`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01828
`U.S. Patent No. 6,489,974
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,489,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104..................................................................................................................... 1
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................................ 1
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘974 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘974 PATENT .................................................................. 8
`B. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ‘974 PATENT ................................................ 11
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................ 14
`A. INSIDE MACINTOSH, VOLUME VI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15,
`AND 19 UNDER §102(B) ........................................................................................ 14
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ......................... 50
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS ..................................... 50
`B. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) ..................... 51
`C. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................. 51
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 52
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13,
`
`15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,489,974 (“‘974 Patent”). EX1001.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘974 Patent is available for IPR and it is not
`
`barred or estopped. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) it is not the owner of the ‘974
`
`Patent; (2) it has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
`‘974 Patent; (3) this Petition is timely filed less than one year after it was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘974 Patent; and (4) this Petition is
`
`filed more than nine months after the ‘974 Patent issued.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and discussion of claim limitations, claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19 of the ‘974 Patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`cancelled. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1). This review is governed by pre-AIA §§102
`
`and 103.
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘974 Patent
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19: Anticipated under §102(b) by Inside
`
`Macintosh, Volume VI (“Inside Macintosh”) [EX1002].
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the field of computer networking at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, January 10, 1994, (“POSITA”) would have had at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working
`
`experience, and one to two years of experience in computer programming.
`
`2. Claim Construction
`
`The ‘974 Patent expired on June 19, 2017, and is therefore not subject to
`
`amendment. For purposes of this Petition, the claims are construed pursuant to
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a claim
`
`“are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention). The
`
`claim construction analysis is not, and should not be viewed as a concession by
`
`Petitioner as to the proper scope of any claim term in litigation. These assumptions
`
`are not a waiver of any argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ‘974
`
`Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid or unpatentable.
`
`a.
`
`“means for providing a representation of said first object on a
`user interface of said computer, with the representation
`supporting user interaction with said first object on said user
`interface of said computer” (Claim 12)
`
`
`
`The stated function is “providing a representation of said first object on a
`
`user interface of said computer, with the representation supporting user interaction
`
`
`
`with said first object on said user interface of said computer.” The disclosed
`
`structure for performing the function is a computer utilizing an operating system
`
`that supports multitasking capabilities, an associated display, and a user input
`
`device such as keyboard, mouse, touch screen, or microphone, and equivalents
`
`thereof. EX1001 at 3:31-51, Fig. 1. The computer processor is programmed to: 1)
`
`display a focused object either as a window 33 displayed in the foreground of the
`
`desktop (as shown in FIG. 2) or as a full screen session 34 displayed in full on the
`
`screen (as shown in FIG. 4); and 2) enable the focused object to receive user inputs
`
`(e.g., the user can type in data using a keyboard, use a mouse cursor or some other
`
`input device to input data or other information). Id. at 3:52-65.
`
`b.
`
`“means for executing said first object on said computer”
`(Claim 12)
`
`
`
`The stated function is “executing said first object on said computer.” The
`
`disclosed structure for performing the function is a computer utilizing an operating
`
`system that supports multitasking capabilities, where the computer processor is
`
`programmed to: 1) receive a user input in the user interface for the first object,
`
`causing the object to execute a task (also referred to as a “thread” or “flow of
`
`execution); and 2) execute the task, and equivalents thereof. Id. at Fig. 7 (step 71),
`
`6:46-51, 4:2-8. The ‘974 Patent discloses, for example, “the user could press the
`
`ENTER key to cause the object to execute.” Id. Exemplary tasks disclosed include
`
`sending a fax transmission or formatting a diskette. Id. at 4:2-8, 1:51-56.
`
`
`
`c.
`
`“means for enabling said second object so as to support user
`interaction with said second object on a user interface of said
`computer while said first object is executing” (Claim 12)
`
`
`
`The stated function is “enabling said second object so as to support user
`
`interaction with said second object on a user interface of said computer while said
`
`first object is executing.” The disclosed structure for performing the function is a
`
`computer utilizing an operating system that supports multitasking capabilities, an
`
`associated display, and a user input device such as keyboard, mouse, touch screen,
`
`or microphone, and equivalents thereof. EX1001 at 3:31-51, Fig. 1. The computer
`
`processor is programmed to perform the following steps while the first object is
`
`executing: 1) receive a user input to focus an object of interest; and 2) display the
`
`object of interest focused either as a window 33 displayed in the foreground of the
`
`desktop (as shown in FIG. 2) or as a full screen session 34 displayed in full on the
`
`screen (as shown in FIG. 4); 3) relegate the first object to execute in the
`
`background, such that the first object is no longer enabled to receive user input;
`
`and 4) enable the newly focused object to receive user inputs. Id. at 3:52-65, 5:61-
`
`67, 4:55-57; see also 4:2-12.
