UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01963
`
`Patent No. 7,752,564
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................... vi
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel ................................................................................................. 1
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 2
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 2
`III.
`IV. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`A.
`The ’564 patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 7
`V.
`VI. PRIOR ART .................................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Bernhardson ............................................................................... 9
`
`2.
`Robarts ..................................................................................... 11
`
`3.
`Schein ....................................................................................... 13
`
`4.
`Youman .................................................................................... 14
`
`5.
`Tornqvist .................................................................................. 15
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............. 18
`A. Ground A ............................................................................................ 18
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 18
`
`2.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 30
`
`3.
`Claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein the filtering
`
`criteria comprises one or more of a search term, a search
`attribute, and a logical expression. ........................................... 31
`
`i
`
`

`

`4.
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`
`8.
`
`
`9.
`
`
`5.
`
`
`Claim 5: The method of claim 3, wherein each card
`comprises at least one tag, and wherein comparing
`comprises comparing the at least one tag of each card to
`the filtering criteria of the selected filter. ................................ 32
`Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein at least one tag
`indicates a card characteristic from one or more of a
`genre, a type, a function, and a priority. .................................. 33
`Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the second axis
`comprises a vertical axis and the first axis comprises a
`horizontal axis. ......................................................................... 34
`Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one
`filter is user defined. ................................................................ 34
`Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one
`filter is implicitly defined based on one or more of
`historical viewing habits and demographics. ........................... 35
`Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the
`filter cards represents a filter that differs in type from that
`of each of the other filter cards. ............................................... 35
` Claim 12 ................................................................................... 36 10.
`
`
` Claim 13: The system of claim 12, wherein the selected 11.
`filter comprises filtering criteria, and wherein the
`selected filter is further adapted to compare each card in
`the first set to the filtering criteria and copy each card
`from the first set that matches the filtering criteria to the
`second set. ................................................................................ 38
`
` Claim 14: The system of claim 13, wherein the filtering 12.
`criteria comprises one or more of a search term, a search
`attribute, and a logical expression. ........................................... 38
`
` Claim 15: The system of claim 13, wherein each card 13.
`comprises at least one tag, and wherein the selected filter
`is further adapted to compare the at least one tag of each
`card to the filtering criteria. ..................................................... 39
`
` Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein at least one 14.
`tag indicates a card characteristic from one or more of a
`genre, a type, a function, and a priority. .................................. 39
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`B.
`
`
` Claim 17: The system of claim 12, wherein the second 15.
`axis comprises a horizontal axis and the first axis
`comprises a vertical axis. ......................................................... 39
`
` Claim 18: The system of claim 12, wherein at least one 16.
`filter is user defined. ................................................................ 40
`
` Claim 19: The system of claim 12, wherein at least one 17.
`filter is implicitly defined based on one or more of
`historical viewing habits and demographics. ........................... 40
`
` Claim 21: The system of claim 12, wherein each of the 18.
`filter cards corresponds to a respective one of the
`plurality of option types that differs from each of the
`other option types. .................................................................... 40
` Obviousness in View of Bernhardson and Robarts ................. 40 19.
`
`Ground B ............................................................................................ 42
`1.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 42
`
`2.
`Obviousness in View of Bernhardson, Robarts, and
`
`Schein ....................................................................................... 44
`Ground C ............................................................................................ 45
`1.
`Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least
`
`one filter is downloaded from a remote server via a
`broadband network. .................................................................. 45
`Claim 20: The system of claim 12, further comprising: a
`network interface for downloading at least one filter via a
`broadband network. .................................................................. 45
`Obviousness in View of Bernhardson, Robarts, and
`Youman .................................................................................... 46
`D. Ground D ............................................................................................ 47
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`2.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 59
`
`3.
`Claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein the filtering
`
`criteria comprises one or more of a search term, a search
`attribute, and a logical expression. ........................................... 60
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`
`8.
`
`
`5.
