.,
`
`the enter key). This general and well-known selection mechanism is the exact type
`
`described by the ‘566 patent.3
`
`(2.)
`
`Display of Content
`
`(22.) Interactive systems all display some type of content for the user, either
`
`as a result of a user selection or as a result of system calculations. In key-based
`
`systems of the 1980s, content was most often organized into “screens” – an amount
`
`of information that fit onto the available space of the video display terminal. Thus,
`
`when utilizing the limited displays of a handheld electronic device of the early
`
`1990s, in which a dozen or so lines of text could be presented to the user, the need
`
`to present information using a plurality of screens presented to the user in a logical
`
`sequence becomes readily apparent.4
`
`(23.) Thus, screens were used as an organizing principle in many areas of
`
`key-based systems. For example, text files, menu structures, and the output of
`
`calculations could all be divided into screens. Screen-based presentation was
`                                                       
`3 Ex. 1001 at 6:34 – 7:14.
`
` 4
`
` Shneiderman, Designing Menu Selection Systems, Journal of the Am. Soc. for
`Information Science, vol. 37, issue 2, pp. 57-70, 66 (March 1986). (Ex. 1018 at p.
`10). See also Ex. 1016 at § 7.3; Lickteig, C., Design Guidelines and Functional
`Specifications for Simulation of the Battlefield Management System’s (BMS) User
`Interface, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, pp.
`8-9, 1988. (Ex. 1019 at pp. 16-17).
`
`12
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 12
`
`

`

`extremely common for key-based systems, and most design resources provided
`
`guidelines of the appropriate layout and organization of screens.5 Organization of
`
`content into screens also has implication for user navigation both within a screen
`
`and between screens.
`
`(3.)
`
`Within-screen Navigation and Entry of User Information
`
`(24.) Many interactive systems ask the user to enter some type of data – for
`
`example, personal information to create a user profile, preference information to
`
`set up the system or, in the case of an electronic golf computer, data regarding the
`
`player’s performance on a given hole. Data entry in key-based systems is
`
`primarily textual, with the user entering information into interface components
`
`called fields that are organized into screens called forms.
`
`(25.) Entry fields can allow either free input or constrained input. Free
`
`input allows the user to type any characters into the field, whereas constrained
`
`input restricts the possible entries to a pre-defined set (e.g., the set of months as an
`
`input to a field in a calendar program). The ‘566 patent refers to constrained input
`
`as “screen-dependent input.”
`
`(26.) Constrained or screen-dependent input typically provides the possible
`
`entry values in a list-based presentation, with an input mechanism for navigating
`
`between data input fields, scrolling through the values available for each data input
`
`                                                       
`5 See, e.g., Ex. 1016 at chapter 7.
`
`13
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 13
`
`

`

`field, and selecting a data input value. As described above in paragraph 19, this
`
`was typically accomplished by utilizing a set of arrow keys (which the ‘566 patent
`
`calls tab and scroll keys) to tab through data input fields in a pre-defined order (by
`
`using, e.g., the left/right arrow keys) and, for each data input field, using the arrow
`
`keys (e.g., the up/down arrow keys) to scroll through available data input values
`
`for each specific data input field. For example, a user name could be entered by
`
`selecting individual letters from a scrolling list of the letters a-z and/or numbers 0-
`
`9, as seen in many game systems. One way of conceptualizing and implementing
`
`this type of data input is through a rotating “rolodex” of data input values available
`
`for a given data input field. As the user either rotates forwards or backwards
`
`through the “rolodex,” the device will scroll through and display available data
`
`inputs for that specific data field. This concept is illustrated in U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,879,648 to Cochran et al (“Cochran”).6
`
`(27.) Not only is this type of within-screen navigation and data entry of
`
`information utilized by the prior art discussed below in section VII, including
`
`Vanden Heuvel, GameBoy, Ultra Golf, and PGA Tour Golf, anyone who has
`
`programmed a VCR in the last 30 years is quite familiar with this type of menu
`
`design. For instance, the 1990 Sony VCR uses this exact type of screen-based
`
`design with constrained or screen-dependent data input via various entry keys
`
`                                                       
`6 See Cochran at 5:33-54; 8:31-55, FIG. 3. (Ex. 1020).
`14
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 14
`
`