`
`d.
`
`“means for determining when said first object ceases
`executing while said second object is enabled so as to support
`user interaction” (Claim 12)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“… further comprises means for determining when said first
`object provides a prompt for a user input” (Claim 13)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The stated function is “determining when said first object ceases executing
`
`while said second object is enabled so as to support user interaction” (Claim 12).
`
`The disclosed structure for performing the claimed function is a computer utilizing
`
`an operating system that supports multitasking capabilities, where the computer
`
`processor is programmed to determine when the status of the executing task of the
`
`first object changes from active to idle (e.g., when an executing task ends or when
`
`the task is no longer able to execute), and equivalents thereof. Id. at 2:1-12, 5:35-
`
`37, 6:47-50, 7:14-22, Fig. 8 (step 91); see also id. at 2:22-33, 4:13-14.
`
`
`
`Where the means for determining when said first object ceases executing
`
`further comprises “means for determining when said first object provides a prompt
`
`for a user input” (Claim 13), the computer processor is further programmed to
`
`determine when the execution of the first object reaches a step where a user input
`
`is required for further execution. Id. at 4:13-16, 2:22-29.
`
`e.
`
`“means for providing a notification on said user interface
`when said first object ceases executing by suddenly displaying
`a notification icon on said user interface of said computer
`while maintaining the representation of the first object, said
`notification icon being in a location that is separate from the
`representation of said first object on said user interface”
`(Claim 12)
`
`“… further comprises means for displaying a name of said
`first object in proximity to said notification icon.” (Claim 15)
`
`The stated function is “providing a notification on said user interface when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`said first object ceases executing by suddenly displaying a notification icon on said
`
`
`
`user interface of said computer while maintaining the representation of the first
`
`object” (Claim 12). The disclosed structure for performing the function is a
`
`computer utilizing an operating system that supports multitasking capabilities, and
`
`an associated display, and equivalents thereof. EX1001 at 3:31-51, Fig. 1. The
`
`computer processor is programmed to perform step 103 depicted in Fig. 8 and
`
`described at 7:59-67. Namely, the computer processor is programmed to: 1) while
`
`maintaining the representation of the first object, suddenly draw or display a
`
`notification icon on the user interface so as not to interfere with the currently
`
`focused object; and 2) the notification icon being in a location that is separate from
`
`the representation of its associated (first) object on the user interface. Id. at 7:59-
`
`67, 2:15-24, 2:34-41, 4:13-44, 4:65-5:9, Fig. 2; EX1004, ‘974 File History, p. 155
`
`(“When the first object ceases executing, a [not]ification is provided on the user
`
`interface by suddenly displaying a notification icon 35 (Fig. 2; page 7, lines 30-
`
`33). The representation 31 of the first object is maintained, with the notification
`
`icon 35 being in a location that is separate from the representation of the first
`
`object on the user interface (see Fig. 2; page 8, lines 19-25).”), p. 159 (“Applicants'
`
`invention causes an icon to suddenly appear in a location that is separate from the
`
`object's icon. This sudden appearance in a new location on the user interface is
`
`more likely to catch the user's attention.”), p. 188 (“Our interpretation of Green
`
`coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., contrary to the claimed invention, there is no
`
`
`
`disclosure of the display of a notification icon at a location on a user interface that
`
`is separate from a representation of its associated object.”); see also id. at pp. 137,
`
`158-159.
`
`Where the means for providing a notification on said user interface further
`
`comprises “displaying a name of said first object in proximity to said notification
`
`icon” (Claim 15), the computer processor is further programmed to draw or display
`
`the name of the object “in proximity to the buoy icon.” Id. at 2:37-39, 7:61-63,
`
`4:32-35, Figs. 2, 4-5 (names displayed below buoy icons).
`
`f.
