Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 19
`Date: January 13, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 19
`Date: January 13, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’879 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Neonode Smartphone LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Pre-Institution Reply (Paper 17,
`“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Pre-Institution Sur-reply (Paper 18,
`“Sur-reply”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard
`for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the
`Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the
`petition.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following district court proceedings involving
`the ’879 patent: Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`00505 (W.D. Tex.) and Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd., Case No. 6:20-cv-00507 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 106; Paper 3, 2. The
`parties also note that the ’879 patent is challenged in IPR2021-00144, which
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`(collectively, “Samsung”), and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed (the “prior
`petition” or “Samsung and Apple petition”). Pet. 106, Paper 3, 2.
`Patent Owner also identifies as related IPR2021-00145 (challenging
`U.S. Patent No. 8,812,993 B2). Paper 3, 2.
`B. The ’879 Patent
`The ’879 patent, titled “User Interface for Mobile Handheld Computer
`Unit,” issued on January 10, 2012. Ex. 1001 at [45], [54]. The ’879 patent
`describes a user interface for a mobile handheld computer that has a touch
`sensitive area divided into a menu area and a display area. Id. at 1:6–9. The
`menu area shows a representation of a first, a second, and a third predefined
`function that “can be activated when the touch sensitive area detects a
`movement of an object with its starting point within the representation of the
`function on the menu area and with a direction from the menu area to the
`display area.” Id. at 1:65–2:5, 2:11–14. “[T]he first function is a general
`application dependent function, the second function is a keyboard function,
`and the third function is a task and file manager.” Id. at 2:7–10.
`The user interface is “specifically adapted to be used with a small
`computer unit” having a touch sensitive area that is approximately 2–3
`inches and also is adapted so that a user can operate it with one hand. Id. at
`3:1–6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`We reproduce Figure 1 of the ’879 patent below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic view of touch sensitive area 1 on a mobile handheld
`computer unit, depicting menu area 2 adapted to present a representation of
`first 21, second, 22, and third 23 predefined functions. Id. at 3:21–22, 4:1–3.
`We reproduce Figure 2 of the ’879 patent below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a schematic side view illustrating how a user activates a function.
`Id. at 3:24–25. A user can activate any one of functions 21, 22, or 23 when
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`touch sensitive area 1 detects a movement of object 4 with its starting point
`A within the representation of a function on menu area 2 and with direction
`B from menu area 2 to display area 3. Id. at 4:7–11. Object 4 can be a
`finger, a pen, or another pointing device. Id. at 6:11–15.
`The ’879 patent explains that when a user activates, for example, the
`first function, the display area is adapted to display icons representing
`services or settings, depending on the current active application. Id. at 2:18–
`20. Figure 3, which we reproduce below, illustrates first function 21
`activated.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of the first function. Id. at 3:26. Figure 3
`shows that after a user activates first function 21 with the movement
`depicted in Figure 2, display area 3 displays icons 211–216, each
`representing services or functions depending on the current active
`application. Id. at 4:12–15. If, for example, the active application handles a
`picture, then the icons showing on display area 3 after a user activates the
`first function “can be services such as ‘save to disk’, ‘send as SMS’, or
`‘delete’, and they can be setting such as ‘resolution’, ‘colour’, or
`‘brightness’.” Id. at 4:24–28. If no application is active on the computer,
`then icons 211–216 represent services or settings of the operating system,
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`such as background picture clock, alarm 215, users 213, and help 211. Id. at
`4:29–32.
`The ’879 patent describes, in similar fashion, how a user activates the
`second keyboard function and the third task and file manager function. See
`id. at 4:34–5:63.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 of the ’879
`patent (collectively, “the challenged claims”). Claim 1, the only
`independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and recites:
`1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a
`computer program with computer program code, which, when
`read by a mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer to
`present a user interface for the mobile handheld computer unit,
`the user interface comprising:
`a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is
`provided, wherein the representation consists of only one
`option for activating the function and wherein the function is
`activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object
`touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the
`representation is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along
`the touch sensitive area away from the touched location,
`wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or
`duplicated during the gliding.