`

`(including a menu key), and two sets of directional or arrow keys. Pressing the
`
`menu key (comparable to the “first key means” of claim 1 of the ‘566 patent)
`
`brings up the menu screen at which the user selects from a number of fields, each
`
`pre-populated with associated data.7 On the Sony VCR, those fields include “Auto
`
`Menu,” “Timer Set/Check,” “Tuner Preset,” and “Clock Set.”8 To set an automatic
`
`TV recording for instance, the user uses the directional keys to move the cursor to
`
`the “Timer Set/Check” field. The user then presses the enter or execute key, which
`
`brings up the “Timer Set/Check” field screen.9 At the Timer Set/Check screen, the
`
`user uses the left/right directional keys (comparable to the “second key means” of
`
`claim 1 of the ‘566 patent) to move the cursor to the desired data input field.10
`
`Once there, the user uses the up/down directional keys (comparable to the “third
`
`key means” of claim 1 of the ‘566 patent) to scroll through the pre-populated date,
`
`hour, and minute data input values.11
`
`(28.) Similarly, this type of constrained or screen-dependent data input was
`
`common among small-display handheld computing devices, such as digital
`                                                       
`7 SONY® Video Cassette Recorder Operating Instructions (1990) at pp. 40-42.
`(Ex. 1021 at pp. 40-42).
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` Id. at p. 40.
`
` Id. at p. 41.
`
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Id.
`
`15
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 15
`
`

`

`watches, since the early 1980’s. For example, the Casio Data Bank TeleMemo 50,
`
`shown below, included multiple information screens (e.g., DATA BANK mode,
`
`alarm mode, countdown mode, and stopwatch mode) that were displayed in a
`
`sequential fashion.12
`
`
`
`(29.) Within the DATA BANK mode, up to 50 information screens for
`
`recording personal notes could be sequentially displayed using forward and reverse
`
`keys.13 To input information, the user tabbed through onscreen data input fields
`
`(i.e., moved the cursor position) using the “C” button.14 Available data values (i.e.,
`
`numerals and letters) for a given input field were scrolled through using the
`
`watch’s “A” and “L” buttons.15 Thus, by the time the ‘566 patent was filed,
`
`                                                       
`12 CASIO® Module No. 262 User Guide at pp. 2 and 3. (Ex. 1022 at p. 2).
`
`13 Id. at p. 5 (Ex. 1022 at p. 2).
`
`14 Id. at p. 6 (Ex. 1022 at p. 3).
`
`15 Id.
`
`16
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 16
`
`

`

`constrained, or screen dependent data input was a ubiquitously common way to
`
`execute data entry into small handheld computing devices.
`
`(4.)
`
`System-level Navigation and Organization of Content
`
`(30.) Interactive systems must provide structures that organize their content
`
`(i.e., screens of information and data-entry forms) into a coherent presentation that
`
`allows the user to carry out their desired tasks. The way in which the user
`
`navigates through these structures is sometimes called the system’s “dialogue”
`
`with the user (note that this is different from a “dialog box” that pops up in the
`
`interface).
`
`(31.) There are several ways in which a key-based system could organize
`
`content, and these different organizations were generally associated with different
`
`user navigation mechanisms. First, the simplest organization is a linear path
`
`through a set of content (e.g., through a set of forms or a set of output pages).16
`
`This type of organization requires that the user be able to navigate between
`
`screens, and the most common navigation mechanism in these types of systems
`
`was a set of keys that provided forwards and backwards movement through the
`
`sequence. Specific keys (e.g., an enter key, or page up and page down keys) were
`
`often reserved for linear navigation.
`
`                                                       
`16 Brown, J., Controlling the Complexity of Menu Networks, Communications of
`the ACM, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 412-418, 413 (July 1982). (Ex. 1023 at p. 2).
`17
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 17
`
`

`

`(32.) Second, systems often expanded on the idea of linear organization to
`
`provide branching structures that allowed users to take different paths through
`
`system content.17 For example, “branching surveys” were a common type of
`
`interactive system used since the 1960s to provide different routes through a set of
`
`questions based on the user’s response to earlier questions.18
`
`(33.) Similarly, several key-based systems provided paths for different
`
`types of users, such as experts and novices. A selection by the user (usually on an
`
`initial screen) would provide different routes through the system with varying
`
`levels of detail. For example, the well-known Turbo Tax software, discussed
`
`below at paragraphs 84-90, provides an explicit example of this well-known design
`
`option.
`
`(34.) Third, systems could provide information in a hierarchical structure,
`
`which fully generalized the idea of branching and allowed users to move through
`
`system content in many different ways.19 For example, a menu system might
`
`provide several levels of sub-menus, in which the user would select an item to
`
`                                                       
`17 Id.
`
`18 Opit, L.J., and Woodroofe, F.J., Computer-held Clinical Record System–II,
`Assessment, British Medical Journal, vol. 4, pp. 80-82 (October 1970). (Ex. 1024).
`See also Ex. 1016 at § 9.1; Ex. 1017 at § 7.8; Norman, K., The Psychology of
`Menu Selection: Designing Cognitive Control at the Human/Computer Interface,
`Ablex Publishing Corp., § 3.6, 1991. (Ex. 1025).
`
`19 Ex. 1018 at pp. 5-7.
`
`18
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 18
`
`