`
`
`Claim 5: The method of claim 3, wherein each card
`comprises at least one tag, and wherein comparing
`comprises comparing the at least one tag of each card to
`the filtering criteria of the selected filter. ................................ 60
`Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein at least one tag
`indicates a card characteristic from one or more of a
`genre, a type, a function, and a priority. .................................. 60
`Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the second axis
`comprises a vertical axis and the first axis comprises a
`horizontal axis. ......................................................................... 60
`Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one
`filter is user defined. ................................................................ 61
`Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one
`filter is implicitly defined based on one or more of
`historical viewing habits and demographics. ........................... 61
`Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the
`filter cards represents a filter that differs in type from that
`of each of the other filter cards. ............................................... 61
` Claim 12 ................................................................................... 61 10.
`
`
` Claim 13: The system of claim 12, wherein the selected 11.
`filter comprises filtering criteria, and wherein the
`selected filter is further adapted to compare each card in
`the first set to the filtering criteria and copy each card
`from the first set that matches the filtering criteria to the
`second set. ................................................................................ 64
`
` Claim 14: The system of claim 13, wherein the filtering 12.
`criteria comprises one or more of a search term, a search
`attribute, and a logical expression. ........................................... 64
`
` Claim 15: The system of claim 13, wherein each card 13.
`comprises at least one tag, and wherein the selected filter
`is further adapted to compare the at least one tag of each
`card to the filtering criteria. ..................................................... 64
`
` Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein at least one 14.
`tag indicates a card characteristic from one or more of a
`genre, a type, a function, and a priority. .................................. 64
`
`9.
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`E.
`
`
` Claim 17: The system of claim 12, wherein the second 15.
`axis comprises a horizontal axis and the first axis
`comprises a vertical axis. ......................................................... 65
`
` Claim 18: The system of claim 12, wherein at least one 16.
`filter is user defined. ................................................................ 65
`
` Claim 19: The system of claim 12, wherein at least one 17.
`filter is implicitly defined based on one or more of
`historical viewing habits and demographics. ........................... 65
`
` Claim 21: The system of claim 12, wherein each of the 18.
`filter cards corresponds to a respective one of the
`plurality of option types that differs from each of the
`other option types. .................................................................... 65
` Obviousness in View of Tornqvist and Robarts ...................... 65 19.
`
`Ground E ............................................................................................ 67
`1.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 67
`
`2.
`Obviousness in View of Tornqvist, Robarts, and Schein ........ 67
`
`Ground F ............................................................................................. 68
`1.
`Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least
`
`one filter is downloaded from a remote server via a
`broadband network. .................................................................. 68
`Claim 20: The system of claim 12, further comprising: a
`network interface for downloading at least one filter via a
`broadband network. .................................................................. 68
`Obviousness in View of Tornqvist, Robarts, and Youman ..... 69
`3.
`
`VIII. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ........................ 70
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 71
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 72
`
`
`
`F.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`US. Patent No. 7,752,564 (“’564 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Brad A. Myers
`
`1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Brad A. Myers
`
`1004
`
`Office Action of 08/31/2009 in Application No. 12/356,486
`
`1005
`
`Amendment and Response of 11/30/2009 in Application No.
`12/356,486
`
`1006
`
`Office Action of 01/22/2010 in Application No. 12/356,486
`
`1007
`
`US. 6,976,228 (“Bemhardson”)
`
`1008
`
`UK. Patent Publication No. 2,325,537 (“Robarts”)
`
`US. 6,151,059 (“Schein”)
`
`1010
`
`US. 5,629,733 (“Youman”)
`
`
`
`1011
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 00/65429 (“Tornqvist”)
`
`1012
`
`US. 5,396,588 (“Froessl”)
`
`1013
`
`Office Action of 12/13/2007 in Application No. 10/1 13,889
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Sony Corporation; Sony Corporation of America; Sony Electronics Inc.;
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc.; Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc.;
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC; Sony Interactive Entertainment America
`
`LLC; Sony Visual Products Inc.; and Sony Video & Sound Products Inc. are the
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The following judicial matter may affect, or may be affected by, a decision
`
`
`
`in this inter partes review: ARRIS Solutions, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment
`
`LLC, et al., 5:17-cv-02669 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`The following administrative matter may affect, or may be affected by, a
`
`decision in this inter partes review: Certain Consumer Electronic Devices,
`
`International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-1060 (“ITC Case”).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194).
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel: Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion for Mark
`
`A. Chapman to appear pro hac vice as backup counsel. Mr. Chapman is a litigation
`
`attorney experienced in patent cases, and is admitted to practice law in New York,
`
`in several United States District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Federal Circuit. Mr. Chapman has an established familiarity with the subject matter
`
`at issue and represents Petitioner in the ITC case, identified above.