`Ex. 1001, 6:45–59.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds:
`References/Basis
`35 U.S.C. §
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Robertson, 2 Maddalozzo3
`103(a)1
`1–5, 13, 15–17
`Robertson, Maddalozzo, Vayda4
`103(a)
`6, 7, 9
`Robertson, Maddalozzo,
`103(a)
`12
`Bedford-Roberts5
`Tarpenning6
`103(a)
`1, 4–6, 13, 15–17
`Tarpenning, Vayda
`103(a)
`2, 3, 7, 9
`Tarpenning, Bedford-Roberts
`103(a)
`12
`Pet. 1–2. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Jacob O. Wobbrock
`(Ex. 1003) to support its asserted grounds of unpatentability. Patent Owner
`disputes that Petitioner’s asserted grounds render any of the challenged
`claims unpatentable. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner relies on
`the Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg (Ex. 2001).
`III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) DUE TO PRIOR
`PETITION
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny
`institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in view of the prior petition Samsung
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’879 patent has an
`effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`2 George G. Robertson et al., Buttons as First Class Objects on an
`X Desktop, UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface
`Software and Technology: Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, 35–44 (Nov.
`11–13, 1991) (Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,768,501, issued Aug. 3, 2010 (Ex. 1006).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,717, issued Apr. 28, 1998 (Ex. 1007).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,870,092, issued Feb. 9, 1999 (Ex. 1008).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,344, issued Jan. 30, 2001 (Ex. 1009).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`and Apple filed in IPR2021-00144 challenging the ’879 patent. Prelim.
`Resp. 1–2; Sur-reply 1–3. Petitioner argues that we should not exercise
`discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Pet. 105; Reply 1.
`For the reasons stated below, we do not exercise discretion to deny
`institution in view of the prior petition.
`Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (authorizing institution of an inter partes review under particular
`circumstances, but not requiring institution under any circumstances);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he
`agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent
`Office’s discretion.”); SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018)
`(“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question
`whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid
`Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d at1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is
`permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”).
`When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in
`view of a prior petition challenging the same patent, we consider the
`following non-exclusive factors:
`1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or
`should have known of it;
`3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary
`response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on
`whether to institute review in the first petition;
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition
`and the filing of the second petition;
`5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation
`for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`6. the finite resources of the Board; and
`7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which
`the Director notices institution of review.
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`Paper 19, 16−17 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”).
`We address each of these factors in turn.
`1. Factor 1: petitioner and challenged claims
`As we note above, Samsung and Apple previously filed a petition
`challenging the ’879 patent. Patent Owner contends that the Samsung and
`Apple petition and the present petition challenge the same patent, and of the
`thirteen claims challenged in the follow-on petition, eleven overlap the
`previous petition. Prelim. Resp. 6–7; Sur-reply 1. Patent Owner further
`contends Petitioner has a sufficiently close relationship with Samsung and
`Apple warranting exercise of discretion to deny institution. Prelim. Resp. 7–
`9 (citing Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper
`11 at 2 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve”); PayPal, Inc. v.
`IOENGINE LLC, IPR2019-00884, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2019)
`(“PayPal”). Patent Owner argues that three facts establish a sufficiently
`close relationship: (1) Petitioner sued Samsung for infringing the ’879
`patent and Samsung sells the accused Galaxy devices preinstalled with
`Petitioner’s operating system and other of Petitioner’s mobile apps;
`(2) Petitioner offers through Google Play and Apple’s App Store its virtual
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`keyboard operation—GBoard—that Patent Owner identifies as infringing in
`the complaint against Apple and that is accessible on the accused Samsung
`and Apple phones; and (3) Apple relied on the presence of Petitioner’s
`employees in the Northern District of California to support a motion to
`transfer Patent Owner’s case and to support a mandamus petition Apple filed
`after the district court denied the motion to transfer. Id. at 8; Sur-reply 1.
