UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01000
`U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,995,102
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`Page
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ...................................................................................................... vii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 5
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 6
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 6
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 6
`A.
`Challenged Claim ................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ........................................................... 6
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 7
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’102 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`A.
`Priority Date of the ’102 Patent............................................................ 8
`B.
`State of the Art Before the Application for the ’102 Patent ................. 8
`Cursors in Graphical User Interfaces ............................................... 8
`1.
`2.
`Client/Server Systems ........................................................................ 10
`Summary of the ’102 Patent ............................................................... 11
`C.
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................. 13
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`Claim Term Previously Construed: “said specific image
`including content corresponding to at least a portion of said
`information to be displayed on said display of said user’s
`terminal” ............................................................................................. 14
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................... 15
`A. Overview of Prior Art References ...................................................... 15
`1. Malamud (EX1004) ............................................................................ 15
`2.
`Nakagawa (EX1005) .......................................................................... 18
`3.
`Nielsen (EX1006) ............................................................................... 19
`B. Motivation to Combine References ................................................... 21
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 21
`1.
`2. Motivation to Download Malamud’s Application
`Program from a Server, and the Obviousness of Doing So ...... 22
`3. Motivation to Combine the Teachings of Malamud and
`Nakagawa, and the Obviousness of that Combination .............. 24
`4. Motivation to Combine the Teachings of Nielsen and
`Malamud, and the Obviousness of that Combination ................ 25
`C. Ground 1: Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud .................. 27
`D. Ground 2: Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Malamud and
`Nakagawa ........................................................................................... 38
`Ground 3: Claim 72 Is Rendered Obvious by Nielsen and
`Malamud ............................................................................................. 43
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ............................ 50
`A.
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C. §
`314(a) .................................................................................................. 50
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) ................................................................................................. 53
`
`E.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 57
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’102 PATENT ......................... 58
`Claim 72 ........................................................................................................................ 58
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische
`Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .......................................... 53, 54
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 50, 51, 53
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ......................................... 53, 54
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 22
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 22
`Equipmentshare.com Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00834, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2021) ............................................. 52
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 21
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 21, 22
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00169-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ...........................................................passim
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................passim
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC,
`IPR2021-00148, Paper 19 (PTAB May 14, 2021) ............................................. 51
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 22
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Hirshfeld,
`852 Fed. App’x 540 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................... 5
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos Media IP, LLC,
`IPR2018-01749, Paper 21 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020) ..................................... 5, 14, 56
`Resi Media LLC v. Boxcast Inc.,
`IPR2022-00067, Paper 16 (PTAB Apr. 26, 2022) ............................................. 52
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 50
`Synthego Corp. v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2022-00403, Paper 12 (PTAB May 31, 2022) ............................................. 56
`Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2020-00904, Paper 11 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2020) ............................................. 14
`Thorne Rsch., Inc. v. Tr. of Dartmouth Coll.,
`IPR2021-00491, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021) ............................................. 54
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) ...................................... 13
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 ...................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 6, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 50
`35 U.S.C. §314(b) .............................................................................................. 51, 52
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 53, 56
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) .................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................. 60
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(c) ................................................................................................ 51
`37 C.F.R. §42.107(b) ............................................................................................... 52
`37 CFR § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
` U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 entitled Server System and Method for
`Modifying a Cursor Image to James Samuel Rosen et al. (“the ’102
`Patent”).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 entitled Server System and Method for
`Modifying a Cursor Image to James Samuel Rosen et al. (“the ’449
`Patent”).
`
`Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,437,800 to Mark A. Malamud (“Malamud”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,911 to Toru Nakagawa, et al. (“Nakagawa”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,417 to Jakob Nielsen (“Nielsen”).
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP
`(“APMEX”), Early Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Dkt. 86
`(E.D. Tex., Mar. 16, 2017).
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLV v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00169-JRG,
`Parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Dkt. 89
`(E.D. Tex., May 16, 2023) (including the exhibits attached thereto).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,176 to Chris Crawford (“Crawford”).
`
`File History of the ’102 Patent.
`
`File History of the ’449 Patent.