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Petitioner agrees to electronic service at the following email addresses:
`
`CUlrich@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`MChapman@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Service may be made at the following address:
`
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’564 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-21 of the ’564 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a), and cancelation of these claims is requested in view of the following
`
`grounds:
`
`A: Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, and 21 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,976,228 (“Bernhardson,”
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.-1007) and U.K. Patent Publication No. 2,325,537 (“Robarts,” Ex.-
`
`1008).
`
`B:
`
`Claim 2 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Bernhardson, Robarts, and U.S. Patent No. 6,151,059 (“Schein,” Ex.-
`
`1009).
`
`C:
`
`Claims 10 and 20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Bernhardson, Robarts and U.S. Patent No. 5,629,733
`
`(“Youman,” Ex.-1010).
`
`D: Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, and 21 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of PCT Publication No. WO 00/65429
`
`(“Tornqvist,” Ex.-1011) and Robarts.
`
`E:
`
`Claim 2 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Tornqvist, Robarts, and Schein.
`
`F:
`
`Claims 10 and 20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Tornqvist, Robarts, and Youman.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’564 patent
`
`The ’564 patent describes systems and methods for navigating through
`
`selectable options using a graphical user-interface (GUI). (Ex.-1001, 1:31-34, 3:38-
`
`4:7, 5:53-54, 6:15-21, 6:39-50, 11:25-12:22, 14:19-52). The “selectable options”
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`include “channels, programs, applications, digital media files, etc.” (Ex.-1001,
`
`3:38-40, 8:40-47). Each selectable option may be associated with a “card 200,”
`
`which is described as “an object or other suitable data structure that provides
`
`information about and/or access to an available option” and as “a container of all
`
`of the attributes, actions, and/or states needed to facilitate interaction with the
`
`option represented thereby.” (Ex.-1001, 3:51-59, 11:9-13, 11:17-24, 14:25-30; Ex.-
`
`1002, ¶6).
`
`
`
`Each card 200 may include tags 1200, indicating, e.g., genre, type, function,
`
`priority, or other characteristic of a card 200 or a represented option. (Ex.-1001,
`
`11:17-20). Filter(s) 1202 may be provided for filtering cards based on the tags, and
`
`certain cards 200 may be used to represent the filters 1202. (Ex.-1001, 11:25-
`
`12:11, 14:31-33, 15:5-8). The filter “may be embodied as an object, a module of
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`code, a data structure, a circuit, or other suitable mechanism for performing or
`
`assisting with the filtering function.” (Ex.-1001, 11:26-29; Ex.-1002, ¶7).
`
`The interface displays a sequence of filter cards along a first axis that
`
`intersects a “focus area.” (Ex.-1001, 12:1-19, 14:33-37, Fig. 13). The user can use
`
`an input device to scroll the filter cards along the first axis, and select the filter card
`
`displayed in the focus area. (Ex.-1001, 12:12-19, 14:33-39, 15:5-10, Fig. 13).
`
`Selecting a filter card filters the options so that a second set of cards that
`
`corresponds to the selected filter is displayed along a second, perpendicular axis,
`
`which intersects the first axis at the focus area. (Ex.-1001, 8:48-51, 12:12-26,
`
`14:33-35, 14:40-49, 15:5-10, Fig. 13). The user can scroll the second set of cards
`
`along the second axis, and select the card displayed in the focus area. (Ex.-1001,
`
`12:20-22, 14:48-52; Ex.-1002, ¶8).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’564 patent
`
`issued from Application No. 12/356,486 (“’486
`
`application”), filed January 20, 2009.
`
`On August 31, 2009, the Examiner issued an Office Action rejecting all of
`
`the claims as anticipated by Bernhardson. (Ex.-1004). In response, Applicants
`
`argued that Bernhardson did not disclose the limitation “a first set of cards, each
`
`card graphically representing a single available option from one of a plurality of
`
`option types” in each independent claim because Bernhardson “disclose[d] only
`
`providing cards of a single type,” namely, “sources of program content.” (Ex.-
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`1005, 12). Applicants asserted that paragraph 44 of the specification1 disclosed
`
`different option types, i.e., a card for a live television program, and another card
`
`for a purchase opportunity on “a particular website.” (Ex.-1005, 12; Ex-1001, 5:59-
`
`62). Applicants also amended each independent claim to add limitations directed to
`
`selecting a “second filter” to generate a “third set of cards” of a different option
`
`type than the “second set of cards.” (Ex.-1005, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13). Subsequently, the
`
`Examiner withdrew the rejection based on Bernhardson, indicating that the claims
`
`were “allowed.” (Ex.-1006).