`Petitioner asserts that it is not a party to any litigation involving the
`’879 patent and, therefore, the Valve and PayPal decisions are
`distinguishable. Reply 2–3. Petitioner further asserts that it is not a
`petitioner in, and was not involved with the prior petition, Patent Owner fails
`to show any “significant relationship” with Samsung or Apple, and the
`present Petition challenges additional claims that were not included in the
`first petition, all of which favor declining to exercise discretion to deny
`institution. Pet. 105; Reply 1–3.
`As both parties acknowledge, “when different petitioners challenge
`the same patent [the Board] consider[s] any relationship between those
`petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve, Paper 11 at
`9. In Valve, the Board explained that the first General Plastic factor
`weighed in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution because “Valve
`[the second petitioner] and HTC [the first petitioner] were co-defendants in
`the District Court litigation and were accused of infringing the [challenged]
`patent based on the same product.” Id. at 9–10. Thus, the Board in Valve
`found three facts sufficient to establish a significant relationship between the
`two petitioners—the first and second petitioners were co-defendants, the
`challenged patent had been asserted against both petitioners because the first
`petitioner had licensed the allegedly infringing technology from the second
`petitioner, and the second petitioner provided the first petitioner with
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`technical assistance during development of the accused product. Id. In
`PayPal, the Board determined a significant relationship existed between the
`first and second petitioners even though they were not co-defendants
`because the first petitioner and second petitioner were accused of infringing
`the same patent based on the same products, the first petitioner had an
`indemnification agreement with the second petitioner, and the first petitioner
`filed a declaratory judgment action based on the indemnification agreement.
`PayPal, Paper 22 at 9, 10–11.
`Here, in contrast, Petitioner is not a party to any litigation. Thus,
`Petitioner is not a co-defendant with Samsung or Apple. Nor is there any
`evidence to indicate that Petitioner has an indemnification agreement with
`Samsung or Apple. At most, as Patent Owner argues, the accused Samsung
`devices are preinstalled with Petitioner’s operating system and other of
`Petitioner’s mobile applications, and Petitioner’s GBoard application, which
`is accused of infringing, is available for download on Petitioner’s store app
`and Apple’s app store. 7 In our view, these facts do not create a significant
`relationship under Valve. Accordingly, on the record before us, we
`determine that Petitioner does not have a significant relationship with
`Samsung or Apple.
`As for the challenged claims, we agree with Patent Owner that the
`current Petition challenges most of the claims that were challenged in the
`
`
`7 We do not find as relevant to our analysis the fact that Apple relied on the
`location of Petitioner’s witnesses in its transfer motion and mandamus
`petition. As Petitioner notes, Reply 2, the motion and petition rely on the
`court’s power to compel third-party witnesses to testify, see Ex. 2015, 10–
`11; Ex. 2016, 21–22, and Patent Owner does not explain why that is relevant
`to our determination of whether a significant relationship exists between
`Petitioner and Apple and/or Samsung.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`prior petition. An overlap in claims alone, however, is not enough to tip this
`factor in favor of exercising discretion to institute review. See Valve, Paper
`11 at 10 (“The complete overlap in claims and the significant relationship
`between Valve and HTC favor denying institution.”). As a result, we
`determine that the first factor weighs against exercising our discretion to
`deny institution.
`2. Factor 2: knew, or should have known, of the prior art
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should have known of the prior
`art references asserted in its Petition at the time the prior petition was filed
`because the prior art references are all publicly available on either
`Petitioner’s own search engine, its own patent search platform, or the Patent
`and Trademark Office’s “Public PAIR” platform. Prelim. Resp. 10–11;
`Sur-reply 2. Petitioner asserts that it was not aware of the asserted prior art
`references until six months after the prior petition was filed, and Patent
`Owner does not adequately explain why Petitioner should have known of
`them at the time the previous petition was filed. Pet. 105–106; Reply 3–4.
`Petitioner further asserts that this factor is “of limited relevance” because the
`current Petition asserts different prior art than the Samsung and Apple
`petition. Reply 3.