`
` “means for removing said notification icon from said user
`interface” (Claim 19)
`
`
`
`The stated function is “removing said notification icon from said user
`
`interface.” The disclosed structure for performing the function is a computer
`
`utilizing an operating system that supports multitasking capabilities, an associated
`
`display, and a user input device such as keyboard, mouse, touch screen, or
`
`microphone, and equivalents thereof. EX1001 at 3:31-51, Fig. 1. The computer
`
`processor is programmed to perform steps 121, 123, and 125 depicted in Fig. 9 and
`
`described at 8:32-47. Namely, the computer processor is programmed to: 1)
`
`receive input from the user indicating that the user has targeted the notification
`
`icon (step 121); 2) receive an entered “remove sequence” from the user input
`
`device (step 123); and 3) remove or delete the notification icon from the desktop
`
`on the screen (step 125). Id. at Fig. 9, 8:32-47. Exemplary disclosed “remove
`
`
`
`sequences” include pressing the right mouse button, an escape key, or a function
`
`key. Id.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘974 PATENT
`A. Description of the ‘974 Patent
`On its face, the ‘974 Patent is directed to providing a buoy icon notification
`
`in a known multitasking computer environment. EX1001, ‘974 Patent at 2:4-41.
`
`The ‘974 Patent describes a user interface including a plurality of icons
`
`representing a plurality of objects, which may be computer applications. Id. at
`
`3:52-57. The user interface is presented on a general purpose computer with
`
`memory, a processor and an operating system. Id. at 3:32-51, Fig. 1. A user may
`
`focus on one of the objects, causing a window to open, and allowing the user to
`
`input data or other information into the object. Id. at 3:55-65. When executing the
`
`focused object, the user may reach a step that causes the user to wait. Id. at 4:2-8.
`
`At this stage, the user may focus on a different object, enabling the user to
`
`accomplish some work in the second object, while the first object is executing. Id.
`
`at 4:8-12.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3. When the first object finishes, or reaches a point requiring user input,
`
`a buoy icon displays on the user interface notifying the user that the first object is
`
`available for input. Id. at 4:13-31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 5. Upon the display of the buoy, the user can choose to ignore it, and
`
`continue to work with the focused object, the user can select the buoy icon, causing
`
`the display to immediately focus back on the first object, or the user can dismiss
`
`the buoy. Id. at 4:44-64.
`
`However, as admitted by Applicants, multitasking computers, such as those
`
`described and claimed in the ‘974 Patent, were known at the time.
`
`“Multitasking computer environments allow users to run or execute plural
`objects (such as application programs) in an apparent simultaneous manner.
`For example, a user can execute a spread sheet application, a graphics
`application and a phone application at the same time.”
`
`
`
`Id. at 1:16-30.
`
`The problem addressed by the ‘974 Patent was that while two applications
`
`are executing concurrently, it is difficult to determine if the application running in
`
`the background is complete or requires user input other than by focusing the
`
`application, i.e., bringing it to the foreground. Id. at 1:41-61. The ‘974 Patent
`
`solved this problem by providing a notification to a user that a background
`
`application requires attention (e.g., it has completed execution and/or requires user
`
`input). See, e.g., id. at 1:42-66. However, as described further throughout this
`
`Petition, providing such a notification icon was well-known in the art, and actually
`
`implemented in popular products, years prior to the filing of the application leading
`
`to the ‘974 Patent. See, e.g., EX1003, U.S. Patent No. 5,448,695 at 3:49-67, 8:39-
`
`50, Figs. 2d, 2e; see generally EX1002, Inside Macintosh (described further below).
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘974 Patent
`
`B.
`The ‘974 Patent was filed on January 11, 1996 and claims priority to U.S.
`
`App. No. 08/179,479 (“the ‘479 Application”) filed on January 10, 1994 with 24
`
`claims. See EX1004, ‘974 Patent File History, pp. 9-61. The Examiner rejected
`
`Claims 1-24 under §112 as indefinite and as obvious under §103 over Green, et al.