`
`EX1001
`
`EX1002
`
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`
`EX1005
`
`EX1006
`
`EX1007
`
`EX1008
`
`EX1009
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`
`1 Given the near complete overlap of the documents relied upon in this IPR
`
`Petition and those relied upon in the IPR Petition on the related ’449 Patent, Peti-
`
`tioner has included in this list and in both Petitions all documents relied upon in the
`
`two IPR Petitions so that the Board need only refer to one set of Exhibits.
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`Appendices to the Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claim 72 (the “Challenged Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 (“the ’102 Patent”)
`
`(EX1001) assigned to Lexos Media IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`5
`
`This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood of invalidity of the
`
`Challenged Claim. For the reasons set forth below, review should be instituted,
`
`and the Challenged Claim should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`10
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies the following as the
`
`real parties-in-interest: Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Ama-
`
`zon.com Sales, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’102 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 (“the ’449 Patent”), and U.S. Pa-
`
`15
`
`tent No. 7,975,241 (“the ’241 Patent”) (collectively, the “Lexos Patents”) are as-
`
`serted against Petitioner in Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-
`
`cv-00169-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (the “District Court Litigation”).1 Patent Owner served
`
`the complaint in the District Court Litigation on Petitioner on June 6, 2022. Peti-
`
`
`1 Lexos alleges in the District Court Litigation that it is the owner of the ’102
`
`and ’449 Patents. Lexos is recorded as the current assignee of those Patents.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`tioner is contemporaneously filing a petition for IPR of claims 1, 27, 38, and 53 of
`
`
`
`the ’449 Patent, which is a continuation of the ’102 Patent.2
`
`Lexos is currently asserting the ’102 and ’449 Patents in the following addi-
`
`tional cases:
`
`5
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. N. Tool & Equip. Co., No. 2-22-cv-00355 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC. v. ABT Elecs., Inc., No. 1-22-cv-04878 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Walmart Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00316 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02324 (D. Kan.);
`
`10
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. MSC Industrial Direct Co., No. 3-22-cv-01736
`(N.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Gap Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00299 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ultra Beauty, Inc., 2-22-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`15
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. CDW LLC, No. 2-22-cv-00275 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Office Depot, LLC, No. 2-22-cv-00273 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. eBay Inc., No. 6-22-cv-00648 (W.D. Tex.); and
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 2-22-cv-00175 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`
`2 For consistency and ease of reference for the Board across both related IPR
`
`Petitions, all citations to the specification in both Petitions will be made to the col-
`
`umn and line numbers of the ’102 Patent (EX1001).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`Additionally, Lexos previously asserted the ’102 Patent and/or the ’449 Pa-
`
`
`
`tent or those patents were at issue in the following cases, all of which are now ter-
`
`minated:
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ace Hardware Corp., No. 2-22-cv-00304 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The TJX Cos., No. 2-22-cv-00285 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. La-Z-Boy Inc., No. 6-21-cv-00205 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. ASICS Am. Corp., No. 6-21-cv-00117 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Luxottica Grp. SpA, No. 6-21-cv-00096 (W.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Gift Svcs., Inc., No. 6-20-cv-01156 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 6-20-cv-01142 (W.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Hirshfeld, No. 20-1862 (Fed. Cir.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-01317 (D.
`Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Oriental Trading Co., No. 1-17-cv-01318 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ralph Lauren Corp., No. 1-17-cv-01319 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. TJX Cos., No. 1-17-cv-01320 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-01321 (D.
`Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. AmeriMark Direct, LLC, No. 2-17-cv-00372 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Boscov’s Dep’t Store, LLC, No. 2-17-cv-00373
`(E.D. Tex.);
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00747 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2-16-cv-00748 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Musician’s Friend, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00749 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00750 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Saks Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmnt., Inc., No. 2-
`16-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Recreational Equip., Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02107 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Sears Brands, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-02098 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-
`02100 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Express, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-02073 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02052 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02051
`(E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media, Inc. v. Zynga, Inc., No. 1-12-cv-07994 (S.D.N.Y.);
`
`20
`
`Lexos Media, Inc. v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2-12-cv-00395 (M.D. Fla.); and
`
`Zynga Inc. v. Lexos Media, Inc., No. 5-12-cv-01952 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`In one of those cases in the Eastern District of Texas, the court construed a
`
`single claim term as discussed in the claim construction section below.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`Ralph Lauren Corporation (“RLC”) previously petitioned for inter partes re-
`
`
`
`view of claims 70-73 of the ’102 Patent (IPR2018-01749), and review was institut-
`
`ed. In a Final Written Decision (“FWD”), the Board held that RLC (1) had
`
`demonstrated that claims 71 and 73 were unpatentable as obvious, but (2) had not
`
`5
`
`demonstrated unpatentability of claims 70 and 72. Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos
`
`Media IP, LLC, IPR2018-01749, Paper 21 at 35 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020). RLC ap-
`
`pealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decisions. Ralph Lauren
`
`Corp. v. Hirshfeld, 852 Fed. App’x 540 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc.