`We agree with Petitioner that this factor is of limited relevance in our
`analysis because the current Petition relies on different prior art than the
`Samsung and Apple petition. See Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Mimzi, LLC,
`IPR2019-01287, Paper 11 at 8–9 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2020). Further, as we
`discuss in connection with the first General Plastic factor, Petitioner is not a
`party to any litigation. This fact undermines Patent Owner’s argument that
`Petitioner should have known of the prior art references asserted in the
`Samsung and Apple petition, as we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`fails to address why Petitioner should have searched for or known of prior
`art in November 2020 when Petitioner was not a party to any litigation.
`Accordingly, the second factor weighs against exercising our discretion to
`deny institution.
`3. Factor 3: had the benefit of preliminary response and prior decision on
`institution
`Patent Owner argues that it filed a preliminary response to the
`Samsung and Apple petition on March 17, 2021, and Petitioner filed its
`Petition on June 14, 2021, so Patent Owner’s preliminary response was
`available to Petitioner when it began drafting the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 11–
`12; Sur-reply 2. Petitioner asserts that it filed the Petition before a decision
`on institution of the Samsung and Apple petition and Patent Owner offers no
`evidence that Petitioner obtained an unfair benefit or tactical advantage from
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response. Pet. 105; Reply 4.
`We agree with Petitioner. Petitioner relies on different prior art here
`than the art asserted in the Samsung and Apple petition, and Patent Owner
`does not identify any unfair benefit or tactical advantage that Petitioner
`would have gained from reviewing Patent Owner’s preliminary response to
`the Samsung and Apple petition. Accordingly, the third factor weighs
`against exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`4. Factors 4 and 5: delay in filing the petition
`For factor four, Patent Owner argues that the Board should consider
`that: (1) the prior petition was available to Petitioner since November 6,
`2020, seven months before Petitioner filed the current Petition; (2) Patent
`Owner’s preliminary response was available Petitioner since March 17,
`2021, three months before its petition was filed; and (3) the prior art
`references that Petitioner cites in its petition were available to Petitioner on
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`its own search platforms and the Patent and Trademark Office’s Public
`PAIR platform at all material times. Prelim. Resp. 12–14; Sur-reply 2–3.
`Similarly, for factor five, Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s explanation for
`the elapsed time between the original petition and the current petition is
`unsupported and fails to address why Petitioner delayed seven months after
`the original petition and three months after Patent Owner’s preliminary
`response to file the current Petition when the prior art references Petitioner
`asserts were available to Petitioner on its own search platforms and the
`Patent and Trademark Office’s Public PAIR platform at all material times.
`Prelim. Resp. 14–15; Sur-reply 2–3. Petitioner argues that it: (1) was not a
`party to any previous litigation; (2) became aware of the prior art references
`asserted in the previous petition around May 3, 2021; and (3) filed its
`petition six weeks after becoming aware of the prior art references. Pet. 106;
`Reply 4–5.
`Because Petitioner and prior petitioners Samsung and Apple are
`unrelated, we find that this factor is only marginally relevant to our analysis.
`Here, Petitioner represents on the record that it only became aware of the
`prior art references asserted in the Samsung and Apple petition in May 2021,
`and filed its petition six weeks later. Pet. 106; Reply 4–5. Nothing in the
`record calls Petitioner’s representations into question, which we credit.
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner should have known
`about the prior petition and preliminary response imply a relationship
`between Petitioner and Samsung or Apple. But as we discuss in connection
`with the first factor, Petitioner does not have a significant relationship with
`either Samsung or Apple. Accordingly, the fourth and fifth factors weigh
`against exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`5. Factors 6 and 7: Board resources and statutory deadline
`Patent Owner asserts that, “in general, having multiple petitions
`challenging the same patent . . . is inefficient and tends to waste resources.”
`Prelim. Resp. 15; Sur-reply 3. Other than that general assertion, Patent
`Owner reiterates the same arguments it presents for factors four and five.