`

`move deeper into the hierarchy (e.g., the user might select “Periodicals,” then
`
`“Byte Magazine,” then “1979”). Hierarchical structures required an interaction
`
`mechanism for moving deeper in the hierarchy (e.g., by selecting a menu item),
`
`and also a mechanism for moving back up the hierarchy.
`
`(35.) Finally, many systems organized their content based on the structure
`
`of the user’s task.20 Although tasks vary considerably, many have commonalities
`
`that can be seen in system structures. One such commonality is the temporal
`
`structure of the task, which was often divided into pre-task screens, during-task
`
`screens, and post-task screens. For example, a typing tutor program might ask for
`
`initial user information before the tutorial, then have several interactive screens for
`
`the tutorial itself, and finally display a set of summary screens showing the user’s
`
`performance.21
`
`C.
`
`Implications for the Review of the ‘566 Patent
`
`(36.) As summarized above, practical and theoretical understanding of the
`
`design of key-based interactive systems was well established by 1990. Numerous
`
`examples, guidelines, and textbooks recorded the ways that interfaces for these
`
`systems could and should be built. This evidence indicates that the interactive and
`
`interface features specified in the ‘566 patent are not inventive, novel, or non-
`                                                       
`20 Ex. 1014 at § 2.4.2; Ex. 1015 at § 2.3.2; Ex. 1017 at § 5.1.
`
`21 Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing: User’s Manual, The Software Toolworks, pp. 2-
`5, 1987. (Ex. 1026 at pp. 5-8).
`
`19
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 19
`
`

`

`obvious – they are a routine implementation of well-known and well-understood
`
`interface design principles that were commonly available to practitioners of the
`
`1980s and early 1990s.
`
`(37.) In particular, all of the following elements described by the ‘566
`
`patent were widely-used interface techniques and mechanisms for key-based
`
`systems that would have been well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`during the 1980s and early 1990s:
`
`(1.)
`data entry through a series of screens organized in a sequence
`(2.)
`data entry using enter, tab, and scroll keys (i.e., constrained or screen-
`dependent data input)
`(3.)
`paths (sequential or non-sequential (i.e., branching)) through the
`systems content with different levels of detail
`(4.)
`system screens organized around the pre-task, during-task, and post-
`task phases of a given environment (e.g., a typing tutor program as discussed
`above, or the game of golf as applied in the ‘566 patent).
`
`The ‘566 Patent
`
`
`V.
`
`(38.) In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that the ‘566 patent describes
`
`and claims nothing more than a simple combination of widely-used interface
`
`techniques and mechanisms, which have been applied to a handheld golf computer.
`
`First, and as shown in FIG. 1, the ‘566 patent describes a basic user-interface in
`
`which (1) an enter key (key 16) is used to change the screens that are displayed to
`
`the user; (2) tab keys (keys 20 and 21) are used to change or move between data
`
`input fields (element 26); and (3) scroll keys (keys 22 and 23) are used to change
`
`20
` 
`
`SKYHAWKE Ex. 1012, page 20
`
`

`

`or scroll among data input values available for a given data input field.22 This
`
`amounts to nothing more than the application of two basic design elements to
`
`known handheld golf computers: (1) data entry through a sequence of screens, and
`
`(2) data entry using enter, tab, and scroll keys.
`
`
`
`(39.) Second, the ‘566 patent describes the application of two additional
`
`basic design elements to known handheld golf computers: (3) organizing system
`
`screens based upon the pre-game, during-game, and post-game phases of playing a
`
`round of golf, and (4) presenting different levels of data detail in the during-game
`
`phase. For example, the ‘566 patent describes that a user may first be presented
`
`with one or more “pre-game” screens in which data pertaining t