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`Jon R. Carter
`Daniel T. Shvodian
`(Reg. No. 75,145)
`(Reg. No. 42,148)
`carter-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Dr.
`1155 Avenue of the Americas
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`New York, NY 10036-2711
`Phone: 650-838-4413
`Phone: 212-262-6900
`Fax: 650-838-4350
`Fax: 212-977-1649
`
`Powers of attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`10
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the following address:
`
`Shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to De-
`
`posit Account No. 50-0665.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`5
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’102 Patent is available for review, and Petitioner
`
`is not barred/estopped from requesting review on the grounds herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Challenged Claim
`
`Petitioner requests review of claim 72 of the ’102 Patent (the “Challenged
`
`10
`
`Claim”) and cancellation of that claim as unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`The challenged claim should be canceled as unpatentable in view of the fol-
`
`lowing grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claim 72 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`15
`
`Patent No. 6,437,800 (“Malamud”).
`
`Ground 2: Claim 72 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mal-
`
`amud and U.S. Patent No. 5,835,911 (“Nakagawa”).
`
`Ground 3: Claim 72 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,937,417 (“Nielsen”) and Malamud.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest effec-
`
`
`
`tive filing date of the ’102 Patent is June 25, 1997, which is the filing date of U.S.
`
`Application No. 08/882,580 to which the ’102 Patent claims priority.
`
`Malamud issued on August 20, 2002 from Application No. 08/329,724,
`
`5
`
`which was filed on October 26, 1994, as a continuation of Application No.
`
`08/054,564, filed on April 28, 1993. Nakagawa issued on November 10, 1998
`
`from Application No. 517,133, which was filed on August 21, 1995, as a continua-
`
`tion-in-part of Application No. 385,460, filed on February 8, 1995. Nielsen issued
`
`on August 10, 1999 from Application No. 08/643,893, which was filed on May 7,
`
`10
`
`1996. Therefore, Malamud, Nakagawa, and Nielsen each qualify as prior art under
`
`at least § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`As addressed in Section X(B) below, none of the grounds presented herein
`
`have been previously considered.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`15
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date
`
`would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human
`
`computer interaction. (EX1003 at ¶¶31-35.) The POSITA would have at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engi-
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`neering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work
`
`
`
`experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience.3 (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’102 PATENT
`A.
`
`Priority Date of the ’102 Patent
`
`5
`
`The ’102 Patent issued on November 30, 1999 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/882,580, which was filed on June 25, 1997. Therefore, the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the ’102 Patent is June 25, 1997.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art Before the Application for the ’102 Patent
`1.
`
`Cursors in Graphical User Interfaces
`
`10
`
`A graphical user interface (“GUI”) is one form of human-computer interface
`
`that was in widespread use by 1997. (EX1003 at ¶40.) The “desktop metaphor” is
`
`one well-known type of GUI that was used before 1997 and remains in use today.
`
`A desktop metaphor GUI uses graphical icons to represent computer files and ap-
`
`plications on a virtual desktop, and users can interact with the icons using a point-
`
`15
`
`ing device, such as a mouse, rollerball, touchpad, or stylus pen. (Id.)
`
`Computer interface devices, including pointing devices and display screens,
`
`generally have “drivers,” which are programs dedicated to communicating between
`
`
`3 Dr. Rosenberg qualified as a POSITA by the asserted priority date, and he
`
`is qualified to testify to what such a person would have understood at the time of
`
`the claimed invention. (EX1003 at ¶36.)