`See Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Petitioner contends it only recently learned of the
`’879 patent and is not a party to any litigation involving it. Pet. 106.
`Neither party addresses the Board’s statutory deadline.
`We are mindful that the “intent in formulating the [General Plastic]
`factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into
`account.” General Plastic, Paper 19, at 17. We are also mindful, however,
`of potential prejudice to a second petitioner if institution of review based on
`the second petition is denied—as was originally the case with the Samsung
`and Apple petition—or the proceeding involving the first petitioner is
`terminated. In view of those two competing concerns, we find the sixth
`factor neutral. We find that the seventh factor weighs against exercising our
`discretion to deny institution because there is no argument or evidence that
`instituting review in this case will cause any delay in meeting our statutory
`deadline for issuing a final written decision in either this case or the case
`involving the Samsung and Apple petition.
`6. Conclusion
`We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of
`the General Plastic factors. Because our analysis is fact-driven, no single
`factor is determinative of whether we exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under § 314(a). Evaluating all of the factors on this record, we
`determine that the circumstances presented here do not support exercising
`our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`For Petitioner, Dr. Wobbrock testifies that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention, would have had “at least a bachelor’s
`degree in Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Symbolic
`Systems, or related engineering disciplines, and at least two years of
`experience designing and programming graphical user interfaces,” but
`“[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and
`advanced degree studies could substitute for work experience.” Ex. 1003
`¶ 49. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Rosenberg, applies Dr. Wobbrock’s
`description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. We adopt
`Dr. Wobbrock’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it
`is consistent with the problems and solutions the ’879 patent identifies and
`with the prior art.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`Neither party contends that there are claim terms in dispute, or that we
`need to construe any terms for purposes of this decision. See Pet. 4; see
`generally Prelim. Resp. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and
`evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim
`terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`C. Asserted References
`Before turning to Petitioner’s asserted grounds, we provide a brief
`summary of the asserted references.
`1. Robertson (Ex. 1005)
`Robertson describes a high-level user interface toolkit called
`“XButtons,” that supports on-screen buttons as first-class objects on an
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`“X window system desktop.” Ex. 1005, 35. Robertson further describes
`that XButtons: typically appear as small rectangular screen objects; usually
`have some text that indicates what their action is, and may also have a field
`for some editable text. Id. at 38. A group of XButtons is shown in Figure 1,
`which we reproduce below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a sample set of XButtons. Id. at 38–39. XButtons have
`multiple actions which are selected by simple mouse or pen gestures, where
`there are two classes of gestures, touching gestures and grasping gestures.
`Id. at 39. Whenever a user gestures at an XButton, a gesture parser
`interprets mouse or pen movement and classifies it as one of a set of easily
`differentiated gestures (e.g., “flick left,” “flick right,” “flick up,” “flick
`down,” “click,” “rubout,” “check,” or “insert”). Id. A menu for an XButton
`is shown in Figure 2, which we reproduce below.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a sample menu for an XButton. Id. at 40. The menu
`shows all potential user manipulations of the XButton. Id. A button editor
`for an XButton is shown in Figure 3, which we reproduce below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 shows a button editor for the XButton whose menu is shown in
`Figure 2. Id. The button editor is a structured property-sheet editor
`designed specifically for editing XButtons. Id. The editor fields at the top
`specify the appearance of the button. Id. The middle of the editor specifies
`the action language, the various actions, and the text to appear in the menu
`for each action. Id. Toward the bottom of the editor are fields (“Attribute”
`and “Value”) that allow the user to view and replace user-defined properties.
`Id.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`2. Maddalozzo (Ex. 1006)
`Maddalozzo describes a portable computer having a display screen
`where data is displayed initially within the display screen. Ex. 1006, 2:15–
`18. The display screen is partitioned into a touch-sensitive input area and a
`display area, where data input at the touch-sensitive input area is
`simultaneously displayed in the display area, in response to a particular
`input. Id. at 2:18–22. A graphical user interface displayed within a display
`screen is shown in Figure 6, which we reproduce below.