`
`As explained below (with respect to element [1b] of Ground A), contrary to
`
`Applicants’ assertion to the Examiner, Bernhardson does disclose cards that
`
`represent different “option types.” See VII.A.1[1b].
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
`
`special definitions, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`1 (Ex.-1001, 5:59-65).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`(“PHOSITA”),2 in view of the specification. The specification of the ’564 patent
`
`does not present any special definition for any claim term, and the prosecution
`
`history does not include any claim construction arguments, such that all claim
`
`terms of the ’564 patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, in
`
`accordance with their broadest reasonable construction.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART
`As explained below, user-interfaces that enabled a user to navigate through
`
`nested options displayed along two perpendicular axes that intersect at a selectable
`
`focus area—in which the options displayed on one axis represent sub-options of
`
`the option displayed in the focus area of the other axis—were well known by
`
`August of 2001, the earliest filing date claimed on the face of the ’564 patent.3
`
`(Ex.-1002, ¶9). Moreover, using filter techniques, such as comparing filtering
`
`criteria to attributes of options, to limit the number of options displayed in an
`
`electronic program guide was also well known by then. (Ex.-1002, ¶9). Therefore,
`
`as explained below, the claims of the ’564 patent recite a predictable combination
`
`
`2 The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art cited on the face
`
`of the ’564 patent as well as by the prior art cited herein.
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any claim of the ’564 patent is entitled to a filing
`
`date earlier than the January 20, 2009 filing date of the ’486 application.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`of prior art techniques, according to their known functionalities as would have
`
`been understood by a PHOSITA in 2001. (Ex.-1002, ¶9).
`
`Bernhardson
`
`
`1.
`Bernhardson, filed June 27, 2001, constitutes prior art to the ’564 patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Bernhardson discloses a GUI including a horizontal scroll bar H and a
`
`vertical scroll bar V. (Bernhardson, 3:51-55). “The scroll bars intersect in a focus
`
`region 16 in the lower left” corner of the user-interface. (Bernhardson, 3:55-57).
`
`Each scroll bar includes a plurality of scroll bar elements (“elements”) “that can be
`
`scrolled successively through the focus region.” (Bernhardson, 2:6-24). In Fig. 3,
`
`Bernhardson discloses elements V0-V6, which can be scrolled vertically into the
`
`focus region 16 using the “up” or “down” scroll buttons of a remote control.
`
`(Bernhardson, 3:63-67). Similarly, Bernhardson discloses elements H0-H6, which
`
`can be horizontally scrolled into the focus region 16 using the “left” or “right”
`
`scroll buttons. (Bernhardson, 4:6-10; Ex.-1002, ¶10).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`“[W]hen elements of the [horizontal] scroll bar are scrolled individually into
`
`the focus region [16],” the elements “of the [vertical] scroll bar signify content
`
`sources which are” grouped into the horizontal element. (Bernhardson, 2:6-24).
`
`Bernhardson also provides that the user can scroll the vertical elements into the
`
`focus region 16 so that the user can make a selection. (Bernhardson, 4:47-51; Ex.-
`
`1002, ¶11).
`
`In Bernhardson, the option included in each horizontal element H may be
`
`“programmed content data,”
`
`(Bernhardson, 6:34-37), such as cartoons
`
`(Bernhardson, Fig. 4C (H1)), but can also be different option types, such as games
`
`and the Internet (Bernhardson, Fig. 4C (H2, H3); Ex.-1002, ¶12).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Robarts
`
`
`2.
`Robarts, published November 25, 1998, constitutes prior art to the ’564
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Robarts discloses software “which enables creation of queries to facilitate
`
`simple and complex searches” on an electronic program guide. (Robarts, 19:11-
`
`15). The software can be implemented in an interactive television or a set-top box.