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`the device and other software like application programs or the operating system
`
`
`
`(“OS”). (Id. at ¶¶43-44.) The OS manages computer hardware and software re-
`
`sources, and it can act as an intermediary between application programs and the
`
`hardware drivers. (Id.) For example, a “display driver” can accept commands
`
`5
`
`from the OS and generate signals to the display device to render the desired text or
`
`image, including GUI elements, on the display device’s screen. (Id.)
`
`When a user moves a pointing device, such as a mouse, an image called a
`
`“cursor” moves correspondingly onscreen. (Id.) The cursor’s image is the actual
`
`image drawn by the OS’s display function or application to visually indicate the
`
`10
`
`cursor’s position on the screen. (Id.) Cursor images generally include a single
`
`pixel, called the “hotspot,” that identifies the location on the screen where input
`
`from a user, such as a mouse click, would have an effect. (Id. at ¶49.)
`
`Applications and code other than the OS can also affect the cursor’s appear-
`
`ance. (Id. at ¶45.) For example, an application may modify displayed graphical
`
`15
`
`elements, such as the cursor image, by sending data and/or commands to the OS.
`
`(Id.)
`
`While OSs have for decades provided standard images for cursors, such as
`
`an arrow or a pointing hand, they also allowed applications to customize the ap-
`
`pearance of cursors. (Id. at ¶¶51-54.) Because cursors were a core part of the user
`
`20
`
`experience, and the user’s attention was often focused on or near the cursor on-
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`screen, computer designers commonly placed additional information around the
`
`
`
`cursor. (Id. at ¶¶59-60.) For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,754,176 to Crawford
`
`(filed on October 2, 1995) describes a “tooltip” system built into Microsoft Win-
`
`dows to display help information when a user held the cursor over an object dis-
`
`5
`
`played on the screen. (EX1009 at 2:28-37.)
`
`2.
`
`Client/Server Systems
`
`The client/server architecture is a fundamental system design that has been
`
`well-known for decades. (EX1003 at ¶¶61-63; EX1005 at 3:1-5.) Client/server
`
`systems can function in many ways. For example, a client can download an appli-
`
`10
`
`cation from a server and run that application locally. (EX1003 at ¶64.) Alterna-
`
`tively, applications can be run on a remote server, with display information sent to
`
`the client computer for display to a user. (Id.)
`
`Client/server systems have long been a critical part of the internet, such as
`
`where web browsers allow users’ computing devices (i.e., “clients”) to download
`
`15
`
`web pages with graphical information from websites hosted in servers. (Id. at
`
`¶65.) Given the well-known use of custom cursors and the equally well-known use
`
`of client/server systems to transmit information between a server and client, it is
`
`little surprise that these practices to modify a cursor’s image using content trans-
`
`mitted between a server and client was likewise well known. (Id.) This approach
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`was built into the widely used “X Windows” system, first released in 1986. (Id. at
`
`
`
`¶¶52-54.)
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the ’102 Patent
`
`Consistent with the foregoing description of the state of the art in June 1997,
`
`5
`
`the ’102 Patent admits that it was “not new” to change the shape of cursor images:
`
`Presently, pointer icons change from application to application and
`can also change within an application depending upon where on the
`screen the pointer is located, what state the computer exists in at a
`given moment, and what tools are being used, among other factors.
`Generally, pointers change shape to reflect an internal state of the
`computer or the present function within an application.
`
`(EX1001 at 3:39-46.) But the ’102 Patent identifies alleged deficiencies:
`
`While it is not new for pointers and cursors to change shape, pointers
`are not presently used to convey advertising. In conventional systems,
`the appearance of the cursor or pointer does not change to correspond
`with on-line content being displayed on the screen.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`(Id. at 3:46-50.) Thus, the Background section of the patent explains that “there is
`
`a need for a simple means to deliver advertising elements, i.e., logos, animations,
`
`sound, impressions, text, etc., without the annoyance of totally interrupting and in-
`
`20
`
`trusive content delivery, and without the passiveness of ordinary banner and frame
`
`advertisements which can be easily ignored.” (Id. at 2:27-32.)