`
`(US5333256) in view of Jaaskelainen (US5301348). Id. at pp. 64-72 (Feb. 8, 1995
`
`Office Action). In a response, Applicants amended claims 1-9, 11-21, and 23-24
`
`and added claims 25-28. Id. at pp. 73-82 (May 30, 1995 Response). The
`
`
`
`amendments, in part, were directed to adding a limitation that required a
`
`notification icon be displayed separate from a first object when the object ceased
`
`executing. Id. at pp. 74 (Claim 1 Amendment). In addition to the amendments,
`
`Applicants argued that, in contrast to the prior art of record, the notification icon of
`
`Applicants’ invention “suddenly appears on the user interface” but no notification
`
`of the status of the first object is provided while the first object is executing. Id. at
`
`pp. 80-81. The Applicant further noted that the prior art did not teach displaying a
`
`notification icon on a user interface when a first object ceases executing, where the
`
`icon is separate from the object. Id.
`
`On August 8, 1995, the Examiner again rejected Claims 1-9, 11-21 and 23-
`
`28 under §112 as indefinite and rejected the same under §103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Green in view of Jaaskelainen. Id. at pp. 83-90. In response,
`
`Applicants amended Claims 1 and 13 to add a limitation requiring that the
`
`notification icon be “suddenly” displayed upon execution of the first object ceasing.
`
`Id. at pp. 92-98 (Dec. 7, 1995 Response). Applicant distinguished the prior art on
`
`the grounds that the claimed invention “suddenly” displays a notification icon that
`
`is separate from any representation of the object itself. Id. at pp. 96-97.
`
`The Examiner issued an Advisory Action on December 18, 1995, indicating
`
`the Amendment would not be entered. Id. at p. 101. On March 15, 1996, the
`
`
`
`Application was abandoned for failure to Respond to an Office Action. Id. at p.
`
`104.
`
`The ‘974 Patent was filed on January 11, 1996, with 24 claims as a file
`
`wrapper continuation of the soon-to-be abandoned ‘479 Application. See id. at pp.
`
`109-115. That application included a Preliminary Amendment amending claims 1
`
`and 13 and adding claim 29. Id. at pp. 111-125. Applicant’s amendments and
`
`arguments were the same amendments and arguments raised in the December 7,
`
`1995 response, but not entered by the Patent Office.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 23-28 and 29 under § 102
`
`as anticipated by Green and, rejected claims 3, 5-8, 15, and 17-20 under § 103 as
`
`being obvious over Green. Id. at pp. 126-132 (Oct. 6, 1997 Office Action). In
`
`response, Applicants amended claims 1 and 13 adding a limitation requiring that a
`
`representation of a first object support user interaction. Id. at pp. 135-141 (Mar. 20,
`
`1998 Response). Applicant again argued that the prior art did not teach “providing
`
`a notification icon that is … separate from the representation of the first object”
`
`and “… suddenly displaying the notification icon while maintain the representation
`
`of the first object.” Id. at pp. 137-39.
`
`The Examiner issued a final Office Action rejecting claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11-14,
`
`16, 21, 23-26 and 29 under § 102 as anticipated by Green and claims 3, 5-8, 15,
`
`and 17-20 under § 103 as being obvious over Green. Id. at pp. 142-148.
`
`
`
`Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal on October 8, 1998. Id. at pp. 151-152.
`
`In its brief, Applicants maintained the position that the prior art differed from the
`
`claimed invention because it did not teach “providing a notification icon that is in a
`
`location that is separate from the representation of the first object on the user
`
`interface” or “notifying a user of an object status by suddenly displaying a
`
`notification icon that is separate from the object’s representation. Id. at pp. 153-
`
`168. The Examiner filed an Answer on March 3, 1999. Id. at pp. 169-183.
`
`The Board of Appeals reversed the Examiner on both rejections. Id. at pp.
`
`184-191. Namely, the Board concluded that Green did not teach at least “the
`
`display of a notification icon at a location on a user interface that is separate from a
`
`representation of its associated object.” Id. at pp. 188-89. Further, the Board
`
`concluded that a POSITA would not have found Claims 3, 5-8, 15, and 17-20
`
`obvious. Id. at p. 190. A Notice of Allowance was issued July 19, 2002 (id. at p.