`
`(Robarts, 14:2-4, 24:20-23). For example, the interactive television is connected to
`
`an EPG database 72, which stores program information received from a content
`
`provider. (Robarts, 27:7-9, 34:3-5). This program information is stored as a data
`
`structure encompassing various items, including several data fields 90. (Robarts,
`
`26:1-2; Ex.-1002, ¶13).
`
`The software provides a user-interface 170, having a scrollable grid
`
`displaying the program information obtained from the EPG database 72. (Robarts,
`
`22:6-7, 31:18-21). The user-interface allows the user to scroll through the program
`
`information, and select a desired program to watch. (Robarts, 33:12-15). In
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`addition, the user-interface includes “predefined query buttons.” (Robarts, 36:3).
`
`“The queries function as a filter which sifts through the programming information
`
`and returns only those items which satisfy the parameters.” (Robarts, 40:22-25).
`
`For example, “[a]ctivation of these query buttons trigger a query of the EPG
`
`database 72 to identify programs satisfying the predefined query parameters.”
`
`(Robarts, 36:4-5). For example, activating the “comedies” query button 206
`
`initiates “a query of the EPG database 72 for all comedy programs.” (Robarts,
`
`36:16-18; Ex.-1002, ¶14).
`
`
`
`The viewer can create viewer-defined queries. (Robarts, 38:9-10). For
`
`example, the viewer can select various search parameters, e.g., program genre, and
`
`“based on these parameters, the [software] constructs a query and searches the
`
`EPG database 72 to locate programs satisfying the query.” (Robarts, 38:16-17).
`
`The software monitors a viewer’s viewing habits, and “automatically develops
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`queries for identifying programs that the viewer would likely watch.” (Robarts,
`
`19:19-25; Ex.-1002, ¶15).
`
`Schein
`
`
`3.
`Schein, filed August 5, 1997 and issued November 21, 2000, constitutes
`
`prior art to the ’564 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).4
`
`Schein discloses a system for displaying a program guide on a television
`
`screen. (Schein, 1:12-15). The program guide shows program schedule information
`
`
`4 While the ’564 patent claims to be a continuation or continuation-in-part of a
`
`number of prior applications and claims the benefit of a number of prior
`
`provisional applications, at least the provisional applications and Application No.
`
`10/097,174 (“’174 application”) do not contain an adequate written description or
`
`an enabling disclosure of the subject matter claimed in claims 1-21 of the ’564
`
`patent, such that claims 1-21 of the ’564 patent are not entitled to a filing date
`
`earlier than March 29, 2002. For example, neither the ’174 application nor the
`
`provisional applications disclose the “receiving,” “filtering,” and “displaying”
`
`steps of claims 1-11 or the “input interface” or “wherein” clauses of claims 12-21.
`
`Nothing in this Petition should be understood to constitute a conclusion that any
`
`claim of the ’564 patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than the January 20, 2009
`
`filing date of the ’486 application.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`in a grid, which “lists the channels in a vertical column … and the [show] times in
`
`a horizontal row.” (Schein, 4:17-27; Ex.-1002, ¶16).
`
`
`
`The viewer can scroll through the grid using a remote control device.
`
`(Schein, 3:59-63, 4:17-24). For example, each click on a scroll button on the
`
`program guide scrolls the program guide one half-hour to the left or right to
`
`display earlier or later programs. (Schein, 11:54-58). “A click-and-hold scrolls a
`
`half-hour every half-second, accelerating over time as the user continues to hold,
`
`coming to a stop upon letting up.” (Schein, 11:58-60; Ex.-1002, ¶17).
`
`Youman
`
`
`4.
`Youman, issued May 13, 1997, constitutes prior art to the ’564 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Youman discloses an electronic program schedule system which receives
`
`schedule information for television programs. (Youman, 4:64-67). The system has
`
`a user-interface which allows the user to filter the program schedule information
`
`by category of the programs. (Youman, 17:5-9, 17:11-15). For example, the user-
`
`interface has “a ‘Category Listing’ mode in which program schedule information is
`
`displayed and categorized by program content.” (Youman, 17:5-9). Youman also
`
`discloses that a “revised or replacement” version of the “application software
`
`which controls the program schedule system” can “be downloaded directly from
`
`the software developer to the user site through the cable or other transmission
`
`system.” (Youman, 8:32-40; Ex.-1002, ¶18).