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`The ’102 Patent purports to address those deficiencies through “[a] system
`
`
`
`for modifying a cursor image … to a specific image having a desired shape and
`
`appearance” (id. at Abstract) where the specific image represents a corporate name
`
`or logo, a brand logo, an advertising or marketing icon or slogan, or animated ad-
`
`5
`
`vertising image, to provide on-screen advertising. (Id. at 2:44-47, 2:63-3:3, 3:64-
`
`4:3.) The cursor’s appearance can also correspond to the content displayed on the
`
`user’s screen. (Id. at 2:58-62, 7:7-9.) For example, the patent discloses that the
`
`cursor modification can be the rendering of the cursor as a baseball bat on a sports
`
`website (id. at 17:33-34) or as a pink cursor on a website about Pink Panther (id. at
`
`10
`
`17:34-35). The patent provides other examples of a modified cursor image, such
`
`as a witch on a broomstick for Halloween (id. at 17:35-36) or as the Statue of Lib-
`
`erty for Fourth of July (id. at 17:36-37).
`
`Figure 8 of the ’102 Patent, annotated below, shows an example where the
`
`cursor is modified from a standard pointer arrow (shown in Figure 7) into the “spe-
`
`15
`
`cific image” of a bottle (designated “44a” and with the red circle highlight added)
`
`to advertise a cola drink:
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`Figure 8 (annotated).
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc),
`
`5
`
`claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meanings as under-
`
`stood by a POSITA at the time of the invention based on the claim language, speci-
`
`fication, and the prosecution history of record. Id. at 1312-16. The Board, howev-
`
`er, construes claim terms only to the extent necessary to resolve the present con-
`
`troversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11
`
`10
`
`at 16 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) (citation omitted). Aside from the previously con-
`
`strued claim term addressed below, Petitioner believes that no constructions of any
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`other claim terms are necessary.4 Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos Media IP, LLC,
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749, Paper No. 21 at 11 (finding no claim terms of the ’102 Patent
`
`needed construction).
`
`While the parties have agreed to the construction of some claim terms and
`
`5
`
`have proposed competing constructions for some claim terms in the pending Dis-
`
`trict Court Litigation (EX1008), Petitioner contends that those proposed construc-
`
`tions do not affect this Petition because the limitations of the Challenged Claim are
`
`disclosed in, or rendered obvious by, the prior art under both parties’ proposed
`
`constructions. The analysis set forth below would not differ under either parties’
`
`10
`
`proposed construction.
`
`A. Claim Term Previously Construed: “said specific image including
`content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to
`be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”
`
`Lexos asserted the ’102 Patent in Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No.
`
`15
`
`2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (“APMEX”), and the district court construed
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other argu-
`
`ments, including challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 or 112, in district court as rel-
`
`evant to that proceeding. See, e.g., Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00904, Paper 11 at 11-13 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2020). A comparison of the
`
`claims to any accused products in litigation may raise controversies that are not
`
`present here given the similarities between the prior art references and the patent.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`the term “said specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion
`
`
`
`of said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal” to mean
`
`“an image representative of at least a portion of the subject or topic being dis-
`
`played on the screen.” (EX1007 at 12-13). Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed
`
`5
`
`with that construction (EX1008 at 3), and that construction should be applied here.5
`
`That construction does not change the analysis regarding any of the grounds
`
`presented here because, as discussed below, Malamud’s preview cursor contains
`
`content corresponding to the object displayed on the user’s screen to which the
`
`pointer is pointing. Additionally, Nielsen’s tooltips contain content corresponding
`
`10
`
`to the object displayed on the user’s screen to which the pointer is pointing.
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Overview of Prior Art References
`1. Malamud (EX1004)
`
`Malamud relates to “information cursors” for use in an OS or in application
`
`15
`
`programs. (EX1004 at Abstract.) “[An] information cursor includes a pointing
`
`portion to point to objects displayed on a video display and an information portion
`
`to display information about an object to which the pointing portion points.” (Id.)
`
`One type of information cursor is a “preview cursor,” which is shown in Malam-
`
`ud’s Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`5 No other claim terms have been previously construed.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 5,995,102
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a preview cursor 34 pointing to book icon 32. (Id. at
`
`3:59-65.) The preview cursor 34 includes pointing portion 28 in the shape of an
`
`arrow pointing to book icon 32 (id. at 3:65–68), and it includes