`
`195) and the ‘974 Patent subsequently issued on December 3, 2002.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`The following prior art references disclose each limitation of claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`8, 12, 13, 15, and 19. As such, these claims are unpatentable. Included below are
`
`exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`Inside Macintosh, Volume VI Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15,
`and 19 under §102(b)
`
`
`
`Inside Macintosh, Volume VI (“Inside Macintosh”) was published in 1991
`
`and publicly available at least as early as December 1991 (See EX1005,
`
`Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. at ¶43) and is therefore prior art under at least
`
`§ 102(b). Inside Macintosh supplements information described in Inside
`
`Macintosh, Volumes I – V with information specific to system software version
`
`7.0 (“System 7”). EX1002, Inside Macintosh at Cover Page. System 7 integrated
`
`the cooperative multitasking capabilities that were in optional components of prior
`
`system software versions into the Macintosh Operating System. Id. at 1-4. This
`
`allowed users to have several applications open at a time and switch between them.
`
`Id.; see id. at 1-6.
`
`Claim 1. A method that is implemented on a multitasking computer that
`comprises first and second objects, said method providing notification of a status
`of said first object on said computer, comprising the steps of:
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Claim 12.
`
`a) providing a representation of said first object on a user interface of said
`computer, with the representation supporting user interaction with said first
`object on said user interface of said computer;
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Element 12(a).
`
`b) executing said first object on said computer;
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Element 12(b).
`
`c) while said first object is executing, enabling said second object so as to support
`user interaction with said second object on said user interface of said computer;
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Element 12(c).
`
`
`
`d) while said second object is enabled so as to support user interaction,
`determining when said first object ceases executing;
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Element 12(d).
`
`e) providing a notification on said user interface when said first object ceases
`executing by suddenly displaying a notification icon on said user interface of
`said computer while maintaining the representation of the first object, said
`notification icon being in a location that is separate from the representation of
`said first object on said user interface.
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Element 12(e).
`
`Claim 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of determining when said first
`object ceases executing further comprises the step of determining when said first
`object provides a prompt for a user input.
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Claim 13.
`
`Claim 4. The method of claim 1 wherein said step of providing a notification on
`said user interface when said first object ceases executing further comprises the
`step of displaying a name of said first object in proximity to said notification
`icon.
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Claim 15.
`
`Claim 8. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of removing said
`notification icon from said user interface.
`
`See Inside Macintosh as applied to Claim 19.
`
`Claim 12. An apparatus for use with a multitasking computer, said computer
`comprising first and second objects, said apparatus providing notification of a
`status of said first object on said computer, comprising:
`
`Inside Macintosh describes the System 7 Macintosh multitasking operating
`
`system for Macintosh computers, which allowed multiple applications (i.e., first
`
`and second objects) to execute concurrently. Namely, a user can cause the Finder
`
`
`
`application (i.e., first object) to copy files. The user can then initiate execution of
`
`or switch foreground context to a different application task (i.e., second object),
`
`which causes the Finder application to continue execution in the background while
`
`the other application operates in the foreground.
`
`“The Macintosh Operating System lets the user have several applications
`open at the same time and lets the user switch between them. The Operating
`System also gives the user constant access to the Finder. This lets a user
`move among open documents and applications without having to save or
`quit the previous document or application. This environment also allows
`applications to run in the background. For example, the Finder can copy
`files while the user is working on another task in the foreground.”
`
`EX1002, Inside Macintosh at p. 1-4.
`
`“The foreground process is the one currently interacting with the user; it
`appears to the user as the active application. The foreground process
`displays its menu bar, and its windows are in front of the windows of all
`other applications.
`
`A background process is a process that isn't currently interacting with the
`user. At any given time a process is either in the foreground or the
`background; a process can switch between the two states at well-defined
`times.
`
`The foreground process has first priority for accessing the CPU. Other
`processes can access the CPU only when the foreground process yields time
`to them. There is only one foreground process at any one time. However,
`multiple processes can exist in the background.
`
`
`
`An application that is in the background can get CPU time but can't interact
`with the user while it is in the background. (However, the user can choose to
`bring the application to the foreground-for example, by clicking in one of the
`application's windows.) Any application that has the canBackground flag set
`in its 'SIZE' resource is eligible to obtain access to the CPU when it is in the
`background.”
`
`Id. at p. 29-4.
`
`“Applications running in the background receive processing time when the
`front application makes an event call (that is, calls WaitNextEvent,
`GetNextEvent, or EventAvail) and there are no events pending for that front
`application. An application running in the background should relinquish the
`CPU regularly to ensure a timely return to the foreground application when
`necessary.