`
`Tornqvist
`
`
`5.
`Tornqvist, published November 2, 2000, constitutes prior art to the ’564
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Tornqvist discloses methods and arrangements for “scrollable cross point
`
`navigation in a user interface” used to select an option. (Tornqvist, 3:4-6). The
`
`“cross point navigation” system allows a user of, e.g., “digital TV set-top boxes,”
`
`to navigate and select different types of services in “an easy way without
`
`disturbing the actual viewing experience of the user.” (Tornqvist, 5:26-30; Ex.-
`
`1002, ¶19).
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`User-selectable options in the interface are organized into “one or more
`
`levels,” in a “tree-like manner with any branch of the tree constituting a further
`
`level.” (Tornqvist, 9:5-6, 9:22-23). The user-selectable options at “a first level are
`
`very general” categories. (Tornqvist, 9:8; Ex.-1002, ¶20).
`
`At least two “bars”—e.g., a vertical bar and a horizontal bar—are provided
`
`for scrollable cross point navigation. (Tornqvist, 7:25-29). One of the bars displays
`
`user-selectable options at one level and the other bar displays user-selectable
`
`options at a higher or lower level. (Tornqvist, 12:7-9, Figs. 2a and 2b). A user may
`
`scroll through the options of all the levels (e.g., the first, second, and third levels,
`
`etc.) by navigating back and forth between the vertical and horizontal bars.
`
`(Tornqvist, 9:27-10:5; Ex.-1002, ¶21).
`
`“Scrolling is accomplished by feeding or ‘zapping’ up and down or left or
`
`right” to move objects—representing user-selectable options at each level—to a
`
`fixed “focus” area. (Tornqvist, 4:14-15; Figs. 2a, 2b). Objects on each bar are
`
`“displayed in sequence” through “scroll action” by actuating function commands
`
`such as “left, right, up, down, and OK or the like.” (Tornqvist, 4:22-26; Ex.-1002,
`
`¶22).
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`When a user scrolls the vertical bar up or down to place one of the objects
`
`from the vertical bar (e.g., one of objects A-G) into the fixed “focus area,” the
`
`horizontal bar displays objects (e.g. objects F0-F5) corresponding to the object
`
`from the vertical bar in the fixed focus area (e.g. object F). (Tornqvist, 7:24-27,
`
`7:32-36). When the user scrolls the horizontal bar left or right to place one of the
`
`objects from the horizontal bar (e.g., one of objects F0-F5) into the fixed “focus
`
`area,” the vertical bar displays objects (e.g. objects F2:0-F2:5) corresponding to the
`
`object from the horizontal bar (e.g. object F2). (Tornqvist, 7:24-27, 7:32-36; Ex.-
`
`1002, ¶23).
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground A
`It would have been obvious to utilize Robarts’s filtering techniques in
`
`Bernhardson’s GUI such that claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, and 21 would have been
`
`obvious in view of Bernhardson and Robarts. (Ex.-1002, ¶¶24-86).
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`1.
`[1a] A method for navigating options within a user interface
`
`Bernhardson discloses a method for navigating “a graphical user interface
`
`which may be used to select content sources.” (Bernhardson, 2:3-5). The “content
`
`sources” are displayed as elements and they refer to the options of claim 1.
`
`(Bernhardson, 4:12-19; Ex.-1002, ¶24).
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`[1b] providing a first set of cards, each card graphically
`representing a single available option from one of a
`plurality of option types;
`
`Bernhardson discloses a set of cards as GUI elements, each including
`
`“individual object fields in which information concerning sources of program
`
`content can be displayed.” (Bernhardson, 3:59-62). In Bernhardson’s user-
`
`interface, the vertical elements are displayed as “two-dimensional rectangular
`
`displays,” and the horizontal elements are displayed as “three-dimensional
`
`rectangular blocks.” (Bernhardson, 3:59-62, 4:3-6). These elements facilitate
`
`interaction with a television option. For example, selecting a horizontal element
`
`results in the display of a set of vertical elements that correspond to the selected
`
`horizontal element, and selecting a vertical element results in the display of the
`
`corresponding option, such as a television channel (e.g. news channel, cartoon
`
`chann