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a graphical user interface window 83 displayed in a
`keyboard mode within a display screen. Id. at 6:36–38. When a user
`touches “keys” displayed on display screen 80, keyboard input is reflected
`onto the screen beneath transparent keyboard 110. Id. at 6:48–50. Further, a
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`smaller “active” window 100 is displayed to indicate the actual typing taking
`place. Id. at 7:1–3.
`
`3. Vayda (Ex. 1007)
`Vayda describes a menu generating computer system for displaying a
`graphical display including a menu on a display of the computer system.
`Ex. 1007, [57]. The menu can be activated by a button combination on a
`user input device or another input device, such as a touch screen. Id. at
`6:14–19. An example menu is shown in Figure 14, which we reproduce
`below.
`
`
`Figure 14 illustrates a menu screen 1400 comprising a select/execute method
`1402. Id. at 14:67–15:1. Select/execute menu 1402 comprises a vertical
`command bar 1450, a horizontal command bar 1452, and diagonal command
`bars 1460 and 1462. Id. at 15:1–4. Vayda describes that commands are
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`selected by scrolling horizontally, vertically and/or diagonally through a
`focus position. Id. at 14:65–67.
`4. Bedford-Roberts (Ex. 1008)
`Bedford-Roberts describes a device for displaying pages of
`electronically stored information comprising a pen/finger sensitive symbol
`enabling a user to browse the information by page turning. Ex. 1008, 1:43–
`45. The user can stroke the symbol to riffle through pages. Id. at 1:51–53.
`The device is shown in Figure 1, which we reproduce below.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`Figure 1 illustrates a pen-based handheld device 10 for storing and
`displaying pages of electronic information comprising a display screen 12
`and a pen for user input. Id. at 2:24–26. The device also comprises a book
`symbol 18 for enabling users to browse pages of stored information. Id. at
`2:26–28. Symbol 18 is shown in greater detail in Figure 2, which we
`reproduce below.
`
`Figure 2 shows symbol 18 from Figure 1, where symbol 18 depicts an open
`book. Id. at 2:19, 30. The symbol 18 is notionally divided into three
`segments 20, 21, and 22, the boundaries of which are indicated by dotted
`lines in Figure 2. Id. at 2:37–39. The symbol 18 includes a representation
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`24 of an open book and a double-headed arrow 26. Id. at 2:39–41. The left
`hand head 28 of the arrow 26 is in the region 20 and the right hand head 30
`of the arrow is in the region 22. Id. at 2:41–43. The book representation 24
`and the body 34 of the arrow 26 are in the region 21. Id. at 2:43–44. The
`book representation 24 comprises page delimiters 36 which are ridges
`formed in the symbol 18 which the user can feel as the pen 14 is moved over
`the symbol 18. Id. at 2:47–49.
`In use, as the user moves the pen 14 along the body 34 of the arrow,
`or anywhere within the region 21, successive pages of stored information are
`displayed, depending on the direction of movement along the arrow body 34.
`Id. at 2:50–53. As a page delimiter 36 is traversed by the pen 14, the next
`page in the direction of movement of the pen 14 is displayed. Id. at 2:54–55.
`If the user taps one of the arrow heads 28 or 30, this causes the device 10 to
`display the next page in the direction indicated by the tapped arrow head.
`Id. at 2:56–58. In order to riffle through a large number of pages of stored
`information, the user repeatedly moves the pen 14 in a single direction in the
`region 21 over the body 34 of the arrow 26. Id. at 2:61–63.
`5. Tarpenning (Ex. 1009)
`Tarpenning describes a hand-held reader device that includes a touch-
`sensitive display and graphical user interface, where the user access various
`software-implemented features associated with the display and management
`of the content. Ex. 1009, [57]. A perspective view of the hand-held reader
`device is shown in Figure 2, which we reproduce below.
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01041
`Patent 8,095,879 B2
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a hand-held computing device adapted to be used as a
`portable reading device allow
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