`
`In system software version 7.0 [], the available processing time is
`distributed among multiple applications through a procedure known as
`context switching (or just switching). When a context switch occurs, the
`Process Manager allocates processing time to a process that is different
`from the one that had been receiving processing time. Two types of context
`switching may occur: major and minor. All switching occurs at a well-
`defined time, namely, when an application calls WaitNextEvent.
`
`A major switch is a complete context switch: an application's windows are
`moved from the background to the foreground, or vice versa. In a major
`switch, two applications are involved, the one being switched to the
`foreground and the one being switched to the background. …
`
`
`
`A minor switch occurs when an application is switched out to give time to
`background processes. A minor switch always involves two applications, a
`background application and the application yielding time to it (which may
`be some other background application). In a minor switch, … the layers of
`windows are not switched[.]”
`
`Id. at 5-12 to 5-13; see also id. at 29-3 to 29-7, 1-6.
`
`
`
`When an application operating in the background (i.e., first object), such as
`
`the Finder example mentioned above, completes execution of the background task,
`
`the Notification Manager notifies the user of the completion event (i.e., providing
`
`notification of a status of said first object).
`
`“The Notification Manager provides an asynchronous notification service. It
`allows software running in the background (or otherwise unseen by the user)
`to communicate information to the user. For example, applications that
`manage lengthy background tasks (such as printing many documents or
`transferring large amounts of data to other machines) might need to inform
`the user that the operation is complete. These applications cannot use the
`standard methods of communicating with the user, such as alert or dialog
`boxes, because such windows might easily be obscured by the windows of
`other applications. Moreover, even if those windows are visible, the
`background application cannot be certain that the user is aware of the
`change. So some more reliable method must be used to manage the
`communication between a background application and the user, who might
`be awaiting the completion of the background task while running other
`applications in the foreground. …
`
`
`
`In all these cases, the communication generally needs to occur in one
`direction only, from the background application (or task, or driver) to the
`user. The Notification Manager [] allows you to post to the user a
`notification, which is an audible or visible indication that your application
`(or other piece of software) requires the user’s attention.”
`
`Id. at p. 24-3.
`
`“The Notification Manager provides applications with a standard user
`interface for notifying the user of significant events. It is suggested that your
`application adopt
`the
`following
`three-level notification strategy
`for
`communicating with the user:
`
`1. Display a diamond next to the name of the application in the Application
`menu.
`
`2. Insert a small icon into the list of icons that alternate with the Apple menu
`icon or the Application menu icon in the menu bar, and display a diamond
`next to the name of your application in the Application menu.
`
`3. Display a diamond, insert a small icon, and put up an alert box to notify
`the user that something needs to be done.
`
`Ideally, the user should be allowed to set the desired level of notification.
`The suggested default level of notification is level 2.”
`
`Id. at 24-5; see generally id. at 24-1 to 24-12.
`
`a) means for providing a representation of said first object on a user interface of
`said computer, with the representation supporting user interaction with said first
`object on said user interface of said computer;
`
`The ‘974 Patent discloses that the representation of a first object in its
`
`multitasking computer environment supports user interaction upon being “focused,”
`
`
`
`such as by being displayed in a foreground window and enabled to receive user
`
`input. EX1001, ‘974 Patent at 3:55-65.
`
`Inside Macintosh discloses the claimed function. Namely, Inside Macintosh
`
`discloses displaying a focused object as, for example, a window displayed in the
`
`foreground of the desktop (i.e., providing a representation of said first object on a
`
`user interface of said computer) that is enabled to receive user input (i.e., the
`
`representation supporting user interaction with said first object).
`
`“The foreground process is the one currently interacting with the user; it
`appears to the user as the active application. The foreground process
`displays its menu bar, and its windows are in front of the windows of all
`other applications.
`
`…
`
`The foreground process has first priority for accessing the CPU. Other
`processes can access the CPU only when the foreground process yields time
`to them. There is only one foreground process at any one time. However,
`multiple processes can exist in the background.”
`
`EX1002, Inside Macintosh at 29-4.
`
`“Although the user can have a number of open documents and applications,
`only one application is the active application. The active application is the
`application currently interacting with the user; its icon appears in the right
`side of the menu bar. The active application displays its menu bar and is
`responsible fo